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

Akrasia wrote: »

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

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

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

Global Historical Climate Network Daily - Description
Introduction

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

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

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

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

Wow, they certainly are impressive stats.


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


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

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

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





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



Again,

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

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



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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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


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

gabeeg wrote: »

There was no procedure beyond empathy.

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

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

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

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

It is there for anyone to read.

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

-I have provided links earlier in thread.

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

Post reported, for inciting other posters to be uncivil and impolite towards me.

Akrasia wrote: »

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

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

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

NASA Detects Drop in Global Fires


https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/nasa-detects-drop-in-global-fires

Humans have, and always have had, a major impact on wildfire activity, which is expected to increase in our warming world.

Andela et al. use satellite data to show that, unexpectedly, global burned area declined by ∼25% over the past 18 years, despite the influence of climate. The decrease has been largest in savannas and grasslands because of agricultural expansion and intensification. The decline of burned area has consequences for predictions of future changes to the atmosphere, vegetation, and the terrestrial carbon sink.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6345/1356

What would make you happier:

A human-driven decline increase in global burned area?

It would certainly suit the whole "human fingerprint" panic narrative better.

However:

Wildfire has been an important process affecting the Earth's surface and atmosphere for over 350 million years and human societies have coexisted with fire since their emergence.

Yet many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity and resulting losses.

However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends. Instead, global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago. Regarding fire severity, limited data are available.

For the western USA, they indicate little change overall, and also that area burned at high severity has overall declined compared to pre-European settlement. Direct fatalities from fire and economic losses also show no clear trends over the past three decades. Trends in indirect impacts, such as health problems from smoke or disruption to social functioning, remain insufficiently quantified to be examined.

Global predictions for increased fire under a warming climate highlight the already urgent need for a more sustainable coexistence with fire. The data evaluation presented here aims to contribute to this by reducing misconceptions and facilitating a more informed understanding of the realities of global fire.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4874420/

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

That’s one poster in particular who thinks that AGW is a “religion”.

It certainly has all the hallmarks.

Religious leaders unite in support of climate action, special summit planned for Climate Week NYC

https://www.theclimategroup.org/news/religious-leaders-unite-support-climate-action-special-summit-planned-climate-week-nyc

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/may/27/cults-definition-religion

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Atomic clocks, religious climate conferences.. Jesus, what is the world coming to? For me the real worry is how stupid the human race has become spouting nonsense like that. That's the threat, not the 1-4 degrees.

The atomic clock is not terribly scientific but it’s probably true that we are closer to a nuclear war now than we have been for a while. And the world barely survived the Cold War.

As for religious groupings protesting climate change, they are part of civic society. Why wouldn’t they? Protests in New York are worse than a 4 degree temperature rise. Really?

Although you present yourself as rational on the issue, and say you believe in AGW, and believe we should decarbonise you tend to quote approvingly the posts of someone who thinks it all a giant anti capitalist conspiracy to defraud the west.

Danno wrote: »

Both of these bags went into my stove over the past two weeks.
Can anyone tell me, by what magic sauce, how the bag on the right managed to release less emissions?

I guess the one on the right should be smokeless?
If not its programmed to behave differently to the other one.

So much for being inventivized to making the switch to a low carbon economy.

Of course, that is the "premium" price that the peddlers of green products enjoy, in a country whose alleged contribution to climate change/global warming can't even be quantified by those making the allegation.