Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…1415171920…44

Comments

  • Options
    #482
    dubstepper
    Registered Users Posts: 592 ✭✭✭dubstepper


    dense wrote: »
    What way should it be taken, after reading their posts fretting about climate change and recommending what we should be doing?

    What are they doing?

    Nothing apparently. They were asked, but as expected, gave jokey replies.

    Asking what a person is doing about climate change is a different one to whether they believe it is a fact.

    I'm sure many people believe that man is effecting the climate but probably feel too 'small' to do anything about it. They may see it as a governmental issue and would like policies to reflect this. However, when these policies come into conflict with their wallets they choose to have money now than to help the environment. On the other side it is an unfortunate fact, in relation to long term planning, that most politicians don't look beyond the next election.


  • Options
    #483
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,235 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dubstepper wrote: »
    Asking what a person is doing about climate change is a different one to whether they believe it is a fact.

    I'm sure many people believe that man is effecting the climate but probably feel too 'small' to do anything about it. They may see it as a governmental issue and would like policies to reflect this. However, when these policies come into conflict with their wallets they choose to have money now than to help the environment. On the other side it is an unfortunate fact, in relation to long term planning, that most politicians don't look beyond the next election.

    This is why governments have a role to make sure the environmental option is also the economically attractive option. They can do this by subsidies and by taxation, and by using government borrowing to fund infrastructure improvements.

    People will act in their own individual best interests most of the time, but governments have a responsibility to craft public policy that is in the best interests of the citizens as a whole. And when individual governments think they can game the system by not meeting their obligations to reduce emissions, that's where international agreements come in, with consequences for governments who refuse to act on their commitments.


  • Options
    #484
    xckjoo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,344 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    dubstepper wrote: »
    Asking what a person is doing about climate change is a different one to whether they believe it is a fact.

    I'm sure many people believe that man is effecting the climate but probably feel too 'small' to do anything about it. They may see it as a governmental issue and would like policies to reflect this. However, when these policies come into conflict with their wallets they choose to have money now than to help the environment. On the other side it is an unfortunate fact, in relation to long term planning, that most politicians don't look beyond the next election.


    It's a disingenuous question that he's trying to use to drag things off to another dead end of unrelated nit picking. Any attempt at serious discussion has been ignored or side-stepped and then submerged in walls of text about unrelated things that nobody else mentioned. It's the wall of noise approach to arguing. By the time you've responded to one point, he's made about 4 other posts that take deciphering. Disingenuous questions deserve disingenuous answers.

    Akrasia deserves a medal for all his legitimate responses that he's made. I'm grateful for them though. I'm learning loads.


  • Options
    #485
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    So you're asking what are we doing?
    I do what I can do. My house is connected to the gas mains, I have a super efficient gas boiler that also does hot water, double glazing, every single lightbulb is LED, every appliance is A+ and there's the aforementioned diesel with DPF.

    My own set up is not dissimilar although instead of natural gas I use natural smokeless coal.

    House is such that it doesn't require heating except for winter months.

    But it's still not enough for the eco activists who are now baying for natural gas to be phased out alongside other fossil fuels, so what will you do then?
    The future of natural gas is limited, even as a bridging fuel.

    Continued investments into the sector create the risk of breaching the Paris Agreement’s long term temperature goal and will result in stranded assets, the Climate Action Tracker (CAT) said today.

    As part of its decarbonisation series, the CAT today released an examination of gas in the power sector. The report warns that natural gas will have to be phased out along with coal, if the world is to limit warming to 1.5˚C, as spelt out in the Paris Agreement long term temperature goal.
    https://www.ecofys.com/en/news/climate-action-tracker-increased-reliance-on-natural-gas-risks-an-emissions/


    https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/infographic-climate-change-risks-natural-gas
    A new study, commissioned by Friends of the Earth Europe from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and the Teesside University, shows that EU countries can afford just nine more years of burning gas and other fossil fuels at the current rate before they will have exhausted their share of the earth's remaining carbon budget for maximum temperature rises of 2°C.

    Even with a managed phase-out, fossil fuels including natural gas, can have no substantial role beyond 2035 in an EU energy system compatible with 2°C.
    http://www.foeeurope.org/new-study-incompatability-climate-safety-gas-071117

    Maybe Tyndall Centre for Climate Change is one of those who will say whatever it is their funding partners want them to say, in this case Friends of the Earth, who want a faster phase out of fossil fuels than the Paris agreement to limit warming to 1.5°C.

