Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

"Man-made" Climate Change Lunathicks Out in Full Force

1…2627293132…43

Comments

  • #842
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Where exactly has the scientific process failed here? The paper was published, an error was noticed, and now the scientists are working to correct their calculations.

    Peer review.



    It's supposed to catch errors that lead to major incorrect scientific conclusions, regarding, in this instance, climate sensitivity, the carbon budget, warming scenarios and the real biggy, the discovery of the alleged missing heat and then some, before being published, not after.



    No peer of the authors found any errors.



    Nature's peer review system permitted the errors to be published.
    None of the reviewers questioned the research.



    The paper fit the alarmist agenda and got rubber stamped.



    But as you say, it's all working out real well now.



    It does make you wonder how many other faulty climate papers have similar errors and have passed pal review, because it doesn't seem to be very stringent if this is happening.


  • #843
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    There is a very big difference between asking questions because you want to know the answer, and asking questions because you want to give an answer. You don't care about the truth or any explanation for any of the 'questions' you are asking. You are trying to spin a narrative using extremely selective data and references and ignoring the overwhelming volume of data that doesn't agree with your narrative.


    Long on content, short on an explanation for your made up figures.



    Have another go.
    At the moment you're just making up figures like Keeling and Resplandy et al.


  • #844
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,690 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    Peer review.



    It's supposed to catch errors that lead to major incorrect scientific conclusions, regarding, in this instance, climate sensitivity, the carbon budget, warming scenarios and the real biggy, the discovery of the alleged missing heat and then some, before being published, not after.



    No peer of the authors found any errors.



    Nature's peer review system permitted the errors to be published.
    None of the reviewers questioned the research.



    The paper fit the alarmist agenda and got rubber stamped.



    But as you say, it's all working out real well now.



    It does make you wonder how many other faulty climate papers have similar errors and have passed pal review, because it doesn't seem to be very stringent if this is happening.

    Peer review is imperfect but the best we have. Its only part of the scientific process, corrections are made to papers after they have been published regularly, and studies need to be replicated independently for their findings to be robust.

    One paper on its own is never enough to establish the science. It takes multiple independent studies.

    There are lots of skeptical papers that are published in peer reviewed journals but they are not sufficient to overturn the sheer weight of evidence that supports the consensus on climate change

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #845
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Peer review is imperfect but the best we have. Its only part of the scientific process, corrections are made to papers after they have been published regularly, and studies need to be replicated independently for their findings to be robust.

    One paper on its own is never enough to establish the science. It takes multiple independent studies.

    There are lots of skeptical papers that are published in peer reviewed journals but they are not sufficient to overturn the sheer weight of evidence that supports the consensus on climate change


    The last time I checked, when 29,000 scientists were cited in a study to ascertain whether there was a consensus about AGW, just 1100 of them were reported in that study as being in agreement with the AGW theory. In the same study, 12,000 abstracts published in the scientific literature were analysed, and just a third of them endorsed the AGW theory.



    So I really don't know where you're getting this whole "consensus" notion from?


    Probably the same place as you're getting your figures from.


    You also thought that UCD had an official policy position endorsing the CAGW theory until it was pointed out that it doesn't, apart from it's earth scientists acknowledging that some scientists have linked CO2 to global warming.


  • #846
    WinnyThePoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,417 ✭✭✭WinnyThePoo


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Hhhmmmm.


    https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/1060652983174733824

    Stefan Molyneux...

    Lads, can we at least have some basic standards for our news sources?

    That's almost as embarrassing as denses entire output on this thread.


  • Advertisement
  • #847
    Igotadose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 15,076 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    dense wrote: »
    Long on content, short on an explanation for your made up figures.



    Have another go.
    At the moment you're just making up figures like Keeling and Resplandy et al.

    Keeling and Resplandy didn't make up figures. Neither did Ralph Keeling's father.


