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

Akrasia · 01-01-2019 08:52PM

dense wrote: »

Not at all.

Your inconsistent position on the reliability of historic data has you bound to say that.

Have you worked out your feelings regarding the speed of climate change you were trying to describe earlier?

Quantify the speed by which you believe it is changing leading you to claim it is changing "too fast" for your liking. Is it moving 20% "too fast"?

More like 1000% too fast. According to a Stanford study, warming over the 21st century is likely to be at least 10 times faster than at any time over the past 65 million years.
This means that a natural pace of change would see x amount of climate change over a millenium, but humans are causing that warming in 1 century

Warming that would have taken a century, will happen in a decade.
Animals and plants can migrate and adapt to new conditions, but not all of them will be able to adapt quickly enough when you consider the complex life cycles of many animals and plants. https://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/august/climate-change-speed-080113.html

This alarm is all in the heads of the alarmists who cannot analyse what they are being told, and are left swallowing whole emotive suggestions put about by political scientists.

The very same thing happened with your immediate acceptance without question of the conclusions arrived at in the Resplandy and Scripps paper.

Rigorously peer reviewed junk science that still hasn't been corrected or retracted.

A correction has been submitted to the journal, it is being reviewed and it will be published in due course. (if it hasn't already been already)

Thing is it could have been peer reviewed by the guys at Realclimate. I did log on there to ask if anyone there had been involved in anonymously reviewing it prior to it being published, but guess what, the mods didn't publish the question as it's an alarmist blog, so yeah, for all we know Gavin Schmidt and co were part of the vigorous peer review process that passed such alarmist junk science.

It was a stupid question and your wild speculation ads absolutely nothing to the discussion

Akrasia · 01-01-2019 09:12PM

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

They can only follow a specific narrative . . anything else and they will suffer the consequences.

The consequences?

The narrative of most climate scientists is to follow the evidence. The tiny number of contrarian scientists are often employed or funded by energy companies

Speaking of Dr. Willie Soon, in 2015 he and others were targeted by Greenpeace (annual turnover of about $400 million) along with others, like Roger Pielke Jr and Dr. Roy Spencer. in an attempt to suppress any dissent in the United States in the run up to the Paris agreement 2015 which the Obama administration signed

Analysis of Greenpeace Business Model
By Willie Soon, Patrick Moore
December 14, 2018

Soon's, Spencer and Lindzen's funding were discovered in court disclosures by the bankrupt Peabody coal wind down in 2016. The fact that he denies it in 2015 is more evidence that he is dishonest and tried to cover up his connections to the energy industry.

And your links from the Heartland institute are ironic given that they no longer disclose their funding sources at all, but when they did, we know they were paid millions of dollars by oil and other energy companies and tobacco companies

The strategy of the energy industry to promote climate change denial is exactly the same strategy used by the Tobacco industry including many of the same organisations and individuals

The Merchants of Doubt goes into this in great detail but don't mind that, you just keep believing the trumpist strategy of accusing others of the thing you are doing wrong

Groups like the Heartland institute are inherently political and exist in order to promote a low tax low regulations business environment, without any regard for the consequences (who cares if hundreds of millions of people were deliberately lied to and told tobacco was safe for generations after we knew that it is carcinogenic, who cares about the generations of future people who will grow up in a world where their traditional homeland has been devastated by sea level rises or drought or deadly heatwaves etc etc etc. As long as billionaires can pay a little less tax)

Akrasia · 01-01-2019 09:20PM

dense wrote: »

Hopefully more and more people are realising thats there's no evidence that alleged human caused catastrophic global warming has been responsible for any detrimental weather or a rise in deaths as a result.

No evidence at all. Australia having an extended heatwave this week where temperatures reached 49.3c
https://www.thejournal.ie/australia-heatwave-summer-2018-4415991-Dec2018/

The narrative is that man made global warming is causing climate to change, but as you can see, it's not even causing quite enough difference from what we've always had to determine whether it's even happening or not, never mind those pushing it not being able to quantify it beyond their emotional language.

You yourself are very sceptical of the alarmist stuff anyway, just like those you are now saying are "multiplying":

Nobody but the fruitiest of fruitcakes denies that climate is changing. Even most climate change deniers accept that it is warming, they just have mad ideas about what's causing it

OleRodrigo · 01-01-2019 11:30PM

There have always been parts of the Australian interior that hit 50 C. The coastal cities have rarely if ever gone above 40. Records only began 1910.

