Climate Change - General Discussion : Read the Mod Note in post #1 before posting

gabeeg

Danno wrote: »

Very interesting thread (so far) and somewhat comforting to hear that there is a rather broad Church here with regards to this topic whereas a few years ago, many would have had inhibitions about speaking out against "the machine" that really is a select few peddling nonsense on the back of a genuine concern. I am highly sceptical of what is being sold. Make no mistake, this is another market - but this is market 2.0, for our minds.

That is really deep

Irishsneachta

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Must you keep using that 'lol' thing. It offends my senses.

Didn't think you had any senses given you don't have a brain. Plenty of nonsense that's about it lol.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Did you read any of his sources? Did you find any credible? or of the credible ones, did they actually support his argument?

Is NOAA not a credible source to link to? Should I toss it in the bin?

It certainly claims to be an authority, and uses big numbers to impress anyone who's impressed by big numbers:

Global Historical Climate Network Daily - Description
Introduction

GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network)-Daily is an integrated database of daily climate summaries from land surface stations across the globe.

Like its monthly counterpart (GHCN-Monthly) , GHCN-Daily is comprised of daily climate records from numerous sources that have been integrated and subjected to a common suite of quality assurance reviews.

GHCN-Daily contains records from over 100,000 stations in 180 countries and territories. NCEI provides numerous daily variables, including maximum and minimum temperature, total daily precipitation, snowfall, and snow depth; however, about one half of the stations report precipitation only. Both the record length and period of record vary by station and cover intervals ranging from less than a year to more than 175 years.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcn-daily-description

Wow, they certainly are impressive stats.


Here's a NOAA (credible source, linked to) graphic purporting to show historic global Temperature Station locations in various shades of grey.


https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/figures/station-counts-1981-2010-temp.png

And below, here's one showing them having NO data from them.

Gray (sic) areas represent missing data for 2017.
-Lower right corner in the sketch below, just in case.





Here's a NOAA chart allegedly showing global precipitation anomalies for 2017



Again,

Please note: Gray (sic) areas represent missing data for 2017.
-Lower right corner, just in case.

Also, if anyone is wondering just how many thermometers were sending their accurately benchmarked calibrated signals back to HQ, by whatever method, between 1861 and 1890, when it is alleged that global temperatures had begun to rise, have a look at the official NOAA chart of thermometer locations for the time:



For clarity, the tiny grey bits apparently had reliable thermometer records, the white part, the majority of the globe, none.

And, if the theme is official sources, how about NASA, or maybe there's a general preference for something angsty from thinkorswim.ie or the Citizens Assembly?

NASA tells us that the number of glabal stations along with their area of coverage has been dropping incrementally for quite some time, middle graph:




Credible source: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/stations.gif

So yes, let us all hope that those official links are "credible".

Credible to suggest that they've barely any useable global data from which they can extrapolate plausible theories on global warming/cc.

And, no need to bring screwed up satellite data into it, that data has already been retrospectively "adjusted" to fit the narrative.

Retrospective satellite data "correction" now conveniently shows a whopping 140% faster global warming:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-sceptics-satellite-data-correction-global-warming-140-per-cent-zeke-hausfather-a7816676.html

But, the real news is that as research develops, more and more natural heat sources are being identified which account for "all the melting ice":

Heat loss from Earth's interior triggers ice sheet slide towards the sea
Date:
January 22, 2018
Source:
Aarhus University

Summary:
In North-East Greenland, researchers have measured the loss of heat that comes up from the interior of the Earth.

This enormous area is a geothermal 'hot spot' that melts the ice sheet from below and triggers the sliding of glaciers towards the sea.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180122091321.htm



https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-19244-x

Recently it was suggested that there may be a hidden heat source beneath GIS caused by a higher than expected geothermal heat flux (GHF) from the Earth’s interior.

Here we present the first direct measurements of GHF from beneath a deep fjord basin in Northeast Greenland.

Temperature and salinity time series (2005–2015) in the deep stagnant basin water are used to quantify a GHF of 93 ± 21 mW m−2 which confirm previous indirect estimated values below GIS.


A compilation of heat flux recordings from Greenland show the existence of geothermal heat sources beneath GIS and could explain high glacial ice speed areas such as the Northeast Greenland ice stream.

Oneiric 3

Irishsneachta wrote: »

Didn't think you had any senses given you don't have a brain. Plenty of nonsense that's about it lol.