    As a matter of interest Akrasia would probably endorse the FOE stance as he/she has previously described the Paris Agreement as "vague" and "meaningful".


  • Options
    #486
    xckjoo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,344 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    dense wrote: »
    My own set up is not dissimilar although instead of natural gas I use natural smokeless coal.

    House is such that it doesn't require heating except for winter months.

    But it's still not enough for the eco activists who are now baying for natural gas to be phased out alongside other fossil fuels, so what will you do then?

    https://www.ecofys.com/en/news/climate-action-tracker-increased-reliance-on-natural-gas-risks-an-emissions/


    https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/infographic-climate-change-risks-natural-gas

    http://www.foeeurope.org/new-study-incompatability-climate-safety-gas-071117

    Maybe Tyndall Centre for Climate Change is one of those who will say whatever it is their funding partners want them to say, in this case Friends of the Earth, who want a faster phase out of fossil fuels than the Paris agreement to limit warming to 1.5°C.

    As a matter of interest Akrasia would probably endorse the FOE stance as he/she has previously described the Paris Agreement as "vague" and "meaningful".


    A genuine discussion? I'm back in (you'd know it was a slow Friday)!

    Ya it's very doom and gloom if you start digging into this stuff. Everything has a trade-off; even wind turbines have an impact on things like wildlife. Nuclear power looks all well and good until you consider the waste disposal and security, and that's before you deal with public opinion and the technology itself.

    There's one very good reason to move away from fossil fuels though and that's energy security. Even if you don't think they impact the climate, we can't fulfill our energy requirements from native fossil fuel stores.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #487
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    xckjoo wrote: »

    Akrasia deserves a medal for all his legitimate responses that he's made. I'm grateful for them though. I'm learning loads.


    Me too!!

    I've particularly enjoyed learning of the earth scientists of the UNIPCC and their mission to implement transformational UN global socialist policies on the pathway to restoring a just climate for all sans fossil fuels.


  • Options
    #488
    WinnyThePoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,417 ✭✭✭WinnyThePoo


    New world order


  • Options
    #489
    xckjoo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,344 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    dense wrote: »
    Me too!!

    I've particularly enjoyed learning of the earth scientists of the UNIPCC and their mission to implement transformational UN global socialist policies on the pathway to restoring a just climate for all sans fossil fuels.


    Damn commies have just been biding their time!


    DistantValuableBarbet-max-1mb.gif


    giphy.gif


  • Options
    #490
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    xckjoo wrote: »
    A genuine discussion? I'm back in (you'd know it was a slow Friday)!

    Ya it's very doom and gloom if you start digging into this stuff. Everything has a trade-off; even wind turbines have an impact on things like wildlife. Nuclear power looks all well and good until you consider the waste disposal and security, and that's before you deal with public opinion and the technology itself.

    There's one very good reason to move away from fossil fuels though and that's energy security. Even if you don't think they impact the climate, we can't fulfill our energy requirements from native fossil fuel stores.


    We can't do it with renewables either:

    According to the CSO, in 2015 Irelands total energy consumption was around 14m tons of oil equivalent (and probably rising as the economy grows).


    https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-eii/eii2016/energy/


    That converts to 163twh.

    Of that, total electricity consumed was just 29twh, and of that, just 27% came from renewables which is less than 8twh.

    So to transition to a fossil fuel free economy you need to find a way for renewables to substitute the remaining 134twh of energy being used.


    Electricity
    • Final consumption of electricity increased by 2.9%
    to 29 TWh with a 3.1% increase in the fuel inputs.
    • Renewable electricity generation, consisting
    of wind, hydro, landfill gas, biomass and
    biogas, increased to 27.3% of gross electricity
    consumption in 2015.
    • In 2015, wind generation accounted for 22.8%
    of the electricity generated and was the second
    largest source of electricity generation after
    natural gas.


    • The use of renewables in electricity generation in
    2015 reduced CO2
    emissions by 3.2 Mt and avoided
    €286 million in fossil fuel imports.


    http://www.seai.ie/resources/publications/Energy-in-Ireland-1990-2015.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjp3OXU0JfdAhUKCsAKHU56De0QFggSMAE&usg=AOvVaw3xOGgPpfyN1ldrrBIgVW8t


  • Options
    #491
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    WinnyThePoo wrote: »
    New world order




    This??



    Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

    This Agenda is a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity.



    It also seeks to strengthen universal peace in larger freedom.



    We recognise that eradicating poverty in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty, is the greatest global challenge and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development.



    All countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership, will implement this plan.