However, by the admission of the Australian meteorological society, temperature recording is not an accurate science. Too many elements can interfere with an accurate recording, such as wind, nearby human activity, inclement weather.

But this doesn't make for good headlines.Mainstream media is increasingly unreliable in its reporting of facts because objective truth is incompatible with selling news. This is a real problem for their business model, but you wont hear them talk about that. The Journal does brisk business in clickbait & tabloid style reporting. Not quite fake news, but not far from it either.

dense · 02-01-2019 12:06AM

Akrasia wrote: »

This means that a natural pace of change would see x amount of climate change over a millenium, but humans are causing that warming in 1 century

Warming that would have taken a century, will happen in a decade.
Animals and plants can migrate and adapt to new conditions, but not all of them will be able to adapt quickly enough when you consider the complex life cycles of many animals and plants. https://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/august/climate-change-speed-080113.html

So what? Seriously so what if certain animals and plants can't adapt?
There is no logical reason to want to preserve every animal and plant or be planning to mourn the loss of them.

Akrasia wrote: »

A correction has been submitted to the journal, it is being reviewed and it will be published in due course. (if it hasn't already been already)

It was a stupid question and your wild speculation ads absolutely nothing to the discussion

We must speculate on this to determine why it happened, who was responsible for it, and to prevent it happening in future unless you really want peer review to not be taken seriously.
It's only a stupid question if you don't know the answer.

So who did critically analyse the claims that Resplandy and the Scripps kids were making?

Who peer reviewed it and what other junk science have they signed off on?
We don't know. We don't know their record, their credentials, their political affiliations, who funds them or what their agenda is.
Did they note errors and ignore them? Or did they not notice them?

Yet the paper made it abundantly clear that its authors believed their novel approach meant previous ocean temperature estimates were out by 60% and that means ECS must accordingly be revised downwards.

And everyone accepted it, it having been "rigorously peer reviewed" and being published in a most prestigious journal.

splashuum · 02-01-2019 12:14AM

Here are some interesting documents that relate to genuine "man made" weather change. You would either be very dumb or simply naive if you thought weather modification was impossible in this day and age. (Considering the CIA were admittedly doing it in the 60s)
But hey, i still expect to be called a "lunathick" for posting official government documents

Official declassified CIA documents from the 1960's regarding weather modification.

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP68R00530A000200110020-2.pdf

Official UK house of commons document which covers the many aspects of geo-engineering.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/221/221.pdf

Official World Meteorological Organization document which reports on 42 countries that are admittedly taking part in weather modification.

https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/documents/Doc_3_6_weather_mod_2013_Final_tn.pdf

dense · 02-01-2019 12:17AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm confident you can validate this sweeping statement.

Did you not see how the worldwide media lapped up the paper Akrasia was promoting?

Or George Lee and RTE's fake news about Ireland's summer of "record breaking" temperatures?

Everyone here riding the global warming thing endorsed George Lee faking it.

Do you endorse fake news too, by any chance, Berties_Horse?

Akrasia · 02-01-2019 01:11PM

OleRodrigo wrote: »

There have always been parts of the Australian interior that hit 50 C. The coastal cities have rarely if ever gone above 40. Records only began 1910.

However, by the admission of the Australian meteorological society, temperature recording is not an accurate science. Too many elements can interfere with an accurate recording, such as wind, nearby human activity, inclement weather.

But this doesn't make for good headlines.Mainstream media is increasingly unreliable in its reporting of facts because objective truth is incompatible with selling news. This is a real problem for their business model, but you wont hear them talk about that. The Journal does brisk business in clickbait & tabloid style reporting. Not quite fake news, but not far from it either.

So the Australian Met society said that weather can affect accurate recording of temperature???

Yeah. And mainstream media is unreliable therefore nutty YouTube channels and blogs are the only real truth.

I personally think the consensus view of scientific experts in their field are more reliable than both mainstream media and blogs. But then, i am an alarmist because I don't think there's a grand global socialist conspiracy to falsify the scientific evidence

dense · 02-01-2019 01:22PM

Akrasia wrote: »

So the Australian Met society said that weather can affect accurate recording of temperature???