Ya got me...

lol

dense

gabeeg wrote: »

There was no procedure beyond empathy.

I'm assuming... Hoping... That when most people start reading the stuff you post they realise it's incredibly silly.

It's not a global conspiracy. That's all in your head

Have a read up on the stated aims of the UN and it's stated desires to globally modify the prevailing capitalist economic status quo to its own preference of introducing a new global, socialist sharing is caring system of wealth transfer mechanism of "climate funding" from richer to poorer nations to be globally administered by the UN in the name of "Climate Justice"; with national governments and policy makers being regularly "advised" and brow beaten about the impending climate catastrophe based on missing data, by the UN funded and created toy science non-independent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its cohort, the similarly UN funded World Meteorological Organisation.

It's not only all "in my head" its on UN websites.

It is there for anyone to read.

Some may come to a different conclusion, finding it all hard to believe, and that is their prerogative.

-I have provided links earlier in thread.

dense

Irishsneachta wrote: »

Believe 97% of Scientists or someone who bases his opinions on the above reasons lol.

Please show link to where the 100% of scientists were ever asked anything about the topic at hand?

So that I too may believe this essential magic 97% of them something something etc.

No rush.

Belief is a great thing, the church used to thrive on it.

Franz Von Peppercorn

I’m prepared to be fairly sceptical of the more extreme alarmists but watching the way the disingenuous charlatans of the other side argue, this thread has convinced me that anthropogenic global warming is probably true.

Irishsneachta

dense wrote: »

Please show link to where the 100% of scientists were ever asked anything about the topic at hand?

So that I too may believe this essential magic 97% of them something something etc.

No rush.

Belief is a great thing, the church used to thrive on it.

Hi Dense aptly named. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

Please show link to where the 100% of scientists were ever asked and 3% or more disagreed? You only have to find 3% or more of every scientist in the world asked, only 3%. No rush.

Paris agreement. Almost Every country in world signed up to cut emissions because of global warming, resulting in fines if they don't. Yeah makes lot of sense lol.

3 that haven't. One is in war, one thinks it isn't enough and the other has an orange baby at the helm. You're Barking mad, I've debated non believers before and they were normal. You mt Gaoth Oneiric George are all deluded dopes. Maybe you can all get a special deal on tin foil hats. Kisses.

Gaoth Laidir

gabeeg wrote: »

I'll answer this back to front of you don't mind, as this was the only question you asked which genuinely challenged me.

I'd probably use it to my advantage, being honest with you.



He's not an experienced climatologist. He's MT Cranium.
MT Cranium is the legend that got 2010 right.
MT Cranium is a weather God around these parts.

The man behind MT Cranium is another matter entirely, and I'd never seek to silence him.
His thoughts on climate change are probably very interesting, and I'd love to read them.

Knowing him outside of this forum I can vouch for his experience. A qualified climatologist, he's spent decades working on his own research. I'm sure he's well able to answer for himself but he's a way for a while so just thought I'd fill in.

You seem to contradict yourself. First you're giving out about his posts here, then you say you'd love to read his opinions. A bit mixed up doesn't describe it...

Gaoth Laidir

Irishsneachta, can you make any post without personally insulting someone?

Before you get banned, what do you think of how observations are following the IPCC RCPs? How come they're struggling to keep up with projections up to now? I posted the graph a few pages ago.

EDIT: Here it is for you.

Neddyusa

This thread is very amusing.

On the one side you have the majority of the most respected long-term weather and climate analysts on this forum. These people are thoughtfully and respectfully making their points using reason and logic.

On the other side there are 3-4 individuals who have no track record in the weather forum, throwing put-downs and insults around like confetti; using glib one-liners and text speak.

If I came to this thread without the slightest ideas about Climate Change I'd leave it with no doubt about who is making sense (GL, MT, GS, Oneric etc), and who is just peddling hot air. :rolleyes:

Gaoth Laidir

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I’m prepared to be fairly sceptical of the more extreme alarmists but watching the way the disingenuous charlatans of the other side argue, this thread has convinced me that anthropogenic global warming is probably true.

Which side is "the other side"? Which "side" are you on? What do you think of Irishsneachta's personal insults?

Why does there need to be sides? It's people with different opinions. Data are presented and should be analysed without the party politics of having to be on one side.

Of course AGW is true. It has to be, Physics says so. It's just the extent that's under discussion. It would appear to be having a lot less effect that previously believed, based on some recent data.

