Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 51 to 99 of 99

Thread: Climate Change Watch

  1. #51

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Super Weston Mare
    Posts
    12,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctoroncall View Post
    Technology improvements.
    So definitely not the 200+MPH winds?

  2. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guided Missile View Post
    The BBC on the 14th January 2020:

    The BBC this morning:
    Too right! We are in Sydney for a few days and Sunday was unbelievable. Parts of Sydney had over 200mm of rain in 24 hours and this was on top of the previous few days of torrential downpours. Severe disruption on the railways and widespread flooding all along the East Coast.

    These prolonged rain storms are caused by an ‘East Coast Low’ and are not common events occurring every ten to fifteen years. But the widespread fires occur on a similar frequency. According to the authorities some 18% of them are caused by arson or suspicious activity.

    https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/t...ire/fire-facts

  3. #53

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Leslie Tiller was f**king murdered!
    Posts
    12,034

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctoroncall View Post
    Technology improvements.

    Love the straight line prediction on what looks like a cubic curve. The goodness of fit must be off the scale!
    The record was set by an aircraft which has been in service since the late 1980s.

  4. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
    The record was set by an aircraft which has been in service since the late 1980s.
    We also have a better knowledge of the jet streams today and can take more advantage of them.

  5. #55

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    West of Fareham
    Posts
    13,201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
    Without wanting to indulge GM and his fantasies, the jet stream does seem to be getting stronger and stronger. The record for a transatlantic NY-London flight has been broken multiple times over the last few years and yesterday several aircraft posted a sub 5 hour flight time.
    Could that be more due to the jet stream changing position because if climate change, creating more extreme winds in the usual flight path?

  6. #56

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Leslie Tiller was f**king murdered!
    Posts
    12,034

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Whitey Grandad View Post
    We also have a better knowledge of the jet streams today and can take more advantage of them.
    Quote Originally Posted by aintforever View Post
    Could that be more due to the jet stream changing position because if climate change, creating more extreme winds in the usual flight path?
    We've always known where the strongest wind were, roughly and the North Atlantic tracks are planned daily to take advantage of them. Westbound flights avoid it as much as possible, eastbound try and get right into the core of it. There are 5 oceanic paths published each day and flights are planned to best suit the winds for their route. If this kind of wind had been seen before, for such a widespread area of the North Atlantic, someone would have at least recorded a time close to the ones we saw yesterday.

    From what I've seen at least three aircraft beat last years record by nearly 20 minutes. A fourth aircraft into Gatwick was even faster than the one which made all the headlines but had to abandon it's approach and divert.

  7. #57

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Cusp of a wave
    Posts
    19,124

    Default

    I got back from New York in 5 hours 15 mins about 15 years ago. It was so exceptional then that when i told people about it no-one believed me.

  8. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buctootim View Post
    I got back from New York in 5 hours 15 mins about 15 years ago. It was so exceptional then that when i told people about it no-one believed me.
    I came back from Boston about 40 years ago in less than five hours. Then spent a further six hours in a hold over a Oxford, flying up to Prestwick to refuel and then flying down to Heathrow. Something about the fog.

    Will global warming mean less fogs?

  9. #59

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Cusp of a wave
    Posts
    19,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Whitey Grandad View Post
    I came back from Boston about 40 years ago in less than five hours. Then spent a further six hours in a hold over a Oxford, flying up to Prestwick to refuel and then flying down to Heathrow. Something about the fog.

    Will global warming mean less fogs?
    Boston is a bit closer than NYC though tbf. Fog is caused by cold air on warm ground isnt it?

  10. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buctootim View Post
    Boston is a bit closer than NYC though tbf. Fog is caused by cold air on warm ground isnt it?
    Yes, but not by much an yes, partly. Fog is due to moisture in the air as much as anything.

  11. #61

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Leslie Tiller was f**king murdered!
    Posts
    12,034

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Whitey Grandad View Post
    I came back from Boston about 40 years ago in less than five hours. Then spent a further six hours in a hold over a Oxford, flying up to Prestwick to refuel and then flying down to Heathrow. Something about the fog.