  • #848
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Igotadose wrote: »
    Keeling and Resplandy didn't make up figures.

    Really?
    Who came up with the 60% extra heat figure then, the climate fairies?
    The original study claimed that ocean temperatures had warmed 60 percent more than previously thought.

    But now, that increase in heat has a larger range of probability — between 10 percent and 70 percent.

    “Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that’s going on in the ocean,” Keeling told the San Diego Tribune.


    “We really muffed the error margins.”
    https://nypost.com/2018/11/15/scientists-admit-errors-in-study-showing-oceans-are-warming/



    Muffed margins, junk science.

    Error margins now so high that they now admit their research carries little weight in quantifying the precise amount of ocean warming.



    Contrast that with what they'd been saying when it was published and the implications:


    What have these scientists done differently?

    Since 2007, scientists have been able to rely on a system of almost 4,000 Argo floats that record temperature and salinity in the oceans around the world.

    But prior to this, the methods used to measure the heat in the ocean had many flaws and uncertainties.

    Now, researchers have developed what they say is a highly precise method of detecting the temperature of the ocean by measuring the amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the air. This allows them to accurately measure ocean temperatures globally, dating back to 1991, when accurate data from a global network of stations became available.




    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46046067




    This is an excellent example of echo chamber inhabitants bending muffing the science to fit the hypothesis.


  • #849
    Igotadose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 15,076 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    dense wrote: »
    Really?
    Who came up with the 60% extra heat figure then, the climate fairies?
    Yes, really. Mistake made. Acknowledged. Retraction published and new analysis to be published. It's how science works - if mistakes happen, they're retracted when new data are available. Did you think it was infallible?

    This is an excellent example of echo chamber inhabitants bending muffing the science to fit the hypothesis.

    No it isn't. It's an attempt at hysterical bashing on your part. Seems like this has been 'splained to you before in the thread by Akrasia.

    It might be excellent to you, but that means nought.


  • #850
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    So dense was previously outraged that the authors didn't make a response via the comments section after 24 hours, now that it's been addressed, still an issue? Shocker...


  • #851
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia, those figures you made up, are you going to retract them like the guys here are suggesting or are you going to show how you came up with them?


    If they're fiction, just admit it, everyone's very understanding about things like that.


  • Advertisement
  • #852
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,690 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    Akrasia, those figures you made up, are you going to retract them like the guys here are suggesting or are you going to show how you came up with them?


    If they're fiction, just admit it, everyone's very understanding about things like that.
    I didn't make up any figures

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #853
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    I didn't make up any figures


    If you want your figures to be taken seriously you'll need to show how you've arrived at them.
    And this is not the first time it's happened.

    The last time was some nonsense you made up about Ireland having generated the equivalent heat of 2million nuclear bombs.

    You can't keep making up fake facts and then expect to be taken seriously by anyone with any sense.

    You know how this works: You make up silly claims and I'll check them for factual accuracy.
    So far you've not presented anything to back up your claims.


  • #854
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,690 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    If you want your figures to be taken seriously you'll need to show how you've arrived at them.
    And this is not the first time it's happened.

    The last time was some nonsense you made up about Ireland having generated the equivalent heat of 2million nuclear bombs.

    You can't keep making up fake facts and then expect to be taken seriously by anyone with any sense.

    You know how this works: You make up silly claims and I'll check them for factual accuracy.
    So far you've not presented anything to back up your claims.
    The 'figures' I mentioned were from the gisstemp dataset linked to on the site. They deal with temperature anomaly and it's a very easy calculation to open the page and calculate the average temperature anomaly for any particular base period and then refer that against any particular reference year

    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.csv

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #855
    Alf Veedersane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,832 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    Scientific data sets posted to support one argument. Links to personal websites and media sites posted to support another.

    Jesus wept.