Akrasia

Nabber wrote: »

Didn’t 97% of scientists think the earth was flat or that the sun circled the earth?

Flat earthism and geocentricism were not scientific beliefs, people who used scientific methodology disproved them

I’m all for factual science, but to follow something based on how much of the community follows is just plain stupid.

The scientific consensus is short hand for saying that the overwhelming weight of evidence supports AGW theory.

Whats left for skeptics is uncertainty. Everything that we are highly confident about points to Global warming being true. Everything we are unsure of is the god of the gaps where the skeptics put their faith

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I'm intrigued at this statement. Why do you hate seeing him express his doubts? Why do you say reckless? Is it because he's a climatologist with vast experience and, as you say, a respected poster on this forum? Is the fact that he's one of your 3% of cats that says no? Would you just rather he kept his comments to himself because they're not what you want to hear and people may actually listen, reading beyond the first line?

What if he agreed with you? Would it be the same story?

Is MT actually a qualified climatologist?
I've never seen him describe himself as one.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Is MT actually a qualified climatologist?
I've never seen him describe himself as one.

Yes he is.

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

It is what it is. I said nuffin...

Nice try at deflecting from points raised in the article itself, which I note, you didn't even attempt to comment on.

What are the points? That people should fly less?

You posted the link for a reason. I can only guess what that reason is because you said 'nuffin'

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Yes he is.

Well then he really should know better.

Meteorologists can get caught up in the chaotic nature of weather models but climatologists should focus on smoothed averages. MT focuses too much on individual records, and it seems to me that he is skeptical of climate change in part because he knows that some of the extreme weather events in the past were more extreme than the current global warming driven events. His mistake is in conflating extreme historical events with what is becoming our new new normal weather.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Which side is "the other side"? Which "side" are you on? What do you think of Irishsneachta's personal insults?

<personal insult deleted>

Why does there need to be sides? It's people with different opinions. Data are presented and should be analysed without the party politics of having to be on one side.

Of course AGW is true. It has to be, Physics says so. It's just the extent that's under discussion. It would appear to be having a lot less effect that previously believed, based on some recent data.

The observed warming is still within predicted range of the IPCC, and the outcomes if we fail to act are still very serious.

The reason there appear to be sides is because some people only comment to dispute things that say global warming is serious but let outright deniers say anything they like without rebuke.

Mod Note: Akrasia has received an official warning for personal insults towards another member. We do not allow any personal insults/abuse towards other members. Any further insults/abuse will result in further action being taken.

George Sunsnow

Our new normal weather?
Isn’t that a bit presumptuous?
How old is the earth again?

Akrasia

A new analysis from this year has all but ruled out low climate sensitivity as proposed by Prof Bates and MT

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25450

It narrows the likely range for climate sensitivity to between 2.2c and 3.4c with the most likely figure to be close to 2.8c

2.8c warming is a disaster

Akrasia

George Sunsnow wrote: »

Our new normal weather?
Isn’t that a bit presumptuous?
How old is the earth again?

How old is the universe. Way older than the earth, our normal weather is 0 kelvin with very light wind and occasional gamma ray bursts?

Come on. The age of the earth is not something we consider when discussing weather or climate.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Well then he really should know better.

Meteorologists can get caught up in the chaotic nature of weather models but climatologists should focus on smoothed averages. MT focuses too much on individual records, and it seems to me that he is skeptical of climate change in part because he knows that there some of the extreme weather events in the past were more extreme than the current global warming driven events. His mistake is in conflating extreme historical events with what is becoming our new new normal weather.

Ah, so now you're telling him what he should or should not think or say. I'll let him answer this one for himself when he comes back.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

This wasn't aimed at me, but I would like to urge everyone to be civil and polite to each other (well, except to dense, that guy gets what he deserves )

Wow, you're advocating insults against a guy who hasn't thrown any. What about Irishsneachta?

The observed warming is still within predicted range of the IPCC, and the outcomes if we fail to act are still very serious.

But statistically nearer the lower percentile of the range (despite a strong El Niño), and you're not sure why.

The reason there appear to be sides is because some people only comment to dispute things that say global warming is serious but let outright deniers say anything they like without rebuke.

