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…2728303233…44

Comments

  • Options
    #872
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,047 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #873
    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...


  • Options
    #874
    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.


  • Options
    #875
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,243 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #876
    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #877
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,243 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #878
    Alf Veedersane
    Registered Users Posts: 24,560 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


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

    Jesus wept.


  • Options
    #879
    xckjoo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,349 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #880
    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.


  • Options
    #881
    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. :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #882
    xckjoo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,349 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    I worry about certain posters mental state :(


  • Options
    #883
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


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


    Me too.


  • Options
    #884
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,243 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #885
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,243 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #886
    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.


  • Options
    #887
    JJayoo
    Registered Users Posts: 6,561 ✭✭✭JJayoo


    My farts are melting the ice caps


  • Options
    #888
    Alf Veedersane
    Registered Users Posts: 24,560 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    dense wrote: »
    Links please.

    The irony.


  • Options
    #889
    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


  • Options
    #890
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,243 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #891
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,243 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #892
    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


  • Options
    #893
    xckjoo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,349 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #894
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,243 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #895
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    xckjoo wrote: »
    Is it not super obvious that an average has little meaning in global terms like this?

    "The earth's average temperature now means little in terms of global warming"?

    That's certainly a super interesting angle to promote xckjoo, but I don't think it'll get much traction from the luvvies who are screaming about a broken climate and keeping the average global temperature below something something using the big C02 control knob and who are intent on returning civilisation back to the 19th century due to a global lack of reliable alternative energy, do you?

    I do see where you're coming from in the sense that the alleged change in the earth's average temperature is pretty much non existent outside of anamolies to arbitrarily chosen baselines, as are the alleged catastrophes that were supposed to have accompanied it.


    Perhaps you could tone the message down a bit?


    How about saying "talking about the global average temperature is as silly as talking about the global average telephone number"?


    I think that's been used already though;)


  • Options
    #896
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,243 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    "The earth's average temperature now means little in terms of global warming"?

    That's certainly a super interesting angle to promote xckjoo, but I don't think it'll get much traction from the luvvies who are screaming about a broken climate and keeping the average global temperature below something something using the big C02 control knob and who are intent on returning civilisation back to the 19th century due to a global lack of reliable alternative energy, do you?

    I do see where you're coming from in the sense that the alleged change in the earth's average temperature is pretty much non existent outside of anamolies to arbitrarily chosen baselines, as are the alleged catastrophes that were supposed to have accompanied it.


    Perhaps you could tone the message down a bit?


    How about saying "talking about the global average temperature is as silly as talking about the global average telephone number"?


    I think that's been used already though;)

    The global average temperature certainly is increasing due to climate change. The confusion is that global average temperature is difficult to pin down to a particular number because of all the variables I mentioned before so it's rarely used.

    Satellite measurements can estimate global average temperatures based on inferences and can give accurate results but those results are specific to the particular atmospheric conditions that are being measured, or whether they're measuring surface temperature or ocean temperature. In order to average out these measurements and decide on their weightings to determine what the true average global temperature is, this requires arbitrary judgement calls that mean you can have a range of values that are all equally accurate depending on where you are starting your measurements from.

    Science is about isolating variables from the background noise, and using temperature anomalies rather than absolute values does this very well.


  • Options
    #897
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,243 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    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.






    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
    Just because you're sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting LALALA doesn't mean I didn't already fully answer your questions. It's transparent what you're doing dense.


  • Options
    #898
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    The global average temperature certainly is increasing due to climate change. The confusion is that global average temperature is difficult to pin down to a particular number because of all the variables I mentioned before so it's rarely used.

    Satellite measurements can estimate global average temperatures based on inferences and can give accurate results based but those results are specific to the exact atmospheric conditions that are being measured, or whether they're measuring surface temperature or ocean temperature. In order to average out these measurements and decide on their weightings to determine what the true average global temperature is, this requires arbitrary judgement calls that mean you can have a range of values that are all equally accurate depending on where you are starting your measurements from.

    Science is about isolating variables from the background noise, and using temperature anomalies rather than absolute values does this very well.


    Let's get something clear here.

    Junk science involves using statistical noise from anomalies in place of absolute temperatures because the average global temperature concept no longer tallies with the alarmist predictions due to a distinct lack of warming predicted by modeling and the inability to distinguish between natural and human influence on such a tiny and now disputed increase.

    Basing global decarbonisation policies on statistical noise and non existent error margins needs to be balanced against the unprecedented effect of urgently restricting energy usage by society.

    It has no public mandate and is only a idea that is held by environmentalists bent on returning the planet to nature.

    Try it and see what will happen.

    Let them try it in London next week, to appease the uneducated loons who are protesting about government policy being responsible for a "broken climate".


    Let energy consumed by fossil fuels be banned in London for a week and we'll see how it works out.

    Then try it in Paris.

    Rapidly switch the energy that modern civilisation consumes to expensive and unreliable alternative energy sources and you will get the economic chaos and breakdown in society you crave.

    There will be no other outcome and according to the settled science it will take centuries for the alleged warming and climate change already locked in to stabilise.

    This UN led social experiment, based on questionable science and non existent data, with it's stated function of radically transforming the global economic system is highly dangerous and irresponsible and must be rejected at every opportunity for the good of society and to enable it to continue to prosper.


  • Options
    #899
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Just because you're sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting LALALA doesn't mean I didn't already fully answer your questions. It's transparent what you're doing dense.


    Your answer, which has only now appeared, shows that you reckon Ireland is responsible for a whopping 0.1% of the alleged global warming that's occurred since 1998, what's that, 0.1% of an upwardly adjusted 0.2 of a degree, plus or minus the error margins of +- .2 of a degree.


  • Options
    #900
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,421 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Whether one believes in man made climate change or not. Believing that politicians can control climate through taxation is unbelievable.

    Climate has become an unbeatable enemy which requires huge extra resources to fight. Those resources come courtesy of citizens and taxpayers.

    Obviously it is good policy to use scarce resources wisely and to use technology to improve efficiencies.

    However politicians sincerely pledging that x action will have y result when it comes to climate is contemptible.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #901
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    SafeSurfer wrote: »

    However politicians sincerely pledging that x action will have y result when it comes to climate is contemptible.


    In truth there are very few politicians pledging anything and that is why the extreme environmentalists are worked up about.



    No one is listening to them.
    Off-gridders will vote for someone who's policies advocate rationing electricity or petrol or diesel, normal people won't.



    It needs to be explained that Leo's talk of multiplying carbon taxes is the same thing dressed up in sheep's clothing.



    Politicians don't want to deal with tye consequences off switching off the world's power off and nobody wants that bar a few fanatics protesting.



    On the radio today a professor from UCG spoke about how our economy drives emissions, the subtext being that austerity and recession are unavoidable and necessary if emissions are drastically and rapidly cut.

    Let's have a proper No Emissions day and we'll see how it goes.



    None of that silly thing where we turn off a light for an hour once a year as a symbol of something, let's do it properly, no electricity, no transport across the board with no exceptions.


    If it works out well we could do it once a month.


    There'll be opportunities for the Gardai (aided by UN officials) to arrest motorists using their own vehicles for private use on prohibited days.



    That is the kind of state that is dreamt of by those pushing the "global solution".


Advertisement