Yeah. And mainstream media is unreliable therefore nutty YouTube channels and blogs are the only real truth.

I personally think the consensus view of scientific experts in their field are more reliable than both mainstream media and blogs. But then, i am an alarmist because I don't think there's a grand global socialist conspiracy to falsify the scientific evidence

But you do think scientists can validate US data that doesn't exist.

No issues with Australian data though.
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2017/09/two-decades-temperature-data-australia-not-fit-purpose/

Akrasia · 02-01-2019 01:26PM

dense wrote: »

So what? Seriously so what if certain animals and plants can't adapt?
There is no logical reason to want to preserve every animal and plant or be planning to mourn the loss of them.

You're right, some species go extinct, it's no big deal, but we're causing a mass extinction event that has huge repercussions throughout the biosphere.

Previous mass extinctions wiped out 90% of species on earth. But so what. It's better to be a nihilist than an alarmist.

We must speculate on this to determine why it happened, who was responsible for it, and to prevent it happening in future unless you really want peer review to not be taken seriously.
It's only a stupid question if you don't know the answer.

The holy grail of science denialism. An actual mistake is identified. Why is this notable? Scientists constantly identify mistakes and correct them. The reason it's notable is because it's so incredibly rare for the climate change sceptics to be right about anything, that when they are it's front page news, no matter how minor or inconsequential the error was.

So who did critically analyse the claims that Resplandy and the Scripps kids were making?

Who peer reviewed it and what other junk science have they signed off on?
We don't know. We don't know their record, their credentials, their political affiliations, who funds them or what their agenda is.
Did they note errors and ignore them? Or did they not notice them?

Yet the paper made it abundantly clear that its authors believed their novel approach meant previous ocean temperature estimates were out by 60% and that means ECS must accordingly be revised downwards.

And everyone accepted it, it having been "rigorously peer reviewed" and being published in a most prestigious journal.

You are literally shocked that someone made a mistake. Well that disproves everything.

Once NASA made a mistake and their probe crashed. Guess the world is flat then

Akrasia · 02-01-2019 01:29PM

dense wrote: »

But you do think scientists can validate US data that doesn't exist.

No issues with Australian data though.
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2017/09/two-decades-temperature-data-australia-not-fit-purpose/

I just said temperatures in an Australian town were almost 50c this week.

That's pretty damn hot. If that was a normal temperature, that town wouldn't be there

dense · 02-01-2019 01:41PM

Akrasia wrote: »

I just said temperatures in an Australian town were almost 50c this week.

That's pretty damn hot. If that was a normal temperature, that town wouldn't be there

Of couse its hot.
It's in a desert. It gets hot sometimes.

Akrasia · 02-01-2019 01:54PM

dense wrote: »

Of couse its hot.
It's in a desert. It gets hot sometimes.

Its getting hotter. It's the difference between freak weather and climate.

2018 is the 3rd or 4th hottest year on record, all the hotter years have been this decade.

If you think the climate isn't changing, i will bet you a thousand euros that 2019 will be in the top 5 hottest ever years on record. I'll even accept UAH as the source

Akrasia · 02-01-2019 03:41PM

dense wrote: »

But you do think scientists can validate US data that doesn't exist.

No issues with Australian data though.
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2017/09/two-decades-temperature-data-australia-not-fit-purpose/

Your link doesn't work, her website seems to be completely offline.

Do you think this person is a credible unbiased scientific source on climate change?

dense · 02-01-2019 06:24PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Your link doesn't work, her website seems to be completely offline.

Do you think this person is a credible unbiased scientific source on climate change?

It works fine for me.
She appears to be highly credible but I'd expect alarmists to have some issues with her research that suggests ECS is 0.6°C.

https://jennifermarohasy.com/temperatures/response-to-criticism-of-abbot-marohasy-2017-georesj/

dense · 02-01-2019 06:30PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Its getting hotter. It's the difference between freak weather and climate.

2018 is the 3rd or 4th hottest year on record, all the hotter years have been this decade.

If you think the climate isn't changing, i will bet you a thousand euros that 2019 will be in the top 5 hottest ever years on record. I'll even accept UAH as the source

I think you were trying to offer odds that 2018 would be hotter than 2017?