  • #856
    xckjoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,545 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Jesus this is farcical. Akrasia has to show all possible calculations yet previously we've all been expected to intuitively know which partial sentence/result on a page of text is being referred to while ignoring all the other words on the same page. I really hope its a piss take


  • #857
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    The 'figures' I mentioned were from the gisstemp dataset linked to on the site. They deal with temperature anomaly and it's a very easy calculation to open the page and calculate the average temperature anomaly for any particular base period and then refer that against any particular reference year

    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.csv

    OK, I get it, you can't explain why and instead you now want to pretend I asked you something about anomalies.


    I didn't, I asked you how you've managed to change the average global temperature for the 1950 to 1980 baseline from ~15°C down to ~14°C

    Quote:
    The mean surface temperature is Ts ~ 288 K.

    https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html 1981

    The same figure is given by the IPCC in it's first assesment 1990
    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_introduction.pdf

    Akrasia wrote: »

    The global average temperature for 2017, according to NASA (gisstemp) is .9c above the 1951-1980 average.
    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

    No, nowhere on that page is it stated that the global average temperature for 2017 was 15.9°C or 289k.

    Instead, according to NASA, the global average temperature for 2017 was 288k:
    Average temperature: 288 K (15 C)
    https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html

    The very same as what Dr. Hansen said it was in 1988, and 1981.
    One of the scientists, Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, said he used the 30-year period 1950-1980, when the average global temperature was 59 degrees Fahrenheit, as a base to determine temperature variations.
    https://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/29/science/temperature-for-world-rises-sharply-in-the-1980-s.html

    Akrasia wrote: »
    What was the absolute temperature according to the baseline. Climate scientists do not deal in absolute temperatures, they deal in temperature anomalies based on a baseline for each individual weather station for very good reasons, but if you want to know what the absolute temperature the Gisstemp baseline is, it is approximately 14c or 287 kelvin.

    This is what you're being asked to explain, how you've now altered the baseline temperature from ~15°/288k down to ~14°/287k and why you're saying that 2017 was 0.9° warmer than the new lower baseline you've made up.


    You're pushing a scam and you've been caught out trying to adjust the average temperature baseline downwards and adjust the observed temperatures upwards.


    If you have no explanation, just be honest and say so.


  • #858
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    xckjoo wrote: »
    Jesus this is farcical. Akrasia has to show all possible calculations yet previously we've all been expected to intuitively know which partial sentence/result on a page of text is being referred to while ignoring all the other words on the same page. I really hope its a piss take


    Nope, not at all. One cannot produce stupid statements to the effect that Ireland has generated the heat equivalent of 2 million nuclear bombs or whatever and not expect to be invited to share how one has reached such a figure.


    It is your prerogative to be fed fake news if you choose, and I respect that.


    Please respect my requirement for some validation before swallowing such fantastic claims. :)


  • #859
    xckjoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,545 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    I worry about certain posters mental state :(


  • #860
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    xckjoo wrote: »
    I worry about certain posters mental state :(


    Me too.


  • #861
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,690 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    Nope, not at all. One cannot produce stupid statements to the effect that Ireland has generated the heat equivalent of 2 million nuclear bombs or whatever and not expect to be invited to share how one has reached such a figure.


    It is your prerogative to be fed fake news if you choose, and I respect that.


    Please respect my requirement for some validation before swallowing such fantastic claims. :)

    Its funny how you wait months to respond to the 2 million Hiroshima bombs post. You do this all the time. You ignore a post when it's new and then refer, without even a link or a quote, back to it when it's slipped down the page and it's a pain in the ass to go back and find the original post where it was explained what I meant while claiming that I just randomly threw out a random figure.

    The hiroshima bombs reference relates to the Irish proportion of global emissions applied to the calculation that global warming is adding about 250 trillion Joules per second to the planet's heat balance, the heat is equivalent to 4 Hiroshima bombs a second since 1998 which by today equals about 2,680,539,583 bombs
    Based on the figures in this paper
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0375960112010389
    Explained by the folks at Skeptical Science here
    https://4hiroshimas.com/#Science

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • Advertisement
  • #862
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,690 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    OK, I get it, you can't explain why and instead you now want to pretend I asked you something about anomalies.