    We are resolved to free the human race from the tyranny of poverty and want and to heal and secure our planet.



    We are determined to take the bold and transformative steps which are urgently needed to shift the world onto a sustainable and resilient path.



    As we embark on this collective journey, we pledge that no one will be left behind.



    The 17 Sustainable Development Goals and 169 targets which we are announcing today demonstrate the scale and ambition of this new universal Agenda.



    They seek to build on the Millennium Development Goals and complete what these did not achieve.



    They seek to realize the human rights of all and to achieve gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls.



    They are integrated and indivisible and balance the three dimensions of sustainable development: the economic, social and environmental.


    https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld


    Sure does look like it now that you mention it, an all new and orderly plan for the world.



    Do you think it's necessarily a bad thing?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #492
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    This is why governments have a role to make sure the environmental option is also the economically attractive option. They can do this by subsidies and by taxation, and by using government borrowing to fund infrastructure improvements.

    People will act in their own individual best interests most of the time, but governments have a responsibility to craft public policy that is in the best interests of the citizens as a whole. And when individual governments think they can game the system by not meeting their obligations to reduce emissions, that's where international agreements come in, with consequences for governments who refuse to act on their commitments.


    Then you clearly require a form of global international governance which transcends national sovereignty with some controlling body dishing out fines to non performing countries which is cash which can then be transferred to developing countries, thereby effectively implementing the UN transfer of wealth scheme we discussed earlier.

    Setting unreachable targets guarantees fines which guarantee the success of the wealth transfer plan.

    The very public Paris Agreement has no penalties for countries which fail to meet targets, which is why the greens don't like it so much.

    Here's a taste of the real funding mechanisms, which is keeping NGOs in jobs but is making no difference to emissions, and as we constantly keep hearing, it's not enough, and more is needed to be done.


    https://bigpicture.unfccc.int/content/climate-finance/what-is-the-financial-mechanism-what-are-the-other-funds.html


  • Options
    #493
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Coming back to NOAA's GHCN temperature graphic here:


    201703.gif




    With the consensus around here being that NOAA can magically validate GHCN data that does not exist, I decided to analyse the image and the results are very revealing.

    It turns out that most of the earth has no GCHN data for NOAA or anyone else to validate.

    Therefore any claims based on missing GCHN data are invalid as are any wild claims that it can validate data it doesn't have.

    For those who are lost, there is more grey in that image than any other color.

    And gray (sic) NOAA confides in us, represents "missing data".

    https://labs.tineye.com/color/a94008a643a406506b770b168059712be6b2e2db?ignore_background=True&width=250&color_format=hex&ignore_interior_background=True&height=193


  • Options
    #494
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    dense wrote: »
    Coming back to NOAA's GHCN temperature graphic here:


    201703.gif




    With the consensus around here being that NOAA can magically validate GHCN data that does not exist, I decided to analyse the image and the results are very revealing.

    It turns out that most of the earth has no GCHN data for NOAA or anyone else to validate.

    Therefore any claims based on missing GCHN data are invalid as are any wild claims that it can validate data it doesn't have.

    For those who are lost, there is more grey in that image than any other color.

    And gray (sic) NOAA confides in us, represents "missing data".

    https://labs.tineye.com/color/a94008a643a406506b770b168059712be6b2e2db?ignore_background=True&width=250&color_format=hex&ignore_interior_background=True&height=193

    you continue to not understand sampling.


  • Options
    #495
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,235 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    you continue to not understand sampling.

    Dense must think that all the coldness in the world is hiding from the thermometers in those grey pixels

    Dense also has dementia and forgets about the dozen + other datasets other than the GHCN that scientists can cross check and validate their data against.

    Its kinda sad. Some day I'll log into boards and dense won't recognise me anymore


  • Options
    #496
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    you continue to not understand sampling.


    Maybe you're colour blind Franz.


  • Options
    #497
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Dense must think that all the coldness in the world is hiding from the thermometers in those grey pixels

    Dense also has dementia and forgets about the dozen + other datasets other than the GHCN that scientists can cross check and validate their data against.

    Its kinda sad. Some day I'll log into boards and dense won't recognise me anymore

    When the humour attempts kick in, I know Akrasia is left with nothing else to type.

    jtech-d-11-00103.1-f3.gif
    Finally, although GHCN-Daily has already found applications in climate monitoring and assessments (e.g., Alexander et al. 2006; Caesar et al. 2006), its utility could always be enhanced with additional data for regions outside of North America.
    Didn't happen. Most of the planet is not historically sampled and the data is classed as "missing".