How can you engage in such silliness when you admit that scientists don't have a consensus about what the average global temperature is, should be or what they're comparing it to?

That admission came about after you'd been asked for inter annual global average temperature figures to demonstrate the validity of your claims of recent hottest years.

Akrasia · 02-01-2019 07:47PM

dense wrote: »

I think you were trying to offer odds that 2018 would be hotter than 2017?

How can you engage in such silliness when you admit that scientists don't have a consensus about what the average global temperature is, should be or what they're comparing it to?

That admission came about after you'd been asked for inter annual global average temperature figures to demonstrate the validity of your claims of recent hottest years.

There's no 'Admission' climate scientists deal with temperature anomalies not absolute temperatures for very good reasons that you are ignoring and pretending to not understand.

Akrasia · 02-01-2019 08:06PM

dense wrote: »

It works fine for me.
She appears to be highly credible but I'd expect alarmists to have some issues with her research that suggests ECS is 0.6°C.

https://jennifermarohasy.com/temperatures/response-to-criticism-of-abbot-marohasy-2017-georesj/

Loads of issues actually. The first and most obvious is that the world has already warmed by almost twice that amount and C02 hasn't doubled yet.

Other issues include her laughably inadequate 'neural machine learning' model that doesn't include key drivers of the earth climate like changes in volcanic activity and changes in solar irradiance. They also have a huge issue with her Data getting time shifted back 35 years so that it misses all of the recent warming. They never validated their model results against real life records

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2017/aug/26/institute-of-public-affairs-paper-claim-global-warming-natural-junk-science

Of course when errors in a climate change denialist paper are identified by real climate scientists there's absolute silence from the denialosphere compared to when an error is found in a paper that doesn't fit their agenda

dense · 02-01-2019 09:34PM

Akrasia wrote: »

There's no 'Admission' climate scientists deal with temperature anomalies not absolute temperatures for very good reasons that you are ignoring and pretending to not understand.

Akrasia wrote: »

Loads of issues actually. The first and most obvious is that the world has already warmed by almost twice that amount and C02 hasn't doubled yet.

Tell us, this effort to keep temperatures from rising above 1.5°C, does that 1.5°C refer to a global average temperature rise or an anomaly?

I'm sensing that you don't want to discuss the actual details of global average temperatures (such as, what it is) whilst simultaneously continuously talking up alleged global warming.

Is that a fair assessment of your carry on, what with your inability to come up with data due to scientists, as you say, not concentrating on such banalities as the absolute global average temperature?

My reading of the United Nation's Paris Agreement for example, says it's all about the average global temperature and limiting a global average temperature rise, but you seem to be saying it's about anomalies:

"The Paris Agreement sets a long-term goal of holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C."

https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/climate-change-report-%E2%80%9Cwake-%E2%80%9D-call-15%C2%B0c-global-warming

Akrasia · 02-01-2019 11:30PM

dense wrote: »

Tell us, this effort to keep temperatures from rising above 1.5°C, does that 1.5°C refer to a global average temperature rise or an anomaly?

I'm sensing that you don't want to discuss the actual details of global average temperatures (such as, what it is) whilst simultaneously continuously talking up alleged global warming.

Is that a fair assessment of your carry on, what with your inability to come up with data due to scientists, as you say, not concentrating on such banalities as the absolute global average temperature?

My reading of the United Nation's Paris Agreement for example, says it's all about the average global temperature and limiting a global average temperature rise, but you seem to be saying it's about anomalies:

"The Paris Agreement sets a long-term goal of holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C."

https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/climate-change-report-%E2%80%9Cwake-%E2%80%9D-call-15%C2%B0c-global-warming

You can't actually be this dense can you?

Do you know what temperature anomaly means?

dense · 03-01-2019 12:33AM

Akrasia wrote: »

You can't actually be this dense can you?

Do you know what temperature anomaly means?

Yes, that's why I'm asking you about this effort to prevent the global average temperature from rising above 1.5°C.

Do you understand that concept?

That concept revolves around "the global average temperature" not global temperature anomalies.

Do you think that the 1.5°C being spoken about refers to a potential global average absolute temperature increase above the global average temperature of the pre-industrial period, or some anomaly to the 1951 to 1980 baseline shown below and not the absolute average global temperature?