    I didn't, I asked you how you've managed to change the average global temperature for the 1950 to 1980 baseline from ~15°C down to ~14°C

    Quote:


    https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html 1981

    The same figure is given by the IPCC in it's first assesment 1990
    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_introduction.pdf




    No, nowhere on that page is it stated that the global average temperature for 2017 was 15.9°C or 289k.

    Instead, according to NASA, the global average temperature for 2017 was 288k:


    https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html

    The very same as what Dr. Hansen said it was in 1988, and 1981.


    https://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/29/science/temperature-for-world-rises-sharply-in-the-1980-s.html




    This is what you're being asked to explain, how you've now altered the baseline temperature from ~15°/288k down to ~14°/287k and why you're saying that 2017 was 0.9° warmer than the new lower baseline you've made up.


    You're pushing a scam and you've been caught out trying to adjust the average temperature baseline downwards and adjust the observed temperatures upwards.


    If you have no explanation, just be honest and say so.
    Sigh

    Lets try this one more time. Global average temperatures are a crude estimate because absolute temperatures vary over short distances and vary with altitude and local factors like cloud cover, shelter from mountains, wind direction etc. But temperature anomalies, ie: how much hotter or cooler each individual weather station is compared to their own average measurements, are much more consistent, more representative and easier to compare and average over time.

    It's very hard to find scientific references to the 'global average temperature' in absolute terms because that is not what climate scientists are looking at. They might get a mention occasionally when speaking to the public or talking about initial parameters in models, but when they're doing the bulk of the science, they're looking at temperature anomalies for individual weather stations, and then aggregating the data from thousands of different data sources to get enough datapoints to be able to do statistical analysis and get robust results that can be extrapolated to a global average temperature anomaly.

    What Dense has done, is find a couple of old references to estimates of global average absolute temperatures. One of these was a single mention in a paper in relation to a model parameter which wasn't even talking about the giss baseline absolute temperature . The other is the IPCC rough estimate comparing the earths temperature to Mars and Venus in 1990, again a different figure to the 1950-1981 baseline used by GISS. Dense then goes and pretends that these few references to this 288k figure in the past, means that all future references to a different figure are evidence that the statistics are being falsified. All it is, is evidence that Dense doesn't care about what the scientists mean. Dense only wants to find single datapoints that are useful for the purpose of building the grand global conspiracy that exists on planet dense.

    NASA don't like talking about absolute temperature, but when they are pressed to do so, they estimate global average temperature as of their base period to be about 287k
    Here is exactly what they say on their website
    Q. What do I do if I need absolute SATs, not anomalies?
    A. In 99.9% of the cases you'll find that anomalies are exactly what you need, not absolute temperatures. In the remaining cases, you have to pick one of the available climatologies and add the anomalies (with respect to the proper base period) to it. For the global mean, the most trusted models produce a value of roughly 14°C, i.e. 57.2°F, but it may easily be anywhere between 56 and 58°F and regionally, let alone locally, the situation is even worse.

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #863
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Its funny how you wait months to respond to the 2 million Hiroshima bombs post. You do this all the time. You ignore a post when it's new and then refer, without even a link or a quote, back to it when it's slipped down the page and it's a pain in the ass to go back and find the original post where it was explained what I meant while claiming that I just randomly threw out a random figure.

    The hiroshima bombs reference relates to the Irish proportion of global emissions applied to the calculation that global warming is adding about 250 trillion Joules per second to the planet's heat balance, the heat is equivalent to 4 Hiroshima bombs a second since 1998 which by today equals about 2,680,539,583 bombs
    Based on the figures in this paper
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0375960112010389
    Explained by the folks at Skeptical Science here
    https://4hiroshimas.com/#Science


    I did ask at the time and you kept evading answering. You still are.
    It is funny alright.