    GHCN_Temperature_Stations.png

    This map shows the 7,280 fixed temperature stations in the GHCN catalog color coded by the length of the available record.

    This image shows 3,832 records longer than 50 years, 1,656 records longer than 100 years, and 226 records longer than 150 years.

    As is evident from this plot, the most densely instrumented portion of the globe is in the United States, while Antarctica is the most sparsely instrumented land area.
    So much for a long term historic global temperature record from the undefined pre industrial era being available.

    But let's try to keep a temperature rise above it to less than 1.5°C.....


  • Options
    #498
    jackboy
    Registered Users Posts: 4,435 ✭✭✭jackboy


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    you continue to not understand sampling.

    Do you understand representative sampling? It's not only the gray areas that are not being sampled, its also the white areas (over oceans). Any half decent scientist will say that a mountain of further work is required to produce sufficient data to draw reliable conclusions on.


  • Options
    #499
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,235 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    jackboy wrote: »
    Do you understand representative sampling? It's not only the gray areas that are not being sampled, its also the white areas (over oceans). Any half decent scientist will say that a mountain of further work is required to produce sufficient data to draw reliable conclusions on.
    The GHCN doesn't cover oceans, there are other datasets that do cover oceans like the ERSST
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/marineocean-data/extended-reconstructed-sea-surface-temperature-ersst-v4


  • Options
    #500
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    The GHCN doesn't cover oceans, there are other datasets that do cover oceans like the ERSST
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/marineocean-data/extended-reconstructed-sea-surface-temperature-ersst-v4


    The reconstructed SST records are as regularly reconstructed as the land records.



    https://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/


    Color me 'unconvinced'
    Akrasia, did you get a chance to compile the data which would verify your claim that the 4 years since 2012 were the "hottest on record by a significant margin"?

    As you have failed to demonstrate any temperature margins for those years, "significant" or otherwise, can we just dismiss it as wishful thinking or do you want to verify the claim with the relevant inter annual data for comparison?


    For example, in the UK's Independent they rather helpfully stated that 2016 was hotter than 2015 by 0.01°C,


    Is that what you term as a significant margin???

    0.01°C of 1°C?


    This puts 2016 only nominally ahead of 2015 by just 0.01C – within the 0.1C margin of error
    https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/dangerous-climate-change-time-running-out-2016-hottest-year-on-record-climatologist-gabi-hegerl-a7533211.html


  • Options
    #501
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,235 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    The reconstructed SST records are as regularly reconstructed as the land records.



    https://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/



    Akrasia, did you get a chance to compile the data which would verify your claim that the 4 years since 2012 were the "hottest on record by a significant margin"?

    As you have failed to demonstrate any temperature margins for those years, "significant" or otherwise, can we just dismiss it as wishful thinking or do you want to verify the claim with the relevant inter annual data for comparison?


    For example, in the UK's Independent they rather helpfully stated that 2016 was hotter than 2015 by 0.01°C,


    Is that what you term as a significant margin???

    0.01°C of 1°C?




    https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/dangerous-climate-change-time-running-out-2016-hottest-year-on-record-climatologist-gabi-hegerl-a7533211.html
    Hottest years on record according to NOAA



    Top 10 warmest years (NOAA)
    (1880–2017)
    Rank Year Anomaly °C
    1 2016 0.94
    2 2015 0.90
    3 2017 0.84
    4 2014 0.74
    5 2010 0.70
    6 2013 0.66
    7 2005 0.65
    8 2009 0.64
    9 1998 0.63
    10 2012 0.62

    The difference between 2012 and 2016 was about .3c which is huge

    We're not just talking about natural variability, we're talking about breaking global temperature records consistently where we can be pretty sure that the hottest ever temperature 10 years ago, will be much lower than the expected average temperature for this year.

    How are your 'skeptics' predictions working out? Where's our ice age?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #502
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Hottest years on record according to NOAA

    Top 10 warmest years (NOAA)
    (1880–2017)
    Rank Year Anomaly °C
    1 2016 0.94
    2 2015 0.90
    3 2017 0.84
    4 2014 0.74
    5 2010 0.70
    6 2013 0.66
    7 2005 0.65
    8 2009 0.64
    9 1998 0.63
    10 2012 0.62

    The difference between 2012 and 2016 was about .3c which is huge

    We're not just talking about natural variability, we're talking about breaking global temperature records consistently where we can be pretty sure that the hottest ever temperature 10 years ago, will be much lower than the expected average temperature for this year.