No, you've had your say, others have had theirs. Who's "letting" people say what they want to say? Are you implying some people shouldn't be allowed to post an opinion different to yours, such as in the case of MT, or that the mods should delete such posts? Sounds like it's a dictatorship you want here.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

A new analysis from this year has all but ruled out low climate sensitivity as proposed by Prof Bates and MT

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25450

It narrows the likely range for climate sensitivity to between 2.2c and 3.4c with the most likely figure to be close to 2.8c

2.8c warming is a disaster

Do you have the full article or did you just read the abstract? I'm not paying $199 for full access.

gabeeg

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

No, you've had your say, others have had theirs. Who's "letting" people say what they want to say? Are you implying some people shouldn't be allowed to post an opinion different to yours, such as in the case of MT, or that the mods should delete such posts? Sounds like it's a dictatorship you want here.

He's quite clearly not saying that.

Look up the word rebuke. That's where you went wrong.

Gaoth Laidir

gabeeg wrote: »

He's quite clearly not saying that.

Look up the word rebuke. That's where you went wrong.

I know what rebuke means, thank you. But you have guys here saying they wish he wouldn't say this or that, that he should know better, etc., while allowing and enticing others with their same opinion to throw personal insults. Constructive criticism is one thing, but these guys have taken it way past that.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Wow, you're advocating insults against a guy who hasn't thrown any. What about Irishsneachta?

It was a joke.

Irishsneachta should not be insulting people and everyone should back off from glib and insulting comments.

But statistically nearer the lower percentile of the range (despite a strong El Ni and you're not sure why.

Even the lower percentile is still more than you're prepared to acknowledge, and even the lower percentile is still something we need to be very very concerned about.

No, you've had your say, others have had theirs. Who's "letting" people say what they want to say? Are you implying some people shouldn't be allowed to post an opinion different to yours, such as in the case of MT, or that the mods should delete such posts? Sounds like it's a dictatorship you want here.

Absolutely not, nowhere did i even suggest such a thing. What I said was that you ignore nonsense posted on the denier side, but respond to everything that suggests that global warming is a serious issue that we need to deal with.

For example, Dense earlier on posted a big long rant claiming that NASA have shown wildfires are down globally and then used this as evidence that global warming doesn't cause additional wildfires, but from his own link the entire point of the study was that wildfires are reduced because of farming on the Savannah. That wildfires are down because the african people aren't starting as many fires as before because they're converting the savannah into farmland.

It was blatantly obvious that Dense's source didn't support his argument but you didn't challenge it. if Dense was on the other 'side' and posted a link saying fires were more frequent and attributed it to global warming, but that link said the cause was humans starting more fires, you would have picked up on that straight away.

BTW, this is denses' modus operandi. he either uses terrible sources from blogs like 'notrickszone' that have been shown to repeatedly distort the science up to and including doctoring graphs and faking data, or he posts links to reputable sources but takes the exact opposite conclusion from what the source actually says.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Neddyusa wrote: »

This thread is very amusing.

On the one side you have the majority of the most respected long-term weather and climate analysts on this forum. These people are thoughtfully and respectfully making their points using reason and logic.

On the other side there are 3-4 individuals who have no track record in the weather forum, throwing put-downs and insults around like confetti; using glib one-liners and text speak.

If I came to this thread without the slightest ideas about Climate Change I'd leave it with no doubt about who is making sense (GL, MT, GS, Oneric etc), and who is just peddling got air. :rolleyes:

That’s an argument to (a fairly localised) authority. In general the most agreesive poster on here is dense. He seems to believe there’s no anthropogenic warning at all. The rest are questioning the level of warming, which is fair enough.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Do you have the full article or did you just read the abstract? I'm not paying $199 for full access.

I don't have the full article, there is a good discussion about it on realclimate with some criticisms of the conclusions if you're interested.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/01/the-claim-of-reduced-uncertainty-for-equilibrium-climate-sensitivity-is-premature/

Franz Von Peppercorn

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Which side is "the other side"? Which "side" are you on? What do you think of Irishsneachta's personal insults?

Do you read dense? There is no statistic he won’t manipulate. He totally believes that AGW is fake, in its totality. He was the guy I was reading and referring to.

Why does there need to be sides? It's people with different opinions. Data are presented and should be analysed without the party politics of having to be on one side.

Of course AGW is true. It has to be, Physics says so. It's just the extent that's under discussion. It would appear to be having a lot less effect that previously believed, based on some recent data.

I said that I wasn’t on any side. I also said that the data didn’t support the extremist warming scenarios but AGW was true - and I was really talking about people who denied AGW entirely. That’s one poster in particular who thinks that AGW is a “religion”.

You moderates don’t seem to engage him though.