    Please show how you arrived at the figure you claimed. For example, what figure for Ireland's cumulative CO2 emissions since 1750 did you use, along with the mathematical equation that you used to determine the number of nuclear bombs, and what proportion of the alleged 1 degree of global warming is Ireland's.

    Links please.

    If you'd prefer I didn't randomly refer back to figures you have made up, just say so.


  • #864
    JJayoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,970 ✭✭✭JJayoo


    My farts are melting the ice caps


  • #865
    Alf Veedersane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,832 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    dense wrote: »
    Links please.

    The irony.


  • #866
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    It's very hard to find scientific references to the 'global average temperature' in absolute terms because that is not what climate scientists are looking at.
    NASA don't like talking about absolute temperature, but when they are pressed to do so, they estimate global average temperature as of their base period to be about 287k
    Here is exactly what they say on their website

    For the global mean, the most trusted models produce a value of roughly 14°C, i.e. 57.2°F, but it may easily be anywhere between 56 and 58°F and regionally, let alone locally, the situation is even worse.
    Looks like you've found why NASA doesn't like talking about average temperatures or global warming any more.

    The global mean has now been reduced to 14°C, a full degree below what NASA previously described as the ideal temperature for the earth.
    Earth is sometimes called the “Goldilocks” planet – it’s not too hot, not too cold, and the conditions are just right to allow life, including us, to flourish.

    Part of what makes Earth so amenable is the naturally-arising greenhouse effect, which keeps the planet at a friendly 15 °C (59 °F) on average.
    https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/


    It's also 1 degree below what the average was stated as being in 1998
    Without naturally occurring greenhouse gases, Earth's average temperature would be near 0°F (or -18°C) instead of the much warmer 59°F (15°C).
    https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/ma_01/


    And it's one degree lower than what it was in 1997.

    GLOBAL TEMPERATURE REACHES
    RECORD HIGH (pages 68–69)
    1. James Hansen et al., Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Surface Air Temperature

    Analyses, “Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index,” as posted at <http://www.giss.nasa.gov/Data/GISTEMP>, viewed 14 January 1998.



    2. The importance of Figure 1 is the change in temperature over time, as the Goddard Institute analyzes temperature change rather than absolute temperature.


    In earlier versions of Vital Signs, Worldwatch added the temperature
    change reported by the Goddard Institute to an estimated global temperature of 15 degrees
    Celsius, but the institute has since informed Worldwatch that a better base number would be 14 degrees Celsius.


    James Hansen, Goddard
    Institute for Space Studies, New York, e-mail to author, 18 January 1998.
    A better base number to facilitate the global warming hoax.


    Source: Vital Signs Worldwatch Institute 1998.
    https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=2ahUKEwizhq_PhuTeAhVsAsAKHVpUBtAQFjAGegQIBRAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.historylab.unina2.it%2Ffiles%2F324.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1KsMSYfp9K30PjkPnzhKDW


  • #867
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,690 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    I did ask at the time and you kept evading answering. You still are.
    It is funny alright.

    Please show how you arrived at the figure you claimed. For example, what figure for Ireland's cumulative CO2 emissions since 1750 did you use, along with the mathematical equation that you used to determine the number of nuclear bombs, and what proportion of the alleged 1 degree of global warming is Ireland's.

    Links please.

    If you'd prefer I didn't randomly refer back to figures you have made up, just say so.
    Why do I bother providing links when you don't read them.
    The Hiroshima comparison refers to extra heat added since 1998, if you want to go back to 1750 you should do that study yourself.

    Ireland produce about .1% ish of global co2 emissions which works out at about 2 million of the 2+ billion hiroshima equivilent bombs worth of heat.

    This is all a conservative estimate btw. I could easily have taken less conservative figures to make it look worse

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #868
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,690 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    Looks like you've found why NASA doesn't like talking about average temperatures or global warming any more.