    Will global warming mean less fogs?
    Quote Originally Posted by buctootim View Post
    Boston is a bit closer than NYC though tbf. Fog is caused by cold air on warm ground isnt it?
    Opposite way around, warmer air over cooler ground. It forms in different ways but away from the coast it is usually radiation fog, which forms on long, cool nights with little cloud cover and a wind of 2-8 knots.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whitey Grandad View Post
    Yes, but not by much an yes, partly. Fog is due to moisture in the air as much as anything.
    It’s down to the gap between the temperature and dew point. When the air cools to equal the DP, then fog forms. I don’t think climate change will affect it as such.

  12. #62

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Gotham City
    Posts
    29,864


  13. #64

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    West of Fareham
    Posts
    13,201

    Default

    From a professor of philosophy, not climate science.

  14. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aintforever View Post
    From a professor of philosophy, not climate science.
    Professor is a job description and not a qualification anyway.

  15. #66

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Cusp of a wave
    Posts
    19,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aintforever View Post
    From a professor of philosophy, not climate science.
    Yeah but DePaul University is ranked 125th in the country, only slightly behind giants of academia like Gonzaga University in Spokane. Its natural their academics will be experts in everything.

  16. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheaf Saint View Post
    No, it was much lower. It was released at an average rate of 0.24 Gt per year over 50,000 years.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23646

    Currently we're emitting around 10 Gt per year and, surprise surprise, the rate of warming over the last 100 or so years is about ten times greater than at any point in the records from which your graph was based.
    I've seen this sort of stat about global warming published before, and I'm interested to know how anyone can possibly know this. After all, to say categorically that the temperature rise between 5 million BC and 4,999,900 BC was less than today, you need to know pretty exactly what the figures were for those two years. Where is the data?

  17. #68

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    After moving around Kent, Surrey and Sussex have now settled on the edge of Romney Marsh
    Posts
    14,141

    Default

    Don’t they find this stuff out through ice cores?

  18. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sadoldgit View Post
    Don’t they find this stuff out through ice cores?
    5 million year old ice cores? Silly old s0d...

  19. #70

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    After moving around Kent, Surrey and Sussex have now settled on the edge of Romney Marsh
    Posts
    14,141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guided Missile View Post
    5 million year old ice cores? Silly old s0d...
    Silly me. They only go back 2.7 million years. D’oh.

  20. Default

    It would be interesting to see if anybody on here can explain the levels of Co2 compared to temperature, seems there is no correlation between temperature and Co2 or none that explains recent warming

    https://medium.com/@gary_bernstein/h...e-d10d3c6c6d06

  21. #72

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    It's grim oop north
    Posts
    8,115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scally View Post
    It would be interesting to see if anybody on here can explain the levels of Co2 compared to temperature, seems there is no correlation between temperature and Co2 or none that explains recent warming

    https://medium.com/@gary_bernstein/h...e-d10d3c6c6d06
    Jeez Scally! Did you even bother to take one second to research who this guy is and what is agenda is?

    https://twitter.com/Gary_Bernstein

    Yeah, he's totally qualified to be contradicting the entire world's climate science community isn't he
    Last edited by Sheaf Saint; 12-03-2020 at 12:18 PM.

  22. #73

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    It's grim oop north
    Posts
    8,115

    Default

    And in response to your initial query if anyone can explain the levels of CO2 compared to temperature, start with this...

    https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691

    "We use a newly developed technique that is based on the information flow concept to investigate the causal structure between the global radiative forcing and the annual global mean surface temperature anomalies (GMTA) since 1850. Our study unambiguously shows one-way causality between the total Greenhouse Gases and GMTA. Specifically, it is confirmed that the former, especially CO2, are the main causal drivers of the recent warming."

    But yeah, let's just accept the word of a blockchain-selling Trump supporter instead.

  23. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheaf Saint View Post
    Jeez Scally! Did you even bother to take one second to research who this guy is and what is agenda is?

    https://twitter.com/Gary_Bernstein

    Yeah, he's totally qualified to be contradicting the entire world's climate science community isn't he
    Jeez Sheaf I don't care who that guy is, that graph is all over the net and doesn't show CO2 and temperature in the atmosphere being anywhere near in sinc.
    How about this https://climatism.blog/2020/03/07/46...inst-the-ipcc/ The IPCC is totally corrupt and continues to manipulate stats

  24. #75

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    West of Fareham
    Posts
    13,201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scally View Post
    that graph is all over the net
    Is that supposed to mean it’s correct?