    How are your 'skeptics' predictions working out? Where's our ice age?

    Do you understand what an inter annual margin is?

    The alleged temperature difference between one year and another.

    You were asked for an inter annual margin, instead you post up temperature anomalies from a baseline of 1880 to 2017.

    So have another go at it maybe?

    I know you want to introduce UN world policy based on statistical noise and non existent temperature data, but you'll have to try harder than that!

    Here's an example, from the UNWMO

    Global average temperatures in 2017 and 2015 were both 1.1°C above pre-industrial levels.



    The two years are virtually indistinguishable because the difference is less than one hundredth of a degree, which is less than the statistical margin of error.
    https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/wmo-confirms-2017-among-three-warmest-years-record


  • Options
    #503
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,235 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    Do you understand what an inter annual margin is?

    The alleged temperature difference between one year and another.

    You were asked for an inter annual margin, instead you post up temperature anomalies from a baseline of 1880 to 2017.

    So have another go at it maybe?

    I know you want to introduce UN world policy based on statistical noise and non existent temperature data, but you'll have to try harder than that!

    Here's an example, from the UNWMO

    https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/wmo-confirms-2017-among-three-warmest-years-record
    What's with you 'skeptics' and putting 'un' before the accepted acronyms?

    UNIPCC, UNWMO etc

    Oh, yeah, it's because you're all crazy conspiracy theorists who think the UN is some kind of shadowy one world government.

    Inter annual margin?? What are you going on about now. We're talking about climate change. Climate is long term trends. Individual years don't matter on their own, it's the trends that count

    You said that the decadal trend for global warming based on 'recent observations was .06c. That is completely wrong and the true figure is about 3 times as high since the 1970s or if you want to take just the last decade, 6 times higher than the 'recent observations' figure you vomited out (although as i've already said, that would be the wrong figure to quote because the time period is too low to establish a trend)

    Now you're saying that the 'inter annual margin' between 2015 and 2016 is only .01c as if that means anything.


  • Options
    #504
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    What's with you 'skeptics' and putting 'un' before the accepted acronyms?

    UNIPCC, UNWMO etc

    Oh, yeah, it's because you're all crazy conspiracy theorists who think the UN is some kind of shadowy one world government.


    Because they are both UN agencies.
    Why such a weird reaction?
    WMO is a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN) with 191 Member States and Territories.
    https://public.wmo.int/en/about-us/who-we-are

    https://www.allacronyms.com/UNWMO/United_Nations_World_Meteorological_Organization


    Akrasia wrote: »
    You said that the decadal trend for global warming based on 'recent observations was .06c. That is completely wrong and the true figure is about 3 times as high since the 1970s or if you want to take just the last decade, 6 times higher than the 'recent observations' figure you vomited out (although as i've already said, that would be the wrong figure to quote because the time period is too low to establish a trend)

    Now you're saying that the 'inter annual margin' between 2015 and 2016 is only .01c as if that means anything.

    No, I said the decadal trend for the entire instrumental period was 0.6°C then I told you it was fiction because most of the data is missing.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107932707&postcount=469

    Akrasia wrote: »
    Climate is long term trends.

    Not when you are cherry picking individual years to get a .2°C trend.


  • Options
    #505
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,777 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    dense wrote: »
    stuff

    "You can't convince me of something I'll never accept therefore my argument must be valid"


  • Options
    #506
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,235 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    Because they are both UN agencies.
    Why such a weird reaction?
    Everyone already knows that the WMO is a UN agency. Nobody cares.

    Why was it a wierd reaction to point out that the only people who call the WMO the 'UNWMO' tend to be crazy tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists?
    https://public.wmo.int/en/about-us/who-we-are

    https://www.allacronyms.com/UNWMO/United_Nations_World_Meteorological_Organization


    When you were googling that i'm sure you saw lots of references in the media and official reports referring to the UNWMO right?

    Nah, just kidding, you saw conspiracy theory sites and a twitter hashtag used by conspiracy theorists
    Not when you are cherry picking individual years to get a .2°C trend.
    I didn't cherry pick anything. I did the exact opposite. I picked 3 different start and end points that are notable because the first is the one used by most scientific papers, the 2nd is the warming this century, and the third is the warming over the last 10 years, and i went to lengths to point out that the last two aren't long enough to establish a trend properly so we should use the record going back almost 50 years, which is also the timeframe that has the best instrumentation as it includes the satellite era

    Cherry picking is where you deliberately choose a time series that you know will give you the data that best suits your own narrative while ignoring data that shows the opposite.