    The global mean has now been reduced to 14°C, a full degree below what NASA previously described as the ideal temperature for the earth.

    https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/


    It's also 1 degree below what the average was stated as being in 1998

    https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/ma_01/


    And it's one degree lower than what it was in 1997.



    A better base number to facilitate the global warming hoax.


    Source: Vital Signs Worldwatch Institute 1998.
    https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=2ahUKEwizhq_PhuTeAhVsAsAKHVpUBtAQFjAGegQIBRAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.historylab.unina2.it%2Ffiles%2F324.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1KsMSYfp9K30PjkPnzhKDW
    Lol, so when NASA correct an environmental group who used the 15c figure and tell them that it should be 14c, you see this as proof that it should really be 15c?

    Dense, all your references to temperature from those different sources refer to different things. When GISS mention 14c it's in relation to their base period. When Hansen mentioned it, he was referring to the contemporary temperature at the time, and all these figures are rounded estimates, they're expressed in whole numbers while climate change is measured in tenths of degrees

    You've got yourself a little bone to run around with but the more you keep going on about it, the more you're embarrassing yourself.

    Climate scientists deal in temperature anomalies not absolute global average temperatures. The reasons why have been explained more than once and are available in your own links if you could be bothered to read them.

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #869
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Lol, so when NASA correct an environmental group who used the 15c figure and tell them that it should be 14c, you see this as proof that it should really be 15c?

    Dense, all your references to temperature from those different sources refer to different things. When GISS mention 14c it's in relation to their base period. When Hansen mentioned it, he was referring to the contemporary temperature at the time, and all these figures are rounded estimates, they're expressed in whole numbers while climate change is measured in tenths of degrees

    You've got yourself a little bone to run around with but the more you keep going on about it, the more you're embarrassing yourself.

    Climate scientists deal in temperature anomalies not absolute global average temperatures. The reasons why have been explained more than once and are available in your own links if you could be bothered to read them.

    Over the past several millennia the average Earth temperature has been about 15 °C (59 °F).
    https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect.html





    And guess what (don't tell the alarmists), it still is.




    Is there any progress with your research assignment involving you coming up with the data to support your Irish nuclear bombs hypothesis?


    It's been going on for months now.


    And remember, it ought to be accessible and reproducible.


    The reproducibility difficulties are not about fraud, according to Dame Ottoline Leyser, director of the Sainsbury Laboratory at the University of Cambridge.

    That would be relatively easy to stamp out.



    Instead, she says:



    "It's about a culture that promotes impact over substance, flashy findings over the dull, confirmatory work that most of science is about."


    Your claim falls into that category, a bit like the 60% extra heat in the oceans claim.



    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778


  • #870
    xckjoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,545 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Might pass that acs.org page onto my kid next time he's doing a school project on greenhouse gases. Looks like the right target age.


    Is it not super obvious that an average has little meaning in global terms like this? You might get an average of 1000mm of rainfall in your hometown over a given year. But the difference between that 1000mm being spread out over 365 days vs. 1000mm falling in one day and it being dry the other 364 is pretty big.


  • Advertisement
  • #871
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,690 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    xckjoo wrote: »
    Might pass that acs.org page onto my kid next time he's doing a school project on greenhouse gases. Looks like the right target age.


    Is it not super obvious that an average has little meaning in global terms like this? You might get an average of 1000mm of rainfall in your hometown over a given year. But the difference between that 1000mm being spread out over 365 days vs. 1000mm falling in one day and it being dry the other 364 is pretty big.

    Its also completely dependent on altitude. If the global average temperature at sea level is x number of degrees c, then any temperature stations from anything above sea level will skew that result.

    Global average temperature statistics are illustrative and estimates based on a whole swathe of different criteria. This is why scientists use temperature anomaly

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



Advertisement