  25. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aintforever View Post
    Is that supposed to mean it’s correct?
    No but it also doesn't mean it's incorrect

  26. Default

    Here's a video about your old mate Michael Mann Sheaf

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_8xd0LCeRQ&t=10s

  27. #78

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    West of Fareham
    Posts
    13,201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scally View Post
    No but it also doesn't mean it's incorrect
    So it means nothing then. Great post.

  28. #79

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Cusp of a wave
    Posts
    19,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scally View Post
    The IPCC is totally corrupt and continues to manipulate stats
    Hm. The IPCC is made up of members / delegates nominated by each of the 195 member countries. If they agree on anthropogenic climate change itís because either 1. All 195 countries are corrupt or 2. They agree on the science. I know which one Iím going for.

  29. #80

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    It's grim oop north
    Posts
    8,115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scally View Post
    Jeez Sheaf I don't care who that guy is, that graph is all over the net and doesn't show CO2 and temperature in the atmosphere being anywhere near in sinc.
    Well you really should care who he is, because being able to differentiate between credible sources and fraudulent ones is a crucial skill in science.

    Just because lots of people have shared that graph, you think that must make it valid? Do you actually have the slightest idea how moronic that logic is?

    What are your thoughts on the journal article I shared with you detailing an actual scientific study by actual climate scientists who categorically contradict what this crackpot bloke of yours says?

    Quote Originally Posted by scally View Post
    How about this https://climatism.blog/2020/03/07/46...inst-the-ipcc/ The IPCC is totally corrupt and continues to manipulate stats
    Interesting. I clicked on the link for the first quote for Dr Robert Balling (surprise surprise, he's heavily funded by the fossil fuel industry too. It's almost like there'e a recurring theme with these people!). The article that the link takes you to is this...

    https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo.../03/TAR-11.pdf

    And, lo and behold, the individual quote has - once again - been taken completely out of context. The whole section reads like this...

    "A common perception is that the rate of sea level rise should
    have accelerated during the latter half of the 20th century. The tide
    gauge data for the 20th century show no significant acceleration
    (e.g., Douglas, 1992). We have obtained estimates based on
    AOGCMs for the terms directly related to anthropogenic climate
    change in the 20th century, i.e., thermal expansion (Section
    11.2.1.2), ice sheets (Section 11.2.3.3), glaciers and ice caps
    (Section 11.5.1.1) (Figure 11.10a). The estimated rate of sea level
    rise from anthropogenic climate change ranges from 0.3 to
    0.8 mm/yr (Figure 11.10b). These terms do show an acceleration
    through the 20th century (Figure 11.10a,b). If the terrestrial
    storage terms have a negative sum (Section 11.2.5), they may
    offset some of the acceleration in recent decades. The total
    computed rise (Figure 11.10c) indicates an acceleration of only
    0.2 mm/yr/century, with a range from −1.1 to +0.7 mm/yr/century,
    consistent with observational finding of no acceleration in sea
    level rise during the 20th century (Section 11.3.2.2). The sum of
    terms not related to recent climate change is −1.1 to +0.9 mm/yr
    (i.e., excluding thermal expansion, glaciers and ice caps, and
    changes in the ice sheets due to 20th century climate change). This
    range is less than the observational lower bound of sea level rise.
    Hence it is very likely that these terms alone are an insufficient
    explanation, implying that 20th century climate change has made
    a contribution to 20th century sea level rise.
    "


    And from the executive summary of the report...

    "It is very likely that 20th century warming has contributed significantly
    to the observed sea level rise, through thermal expansion
    of sea water and widespread loss of land ice. "


    Seriously Scally, stop making such a fool of yourself by believing and repeating any old boll*cks you read online that just happens to fit with your own preconceptions.
    Last edited by Sheaf Saint; 13-03-2020 at 11:11 AM.

  30. #81

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    It's grim oop north
    Posts
    8,115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scally View Post
    Here's a video about your old mate Michael Mann Sheaf

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_8xd0LCeRQ&t=10s
    Yes, and it's just a repeat of all the same old nonsense you have previously shared which has been completely and utterly de-bunked time and time again.

    For the last f*cking time Scally, Michael Mann did not commit fraud, and the findings of his 1998 study have been repeatedly reproduced and supported, using the same raw data that has been available to the public for a very long time. The continued campaign against him is just out of desperation from those determined to protect the profitability of fossil fuels at any cost, and does not stand up to any actual facts.