Which is it Akrasia? Simple question.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

This graph just illustrates the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures, and it claims a 0.9°C anomaly; it doesn't mention anything about pre-industrial temperatures.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

So what are we aiming for, preventing a 1.5°C rise in the global average temperature above the pre-industrial average global temperature or some anomaly to the mid 20th century baseline, which is already showing a figure of 0.9°C at this point?

Read what I've quoted from the WMO about preventing a global average temperature rise of 1.5°C above the what the global average temperature was in the pre industrial era a few posts back before you answer, it'll simplify it for you.

Akrasia · 03-01-2019 11:45AM

Different organisations and different scientists use different baselines in different graphs and reports, but as long as the charts are properly labeled, not an issue to anyone except the willfully ignorant.

The targets are clear, we need to limit warming to substantially below 2c above pre-industrial temperatures. It's not a magic number that is the perfect amount of warming. It's a target because the more warming we cause, the greater risk there is that we will exceed one or more of the climate tipping points beyond which we may no longer have any ability to stabilise the climate.

There is uncertainty about whether that 1.5c to 2c target is going to be low enough to avoid these tipping points but the best scientific data we have available to us is that this is the threshold beyond which we should go to great lengths to avoid crossing.

xckjoo · 03-01-2019 12:00PM

Akrasia wrote: »

So the Australian Met society said that weather can affect accurate recording of temperature???

Yeah. And mainstream media is unreliable therefore nutty YouTube channels and blogs are the only real truth.

I personally think the consensus view of scientific experts in their field are more reliable than both mainstream media and blogs. But then, i am an alarmist because I don't think there's a grand global socialist conspiracy to falsify the scientific evidence

You hit the nail on the head there. Some people find it easier to believe man-kind is capable of a global conspiracy to falsify information to bring in some kind of new world order, but we're simulatously incapable of making any impact on the climate, despite pumping metric **** tons of chemicals into the air & water daily, strip mining, over farming, etc., etc.

dense · 03-01-2019 03:38PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Different organisations and different scientists use different baselines in different graphs and reports, but as long as the charts are properly labeled, not an issue to anyone except the willfully ignorant.

The targets are clear, we need to limit warming to substantially below 2c above pre-industrial temperatures. It's not a magic number that is the perfect amount of warming. It's a target because the more warming we cause, the greater risk there is that we will exceed one or more of the climate tipping points beyond which we may no longer have any ability to stabilise the climate.

There is uncertainty about whether that 1.5c to 2c target is going to be low enough to avoid these tipping points but the best scientific data we have available to us is that this is the threshold beyond which we should go to great lengths to avoid crossing.

Thank you for the rote sermon from the global warming playbook, but if I wanted that I can get it from the UNIPCC.

In the absence of a response relevant to what I have asked you, I will ask you again and invite you to answer. I have bolded the relevant sections to make it simpler for you, or indeed anyone else, to answer.

Yes, that's why I'm asking you about this effort to prevent the global average temperature from rising above 1.5°C.

Do you understand that concept?

That concept revolves around "the global average temperature" not global temperature anomalies.

Do you think that the 1.5°C being spoken about refers to a potential global average absolute temperature increase above the global average temperature of the pre-industrial period, or some anomaly to the 1951 to 1980 baseline shown below and not the absolute average global temperature?

Which is it Akrasia? Simple question.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs...l-temperature/

This graph just illustrates the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures, and it claims a 0.9°C anomaly; it doesn't mention anything about pre-industrial temperatures.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs...l-temperature/

So what are we aiming for, preventing a 1.5°C rise in the global average temperature above the pre-industrial average global temperature or some anomaly to the mid 20th century baseline, which is already showing a figure of 0.9°C at this point?

Read what I've quoted from the WMO about preventing a global average temperature rise of 1.5°C above the what the global average temperature was in the pre industrial era a few posts back before you answer, it'll simplify it for you.

Akrasia · 03-01-2019 05:10PM

dense wrote: »

Thank you for the rote sermon from the global warming playbook, but if I wanted that I can get it from the UNIPCC.

In the absence of a response relevant to what I have asked you, I will ask you again and invite you to answer. I have bolded the relevant sections to make it simpler for you, or indeed anyone else, to answer.