  • Options
    #507
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Everyone already knows that the WMO is a UN agency. Nobody cares.

    Why was it a wierd reaction to point out that the only people who call the WMO the 'UNWMO' tend to be crazy tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists?



    When you were googling that i'm sure you saw lots of references in the media and official reports referring to the UNWMO right?

    Nah, just kidding, you saw conspiracy theory sites and a twitter hashtag used by conspiracy theorists


    I didn't cherry pick anything. I did the exact opposite. I picked 3 different start and end points that are notable because the first is the one used by most scientific papers, the 2nd is the warming this century, and the third is the warming over the last 10 years, and i went to lengths to point out that the last two aren't long enough to establish a trend properly so we should use the record going back almost 50 years, which is also the timeframe that has the best instrumentation as it includes the satellite era

    Cherry picking is where you deliberately choose a time series that you know will give you the data that best suits your own narrative while ignoring data that shows the opposite.


    Your narrative that the world is warming out of control due to human actions is based on data that does not exist.

    You don't even accept that the historic data is reliable (the same unreliable historic data which covered just bits of the Northern Hemisphere).
    Akrasia wrote: »
    Also do you accept that the data for the 1880s isn't as reliable as it is for more recent observations. If we can see a good correlation within the satellite era when our data is most reliable. I think it is a reasonable assumption to accept that small deviations from this corrrelation in the past might be down to errors in our about records on historical events

    Contempory data is just as unreliable because major corrections have to be made in order to squeeze the required one hundredths of a degree variations out of it to suit the UN narrative.

    What is your real agenda here endlessly pushing renewables and grants for a transition to a carbon free economy and how many hundredths of a degree can we expect to see the global temperature being reduced by doing so?

    Also, are you a member of any radical environmental groups?


  • Options
    #508
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,235 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    Your narrative that the world is warming out of control due to human actions is based on data that does not exist.
    OK then Dense. Let's try something different. What do you think caused climate change in the past before humans arrived?

    You don't even accept that the historic data is reliable (the same unreliable historic data which covered just bits of the Northern Hemisphere).
    ,Historic data is reliable, just less certain than modern measurements, it just has a wider uncertainty bar. Things can be reliable within known tolerances.
    Contempory data is just as unreliable because major corrections have to be made in order to squeeze the required one hundredths of a degree variations out of it to suit the UN narrative.
    Like all scientific knowledge, as we learn more we adjust our records to more accurately approximate the truth. By your logic modern maps are all a scam because they took the first cartographer drawings of Cook and Magellan and changed them over time.
    What is your real agenda here endlessly pushing renewables and grants for a transition to a carbon free economy and how many hundredths of a degree can we expect to see the global temperature being reduced by doing so?

    Also, are you a member of any radical environmental groups?

    My real agenda is not wanting my children to despise my generation for deliberately failing to prevent an unending procession of the worst environmental disasters our civilisation has ever seen before.

    Radical environmental groups? No, I'm just not so full of ignorance and hubris that I think I know better than essentially all the experts in every relevant field


  • Options
    #509
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,777 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Akrasia wrote: »
    My real agenda is not wanting my children to despise my generation for deliberately failing to prevent an unending procession of the worst environmental disasters our civilisation has ever seen before.

    Radical environmental groups? No, I'm just not so full of ignorance and hubris that I think I know better than essentially all the experts in every relevant field

    It's extraordinary this needs to be said


  • Options
    #510
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    It's extraordinary this needs to be said


    The poster's unbridled enthusiasm for the take up of renewable energy grants and the calls for government to more pro active in the area of funding them along with transitioning from fossil fuels and the constant talk of our need to reduce emissions sound very like the noises that would come from a member of Friends of the Earth or a flogger of "green energy", so there is nothing extraordinary to ask if that is the case.

    What is extraordinary in the context is their complete inability to explain what impact any of those measures will have on climate change along with the belief that their own emissions (and presumably those of all their similarly alarmed mates) are too small to matter and are of no consequence.

    But we'll gloss over these facts if it suits everyone.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #511
    BrokenArrows
    Registered Users Posts: 7,500 ✭✭✭BrokenArrows


    Creative83 wrote: »
    I could provide with a temperature guideline over the past 2,000 years I think... but it wouldn't fit your narrative so I wont do it

    So the OP thinks a temperature record over the last 2000 years will prove there is no climate change.

    Here is a record of the last 2000 years proving that there is climate change.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years#/media/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png


Advertisement