  31. Default

    The science was settled back in 77 I guess

    https://youtu.be/zSDLRm3jhc8

  32. #83

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    It's grim oop north
    Posts
    8,115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scally View Post
    The science was settled back in 77 I guess

    https://youtu.be/zSDLRm3jhc8
    Well no, because there is no valid research underpinning this film at all. And our understanding of climate science has improved drastically since it was made.

    The USA had a particularly cold and severe winter in 1977, and someone made a film about what might happen to society if we were to experience another ice age. It's just pure speculation.

    Interestingly, the only bit of real science discussed in the film, by the guy talking about the sea cores and how the information they provide corresponds to the Milankovitch cycles, blatantly contradicts your whole argument. Under these astronomical cycles, which affect the shape of the earth's orbit and rotation, we should be heading into another ice age, but we're quite obviously not. The GMST is still rising year on year and record temperatures continue to be broken.

  33. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheaf Saint View Post
    Well no, because there is no valid research underpinning this film at all. And our understanding of climate science has improved drastically since it was made.

    The USA had a particularly cold and severe winter in 1977, and someone made a film about what might happen to society if we were to experience another ice age. It's just pure speculation.

    Interestingly, the only bit of real science discussed in the film, by the guy talking about the sea cores and how the information they provide corresponds to the Milankovitch cycles, blatantly contradicts your whole argument. Under these astronomical cycles, which affect the shape of the earth's orbit and rotation, we should be heading into another ice age, but we're quite obviously not. The GMST is still rising year on year and record temperatures continue to be broken.
    I'm 55 mate and I can tell you this film shows exactly what we were being told back in the day, you can't move the goalposts just because they don't suit. How do you know we won't be going into another ice age in the near future, what proof have you got to back u what you say? I'd love to know how you think we are going live with out fossil fuels, wind [take a drive through the Sierra Nevada's and you'll see how wind turbines destroy the look of the landscape] and solar panels just won't cut it, what do you suggest?

  34. #85

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    22 Acacia Avenue
    Posts
    12,545

    Default

    With the World in corona-lockdown the levels of atmospheric pollution being pumped out by road, rail, and air should decrease significantly.

  35. #86

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    22 Acacia Avenue
    Posts
    12,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scally View Post
    .....take a drive through the Sierra Nevada's and you'll see how wind turbines destroy the look of the landscape....
    Aesthetics trump environment ?

  36. #87

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    It's grim oop north
    Posts
    8,115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scally View Post
    I'm 55 mate and I can tell you this film shows exactly what we were being told back in the day
    So let me just make sure I'm understanding you correctly... You believe that just because what some climatologists were saying in the 1970s turned out to be wrong, they must therefore also be wrong now? Is that your contention?

    The full impact of greenhouse gases on global temperatures was not well understood up until that time. But, interestingly, the year of the extreme winter that your video was made in response to (1977) was the same year that Exxon became aware of it, and then proceeded to spend the next few decades spending $millions to cover it up:

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-40-years-ago/

    This was the beginning of the denialist movement that continues to this day, to which every single contributor you have so far linked to can be connected (usually financially) in some way.

    Then came the beginning of the research being carried out by people outside of the fossil fuel industry, which confirms everything they knew and predicted over 40 years ago. Since then, our understanding of the Earth's climate and energy balance etc... has continued to improve exponentially. The observed warming in the late 20th/early 21st century simply cannot be explained by natural radiative forcings. It is only when you input the effect of the sharp rise in atmospheric CO2 into the models that they correlate with the observational data.



    You may be 55 and 10 years my senior, but I have a BSc hons degree in environmental science, so believe me when I say I know a damn sight more about this subject than you do (or think you do).

    Quote Originally Posted by scally View Post
    How do you know we won't be going into another ice age in the near future, what proof have you got to back u what you say?
    It hardly seems worthwhile me presenting any evidence, because you will probably only ignore it like you have with everything else I have shared with you so far. But here goes...

    The current rate of warming negates the possibility of an ice age in the near future. Since that video was made, glaciers have shrunk, not expanded; Arctic sea ice has receded year on year, huge chunks of the Antarctic ice shelf have been lost. Only last year, there were unprecedented wildfires in the Arctic.