As I already said, it refers to increases above the preindustrial baseline. Where the mid 20th century baseline is used, its because this is the satellite era. You need to add another couple of tenths of a degree to this anomaly to get the pre-industrial anomaly depending on which dataset you are using

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/global-average-air-temperature-anomalies-4#tab-dashboard-01

dense · 03-01-2019 11:48PM

Akrasia wrote: »

As I already said, it refers to increases above the preindustrial baseline.

You didn't already say and still aren't really saying!
A passerby could think you're saying that the greatest and most challenging effort facing us is about preventing the global average temperature from increasing more than 1.5°C above what the global average temperature was in the pre industrial period.

Would you be happy with their understanding of your quite clipped explanation, given that it coincides with the WMO's statements on the matter?
Or do you want to waffle on about anomalies again because you're not up for telling us what the global average temperature has been for the last few years in spite of claiming "hottest year evva", because you've said scientists don't share a consensus on what the global average temperature is, was or should be, rendering the determination of the progress, success or otherwise of the efforts to prevent warming another most convenient set of moving goalposts.

It's a very well planned strategy, if a little obvious to those of a keener eye.
We don't know what the global average temperature was for the pre industrial period due to a lack of data so we won't know if we're managing in our busy making efforts to cope with the unprecedented consequences of the unprecedented changes that will be required in all aspects of society whilst trying to comply with the UN's request to do so.

I can see where your climate grief is coming from; I'd probably be the same if I couldn't see through the bullshït.

Akrasia wrote: »

Where the mid 20th century baseline is used, its because this is the satellite era.

What sort of agency is using a mid 20th century baseline due to it thinking it is the satellite era?

As I have previously explained, NASA uses a 1951 to 1980 baseline simply because it deemed it to be a "normal" climate period and because they started GISSTEMP in 1981.

The climactic periods before this, when atmospheric CO2 was below 300ppm, which is what you want to see a return to, must all have therefore have been abnormal using their own reckoning, yes?

Akrasia · 04-01-2019 10:29AM

dense wrote: »

You didn't already say and still aren't really saying!
A passerby could think you're saying that the greatest and most challenging effort facing us is about preventing the global average temperature from increasing more than 1.5°C above what the global average temperature was in the pre industrial period.

Would you be happy with their understanding of your quite clipped explanation, given that it coincides with the WMO's statements on the matter?
Or do you want to waffle on about anomalies again because you're not up for telling us what the global average temperature has been for the last few years in spite of claiming "hottest year evva", because you've said scientists don't share a consensus on what the global average temperature is, was or should be, rendering the determination of the progress, success or otherwise of the efforts to prevent warming another most convenient set of moving goalposts.

It's a very well planned strategy, if a little obvious to those of a keener eye.
We don't know what the global average temperature was for the pre industrial period due to a lack of data so we won't know if we're managing in our busy making efforts to cope with the unprecedented consequences of the unprecedented changes that will be required in all aspects of society whilst trying to comply with the UN's request to do so.

I can see where your climate grief is coming from; I'd probably be the same if I couldn't see through the bullshït.

What sort of agency is using a mid 20th century baseline due to it thinking it is the satellite era?

As I have previously explained, NASA uses a 1951 to 1980 baseline simply because it deemed it to be a "normal" climate period and because they started GISSTEMP in 1981.

The climactic periods before this, when atmospheric CO2 was below 300ppm, which is what you want to see a return to, must all have therefore have been abnormal using their own reckoning, yes?

The baselines for different temperature sets are all different for various reasons but this doesn't matter because maths and statistical analysis are things that any competent person can use to compare the datasets properly. It's not hard to understand

The 300ppm figure for C02 concentration is the peak of the "normal" CO2 concentrations that are part of the natural cycle for at least the last 450000 years. It is here that human emissions started pushing the climate beyond what we could naturally expect without human changes

In the geological past CO2 was higher but these levels were caused by either extremely active volcanic activity over millions of years, or completely different types of plants and anaerobic bacteria to what exist today.

You could answer any of these questions yourself if you were interested in answers instead of only caring about questions.

But whatever, let's just keep going round and round in circles

dense · 04-01-2019 12:11PM

Akrasia wrote: »

The baselines for different temperature sets are all different for various reasons but this doesn't matter because maths and statistical analysis are things that any competent person can use to compare the datasets properly. It's not hard to understand

Akrasia instead of linking to gifs, link to something that backs up your beliefs.
Use your own initiative instead of copying others on alarmist blogs.
Link directly to reasons given for baselines being chosen, like I have done.