    Quote Originally Posted by scally View Post
    I'd love to know how you think we are going live with out fossil fuels, wind [take a drive through the Sierra Nevada's and you'll see how wind turbines destroy the look of the landscape] and solar panels just won't cut it, what do you suggest?
    At some point we will have to live without fossil fuels. By their very definition, they are not sustainable. So if we are going to have to come up with other ways of powering our energy-intensive economic activities, do you not think it would make perfect sense to start researching and introducing them as early as possible, rather than wait until the fossil fuels run out and we haven't got a means of replacing them?

    Wind farms, like solar farms, are obviously not a large-scale solution. Their power per square metre stats are not good, and they are not reliable enough to form a large part of the energy mix. They do have their place though, through micro-generation at a local level.

    Of course, the big hope is that nuclear fusion will finally be perfected in the near future, and will provide all the clean energy we will ever need. There has long been a running joke that this technology is always 30 years away, but there have been large strides taken in recent years towards making it viable. Until it is, we have to look at other ways. People don't like nuclear fission energy, mostly based on fear due to what happened in Chernobyl and, more recently, Fukushima. But modern plants have all kinds of fail-safes bulit in which negate the possibility of either of those scenarios happening again. They are not carbon-neutral, of course, and the costs of construction and decommissioning are astronomical, but they generate far less CO2e per KWh than coal or gas powered plants.

    We could, of course, just commit to using less energy overall and improving public transport. But unfortunately that's not compatible with the short-sightedness of neoliberal economics, which my studies showed me unequivocally is the root cause of pretty much all of the world's environmental and ecological problems.

  37. #88

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    It's grim oop north
    Posts
    8,115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by badgerx16 View Post
    With the World in corona-lockdown the levels of atmospheric pollution being pumped out by road, rail, and air should decrease significantly.
    Indeed. It's already been detected...

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/im...ets-over-china

  38. Default

    How about this then Sheaf, I know it's difficult but try playing the ball and not the man for a change

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8455KEDitpU

  39. Default

    I can't remember seeing this anywhere in the news either, doesn't fit does it

    https://electroverse.net/greenland-j...w-temperature/

  40. #91

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Cusp of a wave
    Posts
    19,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scally View Post
    I can't remember seeing this anywhere in the news either, doesn't fit does it

    https://electroverse.net/greenland-j...w-temperature/
    Measurements are taken at over 20,000 sites every day. Its not surprising or news if one site in one country records a record low on one day, especially a station which has only been there 30 years. What matters is the trend. Here is just a taste - as of March 13, 23 national monthly all-time heat records had been beaten or tied in 2020:

    January: Norway, South Korea, Angola, Congo Brazzaville, Dominica, Mexico, Indonesia, Guinea Bissau, Gambia, Sao Tome and Principe, Cuba
    February: Spain, Antarctica, Azerbaijan, Costa Rica, The Bahamas, Switzerland, Maldives, Gambia, Russia, Seychelles
    March: Paraguay, Cabo Verde

    No monthly national cold records have been beaten or tied in 2020.


    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...nth-on-record/
    Last edited by buctootim; 16-03-2020 at 04:31 PM.

  41. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buctootim View Post
    Measurements are taken at over 20,000 sites every day. Its not surprising or news if one site in one country records a record low on one day, especially a station which has only been there 30 years. What matters is the trend. Here is just a taste - as of March 13, 23 national monthly all-time heat records had been beaten or tied in 2020:

    January: Norway, South Korea, Angola, Congo Brazzaville, Dominica, Mexico, Indonesia, Guinea Bissau, Gambia, Sao Tome and Principe, Cuba
    February: Spain, Antarctica, Azerbaijan, Costa Rica, The Bahamas, Switzerland, Maldives, Gambia, Russia, Seychelles
    March: Paraguay, Cabo Verde

    No monthly national cold records have been beaten or tied in 2020.


    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...nth-on-record/
    Funny that they do report record highs though, this was all over the news like a rash

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/s...nt-stand-long/

  42. #93

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Cusp of a wave
    Posts
    19,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buctootim View Post
    No monthly national cold records have been beaten or tied in 2020.
    Quote Originally Posted by scally View Post
    Funny that they do report record highs though]
    Erm they report both. There have been 22 record national highs so far in 2020 and no national record lows.