The reason NASA chose a 1951 to 1980 baseline is explained by NASA here, and there is no scientific basis for it, apart from the admission that they don't have much to go on, nor for their claim that it represents a "normal" temperature period, rendering other preceding periods "abnormal" simply because of a lack of knowledge due to a lack of information about preceding temperatures.

Global temperature records start around 1880 because observations did not sufficiently cover enough of the planet prior to that time.
The period of 1951-1980 was chosen largely because the U.S. National Weather Service uses a three-decade period to define “normal” or average temperature.

The GISS temperature analysis effort began around 1980, so the most recent 30 years was 1951-1980. It is also a period when many of today’s adults grew up, so it is a common reference that many people can remember.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/decadaltemp.php

"Choosing" a baseline due to a stated lack of choice renders the whole "choice" element a non sequitur. Similarly, their implying that preceding temperature periods were abnormal due to their own stated lack of knowledge is no good reason to say that the chosen baseline is "normal".

Do you find this hard to understand?

What agency do you believe stated that it uses a mid 20th century baseline because it thinks that was the satellite period?

Akrasia · 04-01-2019 05:49PM

dense wrote: »

Akrasia instead of linking to gifs, link to something that backs up your beliefs.
Use your own initiative instead of copying others on alarmist blogs.
Link directly to reasons given for baselines being chosen, like I have done.

The reason NASA chose a 1951 to 1980 baseline is explained by NASA here, and there is no scientific basis for it, apart from the admission that they don't have much to go on, nor for their claim that it represents a "normal" temperature period, rendering other preceding periods "abnormal" simply because of a lack of knowledge due to a lack of information about preceding temperatures.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/decadaltemp.php

"Choosing" a baseline due to a stated lack of choice renders the whole "choice" element a non sequitur. Similarly, their implying that preceding temperature periods were abnormal due to their own stated lack of knowledge is no good reason to say that the chosen baseline is "normal".

Do you find this hard to understand?

What agency do you believe stated that it uses a mid 20th century baseline because it thinks that was the satellite period?

It's difficult to explain something to someone who lacks basic understanding of words and their meaning.

Your own quote says that NASA choose a 30 average as their baseline because that's how the US Weather service defines a 'normal' temperature period. It's not that important which 30 year period gets 'chosen' as the baseline. It's the average of a 30 year period to smooth out multi-decadal oscillations like the AMO and to have a suitably large number of ENSO series to average out each other. The baseline chosen in a warming world means we should expect temperatures from prior to the baseline to be lower than those after that period. A baseline is simply a reference period. They could have picked any random year and called it their baseline, but they choose to take a 3 decade average in order to make their data more reflective of the global climate and not just one year

They can't just pick one or a few years as their baseline because if they happen to choose a period where there was a strong El Nino then this would skew the temperature baseline.

Nowhere do they say that the period 1951-1980 was some kind of 'normal' period for global average temperatures, it was simply averaging out the extremes over this period to get the 'normal' average temperature baseline for this period.

dense · 04-01-2019 09:37PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Nowhere do they say that the period 1951-1980 was some kind of 'normal' period for global average temperatures, it was simply averaging out the extremes over this period to get the 'normal' average temperature baseline for this period.

Once more:

Global temperature records start around 1880 because observations did not sufficiently cover enough of the planet prior to that time.
The period of 1951-1980 was chosen largely because the U.S. National Weather Service uses a three-decade period to define “normal” or average temperature.

The GISS temperature analysis effort began around 1980, so the most recent 30 years was 1951-1980. It is also a period when many of today’s adults grew up, so it is a common reference that many people can remember.

The 30 year period was chosen "to define “normal” or average temperature"

-direct quote. For no particular reason except they were constrained by a lack of data to determine what a normal temperature period is, along with it being the "most recent" 30 years period.

If the temperatures for that period define "normal", which is what is being claimed, previous lower temperature periods such as the pre industrial peeiod cannot simultaneously be defined as normal.

"In a warming world", choosing a 30 year baseline for the above reasons and implying normality from it on the basis of easy recall and having no data from other periods serves no purpose.

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

Comments