  43. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buctootim View Post
    Erm they report both. There have been 22 record national highs so far in 2020 and no national record lows.
    The record high in Antarctica in February was all over the news, Greenland is a very sensitive area for climate change yet no report of record low at a time when the arctic is supposed to be warming

  44. #95

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    West of Fareham
    Posts
    13,201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scally View Post
    The record high in Antarctica in February was all over the news, Greenland is a very sensitive area for climate change yet no report of record low at a time when the arctic is supposed to be warming
    Wether something is in the news or not doesn’t change the science. For a clearer idea of what’s going on best read the science not newspapers. A single record in one place wether high or low doesn’t mean much by itself.

  45. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aintforever View Post
    Wether something is in the news or not doesn’t change the science. For a clearer idea of what’s going on best read the science not newspapers. A single record in one place wether high or low doesn’t mean much by itself.
    I don't read newspapers, my whole point about this is the fact that we do not get even close to a balanced argument reported by the media. There are plenty of scientists who believe that climate change is happening but is not the imminent disaster that we keep being told. In no other area of science would a scientist with a different view point be called a denier, the media have taken a side in this and demonise anyone who dares to have an alternative view, this is a hugely complex issue and I think we're a long way from understanding it

  46. #97

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    It's grim oop north
    Posts
    8,115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scally View Post
    How about this then Sheaf, I know it's difficult but try playing the ball and not the man for a change

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8455KEDitpU
    You're right. It is difficult.

    It's really difficult to NOT play the man when you're talking about such a notoriously dishonest pseudo-scientist as Tony Heller (or Steven Goddard, or whatever the hell his name actually is). He apparently has a degree in geology and has never published any peer reviewed work. Ergo, he's NOT a scientist, and he has been proven to be wrong on so many occasions, he's had more climbdowns than Fireman Sam. He has no credibility in climatology whatsoever.

    But anyway, let's play the ball here as you requested...

    So his main contention in this video is that climate scientists cherry pick datasets to make the warming appear worse than it actually is. And how does he go about 'proving' this? By cherry-picking his own data of course...

    The first graph he directs his ire towards is the one showing US heatwave intensity since 1960, and uses a set of graphs which show that it was higher in the years before this and thus the warming observed since then is misleading. However, these graphs only depict heatwaves on the US mainland (2% of the Earth's surface), and he deliberately doesn't mention the fact that the massive spike around the mid-30s, which then results in a downward trend-line through to 1960, was due to the infamous great Dust Bowl event. It's disingenuous to say the least, and it does not in any way contradict the observed rise in average global temperatures.

    Then he moves on to US wildfires, and complains that the graph only shows data from 1983, and to counter this he uses a graph depicting a completely different dataset - total acreage burned (i.e. - not just wildfires but all controlled fires as well). This is just straight out fraud, and I'm sorry to say you would have to be a total idiot not to spot this 'error'.

    Then he goes on about how NOAA hid the satellite data relating to Arctic sea ice extent from before 1979, he says deliberately to avoid showing an upward trend prior to that point. He contends that they had satellite data all the way back to the early 50s, but what he fails to mention is that earlier data was just photographs from which sea ice extent had to be estimated visually. From 1979 onwards, satellite data was gathered using passive microwave data, which made the measurements far more reliable. Lo and behold, the records since this change show a very clear downward trend.

    All of his arguments could, on the face of it, appear very convincing... if you've already made up your mind that you believe his side of the argument and are willing to ignore a huge wealth of credible evidence to the contrary.

    Keep 'em coming Scally.
    Last edited by Sheaf Saint; 16-03-2020 at 10:40 PM.

  47. #98

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    It's grim oop north
    Posts
    8,115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scally View Post
    I can't remember seeing this anywhere in the news either, doesn't fit does it

    https://electroverse.net/greenland-j...w-temperature/
    What exactly is it you think this proves?

  48. #99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scally View Post
    I don't read newspapers, my whole point about this is the fact that we do not get even close to a balanced argument reported by the media. There are plenty of scientists who believe that climate change is happening but is not the imminent disaster that we keep being told. In no other area of science would a scientist with a different view point be called a denier, the media have taken a side in this and demonise anyone who dares to have an alternative view, this is a hugely complex issue and I think we're a long way from understanding it
    #flatearthsociety

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •