Post by: championoftruth on 04/10/2022 16:36:55
Even in a small, closed system with lots of circulation and control who's INTENT is to homogenize it (like a room with AC), there are gradients and fluctuations over time, up to several degrees, across that space (even when a space is "satisfied" and no active heating or cooling is going on).
So your reading of "the temperature" is a single point of data is just that (which is also why location of your thermostat is critical to proper operation of the system).
Knowing this, I have always been extremely skeptical of any measurement of "the temperature" of the Earth's atmosphere or land seas or land. It's totally fake.
You cannot convince me that thousands of temperature sensors across the globe represent reality in any scientifically meaningful way:
1. Calibration is SO critical and something that can be done wrong very easy. Standards have changed and you are talking about countless ones done by countless entities that probably have NO true verification method other than their certificates that mean bunk. MAYBE if all sensors went through the same place with the same standard we might mitigate some variables there but they do not.
2. These sensors have varied in location AND quantity of the years of record. If one can't see the obvious problems with this alone...
3. Not enough data points. The average space between sensors is impossibly big. Way too much unmeasured data in between.
Temp gradient and changes can be wildly different between points which simply means you fail to capture the full picture of what is going on, regardless of any math models are used to "fix" that problem (estimations).By different people/teams.
These problems are sufficient, imo, to cause error in the data sets greater than the numbers we are concerned with (global temp changes of a few degrees).
Also most sensors are in the west with the Pacific largely bereft and don't give me satellite measurements which are fake .
How can you tell the temperature at 400 meters and 800 meters and 1600 meters or any value at height X if your looking from above or even sideways?
It's more like corrupt Scientists driven by political agendas waving magic wands of theories and man made math to attempt to have certainty where no certainty is possible (right now).
Perhaps in the future they will, but right now the data set is a highly curated set of garbage (a polished turd).
Also Earth is a very dynamic Three Dimensional object 8000 miles across and anyone claiming to measure the temperature is a liar or delusional.
3D-Remember.
Post by: Kryptid on 04/10/2022 16:39:54
and don't give me satellite measurements which are fake .
Is that another conspiracy theory?
It's more like corrupt Scientists driven by political agendas
Seems unlikely that climate scientists worldwide would all have the same political agenda.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/10/2022 18:05:08
As someone with a Physics degree who works in commercial HVAC control, temperature is NOT a simple thing to measure ACCURATELY. Besides the usual things like calibration of your sensors (and what method they use that can affect their accuracy across ranges of temperatures), temperature is not a static/homogeneous thing.You just used a lot of words to say "The people who measure temperature are cleverer than I am- that's why they can do it but I couldn't".
Even in a small, closed system with lots of circulation and control who's INTENT is to homogenize it (like a room with AC), there are gradients and fluctuations over time, up to several degrees, across that space (even when a space is "satisfied" and no active heating or cooling is going on).
So your reading of "the temperature" is a single point of data is just that (which is also why location of your thermostat is critical to proper operation of the system).
Knowing this, I have always been extremely skeptical of any measurement of "the temperature" of the Earth's atmosphere or land seas or land. It's totally fake.
You cannot convince me that thousands of temperature sensors across the globe represent reality in any scientifically meaningful way:
1. Calibration is SO critical and something that can be done wrong very easy. Standards have changed and you are talking about countless ones done by countless entities that probably have NO true verification method other than their certificates that mean bunk. MAYBE if all sensors went through the same place with the same standard we might mitigate some variables there but they do not.
2. These sensors have varied in location AND quantity of the years of record. If one can't see the obvious problems with this alone...
3. Not enough data points. The average space between sensors is impossibly big. Way too much unmeasured data in between.
Temp gradient and changes can be wildly different between points which simply means you fail to capture the full picture of what is going on, regardless of any math models are used to "fix" that problem (estimations).By different people/teams.
These problems are sufficient, imo, to cause error in the data sets greater than the numbers we are concerned with (global temp changes of a few degrees).
Also most sensors are in the west with the Pacific largely bereft and don't give me satellite measurements which are fake .
How can you tell the temperature at 400 meters and 800 meters and 1600 meters or any value at height X if your looking from above or even sideways?
It's more like corrupt Scientists driven by political agendas waving magic wands of theories and man made math to attempt to have certainty where no certainty is possible (right now).
Perhaps in the future they will, but right now the data set is a highly curated set of garbage (a polished turd).
Also Earth is a very dynamic Three Dimensional object 8000 miles across and anyone claiming to measure the temperature is a liar or delusional.
3D-Remember.
Post by: wolfekeeper on 04/10/2022 23:45:01
1) CO2 has gone above 400 ppm in the first time in the whole of human history and this has been traced to being caused by fossil fuels being burnt
2) we've had 8 of the 10 hottest years in recorded history in the last ten years. That cannot happen by chance.
3) California and Australia were both on fire.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that when climate change is significant enough that even meteorologists can easily see it in their data, that it's very, very, very real.
Post by: evan_au on 05/10/2022 09:15:54
That's why meteorologists have a standardised set of measurement equipment and configuration that measure the weather at many points around the globe. These have known inaccuracies - but by averaging over a decade or more, you can detect changed in the climate which are less than the daily temperature variation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevenson_screen
Quote from:
How can you tell the temperature at 400 meters and 800 meters and 1600 metersTraditionally, this was done with weather balloons (often launched from airports), carrying instruments to measure temperature, pressure and altitude.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_sounding
Now, satellites can look from space through the atmosphere.
- By taking measurements from many different angles, they can reconstruct the atmospheric temperature profile in 3 dimensions
- This is basically the same technique used to create CAT scans - are you saying CAT scans are fake, too?
- With ongoing weather balloon measurements at known locations and times providing the "ground truth" to calibrate the satellite measurements
Quote
So your reading of "the temperature" is a single point of dataI listened to an interview with supercomputing people from the European weather forecasting office.
- They continuously take in data from many different sources, on different grid scales and levels of accuracy.
- They spend about 60% of their supercomputer power aligning this flood of data, to determine exactly what the weather is now, before they even start extrapolating to a 2-week weather forecast.
- They end up with a three-dimensional grid of temperature across Europe, on something like a 10km horizontal grid (and finer vertical grid) with known accuracy.
- Any errors in the measurement result in rapid divergence of the actual weather from the predicted weather.
- They continually analyse the predictive accuracy of their models, refining their measurement alignment and prediction algorithms. This process identifies any measurement devices which are out of specification.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/10/2022 17:41:08
Seems unlikely that climate scientists worldwide would all have the same political agenda.Have you ever met one with a different agenda? Hen's teeth come to mind.
Post by: championoftruth on 05/10/2022 17:59:04
I agree that measuring temperature is not easy.
That's why meteorologists have a standardised set of measurement equipment and configuration that measure the weather at many points around the globe. These have known inaccuracies - but by averaging over a decade or more, you can detect changed in the climate which are less than the daily temperature variation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevenson_screenQuote from:How can you tell the temperature at 400 meters and 800 meters and 1600 metersTraditionally, this was done with weather balloons (often launched from airports), carrying instruments to measure temperature, pressure and altitude.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_sounding
Now, satellites can look from space through the atmosphere.
- By taking measurements from many different angles, they can reconstruct the atmospheric temperature profile in 3 dimensions
- This is basically the same technique used to create CAT scans - are you saying CAT scans are fake, too?
- With ongoing weather balloon measurements at known locations and times providing the "ground truth" to calibrate the satellite measurementsQuoteSo your reading of "the temperature" is a single point of dataI listened to an interview with supercomputing people from the European weather forecasting office.
- They continuously take in data from many different sources, on different grid scales and levels of accuracy.
- They spend about 60% of their supercomputer power aligning this flood of data, to determine exactly what the weather is now, before they even start extrapolating to a 2-week weather forecast.
- They end up with a three-dimensional grid of temperature across Europe, on something like a 10km horizontal grid (and finer vertical grid) with known accuracy.
- Any errors in the measurement result in rapid divergence of the actual weather from the predicted weather.
- They continually analyse the predictive accuracy of their models, refining their measurement alignment and prediction algorithms. This process identifies any measurement devices which are out of specification.
i had no idea a persons head is a big as a planet for a cat scan.
even in a person the temperature varies from point to point.
your 3 d grid 10 km apart is useless as you can get rain hail sunshine storm in that 10 km grid and not predicted hence or taken into account
super computers dont prove anything. heard the saying garbage in garbage out?
the eastern side of the planet is very poorly measured due to low land mass and your so called satellites readings are untrustworthy due to processing by different people using different methods.
the readings are lop sided.
the so called alarmist changes have a name. its called WEATHER !
Oh look floods in Bangladesh...its climate change due to green house gases...no its happens every years. its called weather.
Also climate change researchers have admitted to fraud and making stuff by their own admission due to politics, bribery err i mean donations, economics, ideology and $cience.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/10/2022 18:09:21
From 1970 we have had increasingly credible satellite measurements, with just one or two mitigating factors: "corrections" are published from time to time, and always mysteriously tending to confirm the hypothesis of increasing global mean temperature.
Any estimate of global mean temperature before 1911 is suspect as nobody had actually reached the poles or made any reliable measurements above about 85 deg latitude, and I am unaware of any useful measurements of the average surface temperature of the Pacific ocean before 1970.
So a degree of scepticism is warranted in this area. There is a lot of data but the data points are not necessarily comparable.
Some things are indubitably true.
The annual average temperature in the UK and Hawaii has indeed increased fairly steadily throughout the last 75 years.
The average concentration of carbon dioxide, pretty well wherever it is measured, has also increased.
According to ice core data, the correlation between global temperature and carbon dioxide concentration has been fairly consistent for at least the last 500,000 years
The natural cycle (you can't blame humans for anything that happened more than 50,000 years ago!) is about 100,000 years and due for a rapid (12 degrees in about 2000 years) increase peaking about now, followed some time in the next 200 - 500 years by a slow decline of about 12 degrees in 100,000 years.
Retreating glaciers tell us that it was warmer 500 years ago than now.
So much for observation. The difficulty is trying to explain it all whilst retaining any degree of scientific credibility.
Post by: Origin on 05/10/2022 18:10:40
Have you ever met one with a different agenda?Maybe it's not an agenda, maybe the scientists are going off of data. It seems odd to me that a moderator on a science site would think that essentially all the scientists in a field are lying. The other obvious possibility is that you have an agenda.
Post by: Origin on 05/10/2022 18:14:19
even in a person the temperature varies from point to pointYou have an opinion that is counter to the opinion of the experts in the field. Your amateur opinion can safely be ignored.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/10/2022 18:14:32
I listened to an interview with supercomputing people from the European weather forecasting office.Within living memory I retrieved a fellow glider pilot who had completely misread the weather and fallen down in a soggy field instead of cruising around southern England in bright sunshine. During the traditional pub supper awarded to retrieve crews, I said "Aren't you a director of the European Weather Centre?" "Yes" came the reply "the finance director".
Post by: alancalverd on 05/10/2022 18:16:58
You have an opinion that is counter to the opinion of the experts in the field. Your amateur opinion can safely be ignored.Delete "safely".
It will certainly be ignored by those whose careers depend on proclaiming it wrong, but the fate of the human species is more important than that.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/10/2022 18:22:42
The other obvious possibility is that you have an agenda.No, I've just never met a climate scientist who could explain the data without losing his/her temper and calling me a denier, as if questioning a dodgy hypothesis was somehow a sin against papal authority. It's quite a normal response to a scientific question, as is yours.
Post by: championoftruth on 05/10/2022 18:59:22
even in a person the temperature varies from point to pointYou have an opinion that is counter to the opinion of the experts in the field. Your amateur opinion can safely be ignored.
i can get an expert and as long as i pay his salary he will bark exactly as i order him to.
rent a experts are dime a dozen as the last 3 years have shown.
Post by: championoftruth on 05/10/2022 19:03:13
The other obvious possibility is that you have an agenda.No, I've just never met a climate scientist who could explain the data without losing his/her temper and calling me a denier, as if questioning a dodgy hypothesis was somehow a sin against papal authority. It's quite a normal response to a scientific question, as is yours.
Climate change fanatics. Their Messiah is the ventriloquists dummy... Greata Thighburg.
She and her fanatics refuses to go to China/India/SE Asia which are biggest polluters.
Post by: paul cotter on 05/10/2022 19:25:16
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/10/2022 19:42:52
Post by: Petrochemicals on 05/10/2022 20:18:36
Look:But the op is whether these readings can be trusted, not what are the readings. In the case of temperature this one can, as it accepts that the margin of error is wide. [ Invalid Attachment ]
1) CO2 has gone above 400 ppm in the first time in the whole of human history and this has been traced to being caused by fossil fuels being burnt
2) we've had 8 of the 10 hottest years in recorded history in the last ten years. That cannot happen by chance.
3) California and Australia were both on fire.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that when climate change is significant enough that even meteorologists can easily see it in their data, that it's very, very, very real.
I my opinion yes they can be trusted, the planet is warming, in the 12th century rivers where freezing over during the winter, during the 1600 they where still freezing over, dickens wrote about the tail end of this cool period.
Conversely people will argue that the little ice age was localised, but in that case I disagree, you cannot have part of a system that is cooling whilst still claiming the same temperature for the whole.
It would be very easy to argue that this warming period is anommolous. But the trend is that we are getting warmer over the last 10000years, if we were not I would be very very very concerned as temperatures rise slowly but drop very fast.
Post by: championoftruth on 05/10/2022 20:39:43
I find the remark about "rent an expert" offensive. Not everyone can be bought, by a long shot. I consider myself relatively expert in lv and mv grid protection systems having worked in this area for 20 years up to my recent retirement, though others may disagree. I will not be bought short of someone putting a gun to my head, for any amount. I do not claim to be a particularly virtuous person, just a person with integrity, along with many shortcomings.
You have this integrity but if were told say this and do that or you fired or twitter de platformed what would you do?
The last 3 years have demonstrated how money makes liars of people. Why has phizer have a thousand lobbyists in Washinton and dishing out election 'donations'?
Post by: championoftruth on 05/10/2022 20:41:09
The really stupid part of the idea that scientists can be "bought" is how badly paid most of us are.
Exactly and because you are badly paid you are easier to use and abuse and manipulate into saying what the paymasters want you to say.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/10/2022 20:45:37
But... if we were being paid to corrupt the results, like you suggest, we would no longer be being badly paid, would we.The really stupid part of the idea that scientists can be "bought" is how badly paid most of us are.
Exactly and because you are badly paid you are easier to use and abuse and manipulate into saying what the paymasters want you to say.
And, since we are badly paid, it follows that we are not being bribed.
This isn't meant to be difficult.
Post by: championoftruth on 05/10/2022 20:48:32
Look:But the op is whether these readings can be trusted, not what are the readings. In the case of temperature this one can, as it accepts that the margin of error is wide.
1) CO2 has gone above 400 ppm in the first time in the whole of human history and this has been traced to being caused by fossil fuels being burnt
2) we've had 8 of the 10 hottest years in recorded history in the last ten years. That cannot happen by chance.
3) California and Australia were both on fire.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that when climate change is significant enough that even meteorologists can easily see it in their data, that it's very, very, very real.2000_years_with_error_v2.png (94.78 kB . 800x600 - viewed 3390 times)
I my opinion yes they can be trusted, the planet is warming, in the 12th century rivers where freezing over during the winter, during the 1600 they where still freezing over, dickens wrote about the tail end of this cool period.
Conversely people will argue that the little ice age was localised, but in that case I disagree, you cannot have part of a system that is cooling whilst still claiming the same temperature for the whole.
It would be very easy to argue that this warming period is anommolous. But the trend is that we are getting warmer over the last 10000years, if we were not I would be very very very concerned as temperatures rise slowly but drop very fast.
Why did you limit your graph to 600? why not before Because?
Also by selecting the 'right' time period start and end points you can spread your political agenda as much as you like.
look the graph line is going down we are into a ice age and its going up we are into global warming.
temperatures go up and down all the time and the temperatures measurements are untrustworthy and unreliable and climategate 5000 leaked emails proved it when they admitted to lying and shutting down any attempt to question the data by smearing them.
Anyone remember Climategate?
Post by: Kryptid on 05/10/2022 20:49:19
Have you ever met one with a different agenda? Hen's teeth come to mind.
I'd be awfully surprised if all climate scientists from all countries worldwide had the exact same political opinions.
i can get an expert and as long as i pay his salary he will bark exactly as i order him to.
Climate scientists aren't all paid by a single individual. So if what you are saying was true, you'd expect there to be a lot of disagreement among them as they are all paid by different people who (presumably) would have different agendas.
That is, of course, unless one were to invoke a conspiracy theory where all of these scientists are actually being paid by some world-wide secret organization with tentacles invading the developed world...
Quote
Exactly and because you are badly paid you are easier to use and abuse and manipulate into saying what the paymasters want you to say.
If that was really true, then we might as well say that science can't be trusted and we should throw away all of our textbooks because they were written by people who could be bought. No more periodic table, no more rocket ships, no more medicine, etc.
Post by: championoftruth on 05/10/2022 20:51:51
But... if we were being paid to corrupt the results, like you suggest, we would no longer be being badly paid, would we.The really stupid part of the idea that scientists can be "bought" is how badly paid most of us are.
Exactly and because you are badly paid you are easier to use and abuse and manipulate into saying what the paymasters want you to say.
And, since we are badly paid, it follows that we are not being bribed.
This isn't meant to be difficult.
Well you are not going to be paid in traceable and taxable money are you? It in the form of delayed incentives.
when you leave your job come 'work' for us as a 'consultant' for a few hours a week and we pay you a cushy pension and 500k etc. Or move to the Bahamas...is how corruption works
Post by: championoftruth on 05/10/2022 20:55:20
Have you ever met one with a different agenda? Hen's teeth come to mind.
I'd be awfully surprised if all climate scientists from all countries worldwide had the exact same political opinions.i can get an expert and as long as i pay his salary he will bark exactly as i order him to.
Climate scientists aren't all paid by a single individual. So if what you are saying was true, you'd expect there to be a lot of disagreement among them as they are all paid by different people who (presumably) would have different agendas.
That is, of course, unless one were to invoke a conspiracy theory where all of these scientists are actually being paid by some world-wide secret organization with tentacles invading the developed world...QuoteExactly and because you are badly paid you are easier to use and abuse and manipulate into saying what the paymasters want you to say.
If that was really true, then we might as well say that science can't be trusted and we should throw away all of our textbooks because they were written by people who could be bought. No more periodic table, no more rocket ships, no more medicine, etc.
You seem to have forgotten WEF GAVI GATES and the Melinda and Gates foundation. They have their tentacles everywhere thru front and 'non profit' organizations and thru 'donations' of multibillions.
It been all traced.
Post by: Kryptid on 05/10/2022 20:56:20
You seem to have forgotten WEF GAVI GATES and the Melinda and Gates foundation.
I can't forget evidence that I was never shown. So how about showing it to me?
Post by: paul cotter on 05/10/2022 20:57:49
Post by: championoftruth on 05/10/2022 21:05:43
You seem to have forgotten WEF GAVI GATES and the Melinda and Gates foundation.
I can't forget evidence that I was never shown. So how about showing it to me?
No problem. This is publicly recorded and verifiable information.
you need to study it first.
cant attach it as 19mb.
limit is 2.5mb
Post by: Kryptid on 05/10/2022 21:07:07
No problem. This is publicly recorded and verifiable information.
you need to study it first.
cant attach it as 19mb.
limit is 2.5mb
Can you find it in link form?
More importantly, does it contain the requested evidence that those organizations are in charge of paying all the world's climate scientists?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 05/10/2022 21:11:03
you are not reading this at all are you?
Why did you limit your graph to 600? why not before Because?
Also by selecting the 'right' time period start and end points you can spread your political agenda as much as you like.
look the graph line is going down we are into a ice age and its going up we are into global warming.
1st, it's not my graph
2nd the dark shows the margin of error
3rd it shows the temperature could be as high as present in the recent past
4th political agenda? The earth has warmed in 10000 years, undeniable.
5th I was answering YOUR opening post on data quality,not on the nuances of climate variability.
I notice the attempt at an insult, but you insulted me more by not paying attention to the post and reeling of a hairspring reply. I will not bother in future.
Post by: paul cotter on 05/10/2022 21:14:08
Post by: championoftruth on 05/10/2022 21:19:14
You seem to have forgotten WEF GAVI GATES and the Melinda and Gates foundation.
I can't forget evidence that I was never shown. So how about showing it to me?
Here it is. i had to split the 169 page to just a few as 19meg pdf
Post by: Kryptid on 05/10/2022 21:24:26
Here it is. i had to split the 169 page to just a few as 19meg pdf
You're aware that someone giving grants to organizations is not the same thing as forcing those organizations to secretly falsify information in accordance with some sinister plan, right? I want evidence for the latter, not the former.
Okay, so I'm looking at the timeline here and things are not adding up for this conspiracy theory. It seems that evidence for climate change was starting to be observed as far back as the 1950's. In 1988, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up. So the evidence must have been pretty good for climate change even so long ago.
Now I take a look at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and it was started in 2000. Same thing for the Global Alliance of Vaccines and Immunization. The first conference of the World Education Forum was also held in that same year. So donations from those organizations could not have plausibly been responsible for faking the evidence for climate change that led to the formation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Post by: championoftruth on 05/10/2022 22:17:42
Here it is. i had to split the 169 page to just a few as 19meg pdf
You're aware that someone giving grants to organizations is not the same thing as forcing those organizations to secretly falsify information in accordance with some sinister plan, right? I want evidence for the latter, not the former.
Okay, so I'm looking at the timeline here and things are not adding up for this conspiracy theory. It seems that evidence for climate change was starting to be observed as far back as the 1950's. In 1988, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up. So the evidence must have been pretty good for climate change even so long ago.
Now I take a look at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and it was started in 2000. Same thing for the Global Alliance of Vaccines and Immunization. The first conference of the World Education Forum was also held in that same year. So donations from those organizations could not have plausibly been responsible for faking the evidence for climate change that led to the formation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
You dont get those 'donations' without terms and conditions.
Those being that the money be used to promote their policies aims and financial interests and not contravene the donar.
no such thing as a free lunch.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/10/2022 23:00:14
i can get an expert and as long as i pay his salary he will bark exactly as i order him to.This post makes it clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.
rent a experts are dime a dozen as the last 3 years have shown.
I'm a scientist, if I want a new job- a better paid one- the thing I need to be able to show is that my work was good.
If there's any evidence that it was corrupt, I'm unemployable.
but your conspiracy theory says that Greenpeace- funded essentially by gruaniad readers and hippies- is better able to "buy off" scientists than the oil and gas companies.
Not just a bit better- say getting 60% of them, but able to outbid the fossil fuel lobby to the extent that the polls look like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change#/media/File:20211103_Academic_studies_of_scientific_consensus_-_global_warming,_climate_change_-_vertical_bar_chart_-_en.svg
So the only real question is are you joking or are you mad?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/10/2022 23:03:16
You seem not to realise something.But... if we were being paid to corrupt the results, like you suggest, we would no longer be being badly paid, would we.The really stupid part of the idea that scientists can be "bought" is how badly paid most of us are.
Exactly and because you are badly paid you are easier to use and abuse and manipulate into saying what the paymasters want you to say.
And, since we are badly paid, it follows that we are not being bribed.
This isn't meant to be difficult.
Well you are not going to be paid in traceable and taxable money are you? It in the form of delayed incentives.
when you leave your job come 'work' for us as a 'consultant' for a few hours a week and we pay you a cushy pension and 500k etc. Or move to the Bahamas...is how corruption works
You could possibly buy me off with half a million.
But there's about 300 scientists in the lab I work in.
How deep are your pockets?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/10/2022 23:04:39
Is that another conspiracy theory?At best that should get the thread moved to "new theories". I think the trash can would be better but.... whatever.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/10/2022 23:06:34
The problem arises when people take a very short term view of an obvious correlation and insist that it proves causation, despite all the historical evidence and actual physics. This leads to a comforting delusion that we can somehow avert a disaster that is actually inevitable, by making sacrifices.
Post by: Kryptid on 06/10/2022 00:12:13
You dont get those 'donations' without terms and conditions.
So what is your evidence that their terms and conditions are to falsify climate change data? If the data was already supporting climate change before the donations were given (which I already pointed out), then nothing would have to be falsified anyway.
I'd also like to see your evidence that satellite temperature readings are fake.
Post by: Origin on 06/10/2022 00:34:28
You seem to have forgotten WEF GAVI GATES and the Melinda and Gates foundation. They have their tentacles everywhere thru front and 'non profit' organizations and thru 'donations' of multibillions.Oh, great another psycho conspiracy theory.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/10/2022 08:43:52
despite all the historical evidence and actual physics.Actual physics tells us the CO2 absorbs IR.
Historical evidence shows that CO2 levels have never risen this fast before.
This is a nice illustration of the rate of change of temperature compared to historical data.
https://xkcd.com/1732/
You are part of the problem.
Post by: paul cotter on 06/10/2022 09:12:25
Post by: The Spoon on 06/10/2022 09:48:31
And he wonders why he is referred to as a denialist..despite all the historical evidence and actual physics.Actual physics tells us the CO2 absorbs IR.
Historical evidence shows that CO2 levels have never risen this fast before.
This is a nice illustration of the rate of change of temperature compared to historical data.
https://xkcd.com/1732/
You are part of the problem.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/10/2022 11:34:23
Actual physics tells us the CO2 absorbs IR.Good physics tells us by how much. Since the absorbance in the critical 15 micron band is already at least 90% (according to NASA, and I'm in no mood to argue with them), you can calculate how depressingly little effect adding or subtracting a bit more will have on the remainder..
Quote
Historical evidence shows that CO2 levels have never risen this fast before.except for at least three times in the last 500,000 years.
Whether you consider rate of change or total content of CO2 to be relevant, I think it would be more useful at this stage to concentrate on mitigation of the effect of climate change (which can be achieved) rather than prevention of its cause (which probably can't).
No denial, just an appeal to science and humanity to do something more positive than hoping that physics is wrong.
Post by: championoftruth on 06/10/2022 12:28:25
Actual physics tells us the CO2 absorbs IR.Good physics tells us by how much. Since the absorbance in the critical 15 micron band is already at least 90% (according to NASA, and I'm in no mood to argue with them), you can calculate how depressingly little effect adding or subtracting a bit more will have on the remainder..QuoteHistorical evidence shows that CO2 levels have never risen this fast before.except for at least three times in the last 500,000 years.
Whether you consider rate of change or total content of CO2 to be relevant, I think it would be more useful at this stage to concentrate on mitigation of the effect of climate change (which can be achieved) rather than prevention of its cause (which probably can't).
No denial, just an appeal to science and humanity to do something more positive than hoping that physics is wrong.
Using NASA every time as the repository of truth and authority figure is wrong.
i never said physics is wrong. I said something else
Post by: championoftruth on 06/10/2022 12:29:50
despite all the historical evidence and actual physics.Actual physics tells us the CO2 absorbs IR.
Historical evidence shows that CO2 levels have never risen this fast before.
This is a nice illustration of the rate of change of temperature compared to historical data.
https://xkcd.com/1732/
You are part of the problem.
That is the worst graph i have seen drawn by a primary school kid!
How can anyone trust that?
Post by: championoftruth on 06/10/2022 12:35:56
Here it is. i had to split the 169 page to just a few as 19meg pdf
You're aware that someone giving grants to organizations is not the same thing as forcing those organizations to secretly falsify information in accordance with some sinister plan, right? I want evidence for the latter, not the former.
Okay, so I'm looking at the timeline here and things are not adding up for this conspiracy theory. It seems that evidence for climate change was starting to be observed as far back as the 1950's. In 1988, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up. So the evidence must have been pretty good for climate change even so long ago.
Now I take a look at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and it was started in 2000. Same thing for the Global Alliance of Vaccines and Immunization. The first conference of the World Education Forum was also held in that same year. So donations from those organizations could not have plausibly been responsible for faking the evidence for climate change that led to the formation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
In physics and in general no such thing as a free lunch. the money was given to promote the beliefs and views of the givers.
i note everyone has ignored the leaked climategate 5000 emails from the CC dept at East Anglia University. Because that would ruin the whole theory.
I note as soon as i attached proof the thread was moved very quickly to a different forum. proving my point.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/10/2022 13:59:56
The xkcd graph is correct as far as it goes, but like all statements of the faith, it ignores the previous 500,000 years' data.
Post by: Kryptid on 06/10/2022 17:37:02
the money was given to promote the beliefs and views of the givers.
Evidence? I've donated before, and it wasn't to promote my beliefs.
i note everyone has ignored the leaked climategate 5000 emails from the CC dept at East Anglia University. Because that would ruin the whole theory.
I can't ignore something that I haven't seen.
I note as soon as i attached proof the thread was moved very quickly to a different forum. proving my point.
Your document isn't proof of your conspiracy theory:
So what is your evidence that their terms and conditions are to falsify climate change data? If the data was already supporting climate change before the donations were given (which I already pointed out), then nothing would have to be falsified anyway.
Post by: championoftruth on 06/10/2022 18:06:31
the money was given to promote the beliefs and views of the givers.
Evidence? I've donated before, and it wasn't to promote my beliefs.i note everyone has ignored the leaked climategate 5000 emails from the CC dept at East Anglia University. Because that would ruin the whole theory.
I can't ignore something that I haven't seen.I note as soon as i attached proof the thread was moved very quickly to a different forum. proving my point.
Your document isn't proof of your conspiracy theory:So what is your evidence that their terms and conditions are to falsify climate change data? If the data was already supporting climate change before the donations were given (which I already pointed out), then nothing would have to be falsified anyway.
You can google the cliumategate emails. They are shocking.
constantly dismissing everything as a conspiracy theory is a reflection on you. not that difficult for 2 evil people to do evil.
The place i live in had 7 to 12 days of 30 degrees this summer. in 1970 to 1980 the heat wave lasted 2 to 4 weeks.
I just discovered that infra red temperature measurements from a distance have a very large margin of error so your satellite data is worthless.
And more proof is that the temperature of Jupiter as measured by old methods and by JWST is different by hundreds of degrees!!! It was in the News too.
This discredits temperature measurements even more.
Post by: championoftruth on 06/10/2022 18:10:47
A word of advice: don't attack those whose arguments might just support your own conclusions. Including NASA - or are you into moon landing conspiracies too?
The xkcd graph is correct as far as it goes, but like all statements of the faith, it ignores the previous 500,000 years' data.
Using Nasa as a authority crutch is absurd. This organization spent a billion on building a launch tower when SpaceX spend only 20 million !
Many complex buildings in dubai cost 300 to 700 million. Yet a hunk of steel costing $3 a kilo cost Nasa a billion !
They spend 80 billion on the Artemis SLS. I just discovered its cobbled together from old space shuttle parts!
Where did the 80 billion go?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/10/2022 18:44:59
That is the worst graph i have seen drawn by a primary school kid!Given that it's a cartoon, drawn to make a point as well as present the data, what's wrong with it?
How can anyone trust that?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/10/2022 18:46:49
except for at least three times in the last 500,000 years.Please cite evidence.
In particular, you need to refute this
". Measurements from older ice cores (discussed below) confirm that both the magnitude and rate of the recent increase are almost certainly unprecedented over the last 800,000 years (Fig. 2). The fastest natural increase measured in older ice cores is around 15ppm (parts per million) over about 200 years. For comparison, atmospheric CO2 is now rising 15ppm every 6 years. "
From
https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/10/2022 18:51:03
Many complex buildings in dubai cost 300 to 700 million. Yet a hunk of steel costing $3 a kilo cost Nasa a billion !OK, how good is the water cooling system in Dubai?
Or do you accept that you really don't know what you are talking about?
Post by: Kryptid on 06/10/2022 20:26:41
You can google the cliumategate emails. They are shocking.
You are the claimant. The burden of proof is on you to provide the evidence.
constantly dismissing everything as a conspiracy theory
Until you can supply the evidence that something sinister is going on, calling it a conspiracy theory is justified.
not that difficult for 2 evil people to do evil.
That doesn't mean that Bill Gates is making organizations falsify climate change data. You need to supply evidence for that. Him giving donations does not count as such evidence. What you need is evidence for sinister intent. Please supply us with such evidence.
The place i live in had 7 to 12 days of 30 degrees this summer. in 1970 to 1980 the heat wave lasted 2 to 4 weeks.
That's called cherry-picking: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cherry_picking
I just discovered that infra red temperature measurements from a distance have a very large margin of error so your satellite data is worthless.
Link?
And more proof is that the temperature of Jupiter as measured by old methods and by JWST is different by hundreds of degrees!!! It was in the News too.
Link?
Using Nasa as a authority crutch is absurd. This organization spent a billion on building a launch tower when SpaceX spend only 20 million !
Many complex buildings in dubai cost 300 to 700 million. Yet a hunk of steel costing $3 a kilo cost Nasa a billion !
They spend 80 billion on the Artemis SLS. I just discovered its cobbled together from old space shuttle parts!
Where did the 80 billion go?
You're claiming they can't be trusted because they spend a lot of money? I'm afraid I don't understand how that follows.
Post by: championoftruth on 06/10/2022 20:50:17
You can google the cliumategate emails. They are shocking.
You are the claimant. The burden of proof is on you to provide the evidence.constantly dismissing everything as a conspiracy theory
Until you can supply the evidence that something sinister is going on, calling it a conspiracy theory is justified.not that difficult for 2 evil people to do evil.
That doesn't mean that Bill Gates is making organizations falsify climate change data. You need to supply evidence for that. Him giving donations does not count as such evidence. What you need is evidence for sinister intent. Please supply us with such evidence.The place i live in had 7 to 12 days of 30 degrees this summer. in 1970 to 1980 the heat wave lasted 2 to 4 weeks.
That's called cherry-picking: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cherry_pickingI just discovered that infra red temperature measurements from a distance have a very large margin of error so your satellite data is worthless.
Link?And more proof is that the temperature of Jupiter as measured by old methods and by JWST is different by hundreds of degrees!!! It was in the News too.
Link?Using Nasa as a authority crutch is absurd. This organization spent a billion on building a launch tower when SpaceX spend only 20 million !
Many complex buildings in dubai cost 300 to 700 million. Yet a hunk of steel costing $3 a kilo cost Nasa a billion !
They spend 80 billion on the Artemis SLS. I just discovered its cobbled together from old space shuttle parts!
Where did the 80 billion go?
You're claiming they can't be trusted because they spend a lot of money? I'm afraid I don't understand how that follows.
Shiny objects and surfaces give higher temperatures...thus making the Earth warmer thus becoming a self fulfilling prophesy...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034425719303852
Post by: Kryptid on 06/10/2022 20:53:17
Shiny objects and surfaces give higher temperatures...
I think you've got that backwards. Shiny objects reflect electromagnetic radiation. Dark surfaces absorb it and turn it into heat.
Post by: evan_au on 07/10/2022 00:03:33
Quote from: championoftruth
I just discovered that infra red temperature measurements from a distance have a very large margin of error so your satellite data is worthless.That is why the measurements from orbit are repeated hundreds of times per hour, in hundreds of locations around the world.
- Average that over an orbit (to remove latitude variations)
- Average that over a day (to remove daily variations)
- and over a year (to remove seasonal variations)
- this will then give you very small margin of error when measuring whole-planet changes in climate over a number of decades
- I do recognise that satellite data only goes back a few decades, with a new generation of more sophisticated satellites every decade
Quote
And more proof is that the temperature of Jupiter as measured by old methods and by JWST is different by hundreds of degrees!!!Jupiter is a gas giant, far from the Sun.
- The cloud tops of Jupiter get very little heat from the Sun, and are cold enough to produce methane rain.
- It is believed that the core of Jupiter has a temperature higher than the surface of the Sun.
- If you look at different levels in the atmosphere, you will measure different temperatures.
JWST is able to measure the temperature of Jupiter at various infra-red wavelengths, allowing it to peer deeper into Jupiter's thick atmosphere than is possible with Hubble's visible and UV sensitivity.
- So the image of Jupiter from JWST shows it glowing like a night light.
But what has that to do with the temperature of the Earth? Earth is a rocky planet close to the Sun, with a shallow atmosphere.
- We have a good understanding of the way temperature varies with altitude (from weather balloons, aircraft and satellites).
- At cruising altitude, the temperature outside a passenger jet is typically -40C to -60C, even in the tropics, where the surface temperature is typically around +30C.
Post by: JLindgaard on 07/10/2022 03:06:00
The media has asked if the IPCC has changed data. Why this matters is how data has been collected. Around 1900/1910 Russian fisherman recorded abnormally warm readings in the Arctic. I know there is a war going on but this was before the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 (the rise of communist Russia).
I have yet to see how satellite data shows a relationship to historical data collected using thermometers. This gets into O16 and O18 isotopes of oxygen. Warmer temperatures will influence the ratio of O16 to O18. That science is fairly basic. Then with deposits in the ground of vegetation, how accurate is that historically when compared with modern measurements? Science is exacting and these are questions that science has to allow for.
With deposits made over time, what different isotopes of oxygen and the moisture content the atmosphere allows for should be consistent. With the IPCC changing data, they might not have realized that the global warming pause of 1998 - 2013 was ozone recovery in the stratosphere. And yet the weather is getting wilder. Global warming didn't stop, it was just slowed.
The thermohaline circulation takes about 800 years to circulate the globe. The length of a cool period such as a Little Ice Age lasts about as long (maybe 700 years). Go figure.
Post by: JLindgaard on 07/10/2022 03:34:49
between O16 and O18 be translated? Why this matters is because wind patterns influence humidity and what can grow in any given region. Basically what allows for a local climatic zone?
It's possible that how those 2 levels change will need to be considered along with a change in the local trade winds. And then the Earth's position relative to the Sun will add to that as well.
Post by: JLindgaard on 07/10/2022 03:38:09
Actual physics tells us the CO2 absorbs IR.
Historical evidence shows that CO2 levels have never risen this fast before.
And yet historical evidence has shown the global temperature has risen as quickly.
https://news.osu.edu/current-melting-of-greenlands-ice-mimics-1920s-1940s-event/
Hopefully you will not discredit a geologist who has actually researched this. It's not like we're
discussing Geo-sciences.
For fun @Bored chemist, between 1945 and 1978 is when surface nuclear testing was done.
It started with 2 atomic bombs and evolved into thermonuclear bombs in the name of science.
And yet when bombarding the atmosphere with radiation from such bombs the global temperature remained consistent which it never does.
The consistent temperature for 30+ years is an anomaly. Before and after bomb testing the global temperature changes.
A link to some basic info on nuclear testing; https://www.atomicarchive.com/almanac/test-sites/testing-chronology.html
With this, what was underground and what was surface testing? Testing eventually turned underground so data can be pointed towards that. People being burned because the wind blew made that change necessary. And compare that to any global warming graph.
Just an FYI, because this is on the internet it is common knowledge everyone knows. How to explain 30+ years of consistent weather? No one has offered a reason.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/10/2022 08:51:09
For fun @Bored chemist, between 1945 and 1978 is when surface nuclear testing was done.Be quiet please; the grown-ups are talking.
It started with 2 atomic bombs and evolved into thermonuclear bombs in the name of science.
And yet when bombarding the atmosphere with radiation from such bombs the global temperature remained consistent which it never does.
The consistent temperature for 30+ years is an anomaly. Before and after bomb testing the global temperature changes.
A link to some basic info on nuclear testing; https://www.atomicarchive.com/almanac/test-sites/testing-chronology.html
With this, what was underground and what was surface testing? Testing eventually turned underground so data can be pointed towards that. People being burned because the wind blew made that change necessary. And compare that to any global warming graph.
Just an FYI, because this is on the internet it is common knowledge everyone knows. How to explain 30+ years of consistent weather? No one has offered a reason.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/10/2022 08:53:05
And then the Earth's position relative to the Sun will add to that as well.Pretty close to 93 million miles; an orbit is not an easy thing to change in a hurry.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/10/2022 12:31:11
Pretty close to 93 million miles; an orbit is not an easy thing to change in a hurry.But it does, with no human intervention at all. How easy is that?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/10/2022 13:02:18
So, when was it last notPretty close to 93 million miles; an orbit is not an easy thing to change in a hurry.But it does, with no human intervention at all. How easy is that?
Pretty close to 93 million miles
Post by: The Spoon on 07/10/2022 14:16:32
So you are claiming that the earth's orbital distance from the sun changes rapidly?Pretty close to 93 million miles; an orbit is not an easy thing to change in a hurry.But it does, with no human intervention at all. How easy is that?
Post by: alancalverd on 07/10/2022 16:58:41
Quote
Today, the Earth’s orbital ellipticity is nearly circular at 0.0167, but that still causes 6% more insolation during Earth’s closest approach to the Sun than when it is farthest away.
In ~200,000 years, when Earth’s orbit is at its most elliptical point, the difference in insolation between the closest and farthest approaches will be around 23%.
Depends on your definition of rapid.
Post by: JLindgaard on 08/10/2022 06:02:26
Pretty close to 93 million miles; an orbit is not an easy thing to change in a hurry.But it does, with no human intervention at all. How easy is that?
I explain that on my website. http://climate-cycling.com/
In basic terms melting glaciers changes the Earth's moment of inertia. Melting glaciers allow
for tectonic plate lift which slows the North Pacific Current and the Gulf Stream. Normal climate
variance is almost always in the northern latitudes.
What needs to be considered is if water absorbs and releases heat based on how fast or slow
it is flowing. If so then something similar to a wind chill effect would need to be considered as well.
And if you consider the Gulf Stream is slowing and there are now heat waves in Spain and France,
is the Gulf Stream dumping conserved heat content into the atmosphere?
Post by: alancalverd on 08/10/2022 10:54:45
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/10/2022 11:31:49
Depends on your definition of rapid.200,000 years isn't a credible definition of rapid.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/10/2022 12:25:40
Post by: JLindgaard on 08/10/2022 20:31:18
Some of that is almost rational.
From Jason Box of Ohio State University;
https://news.osu.edu/current-melting-of-greenlands-ice-mimics-1920s-1940s-event/
Warming actually started about 1910. The waters adjacent to Greenland below the 66th parallel (66º north latitude) suddenly warmed in the 1920's. There were no seismographs used at that time. The narwhal (whale, I think it is also called a white whale) which likes cold arctic waters migrated to the Hudson Bay.
Waters warming and cooling around Greenland have such a change about 10 years after a magnitude 6.0 earthquake or greater. This suggests deep sea vents either opening or closing. When ice ages end, geologically speaking it happens quickly. When moving towards an ice age, that happens slowly with periods of warming while the orbit becomes more elliptical because no ice age type glaciers to significantly change the Earth's moment of inertia.
If you have about 15 minutes to read a scientific report; https://collections.dartmouth.edu/arctica-beta/html/EA03-07.html
Post by: JLindgaard on 08/10/2022 22:46:22
It is only my opinion that he mentions CO2 so his research will not be dismissed. My opinion is based on when he says that;
However in the North during the ice age climate was also subjected to fast climate oscillations, i.e. a flip-flop from cold to very cold conditions. This flip-flop or bipolar see saw continued to occur during the slow and gradual warming from 18,000 to 11,000 years ago. In Europe and Greenland there was a flip 14,700 years ago which gave Europe almost present day climate. Then 12,700 years ago the climate in Europe and Greenland flopped and reverted back to arctic conditions for 1000 years.
https://nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/determination_of_end_of_ice_age/
When you consider it is warming under Antarctica, this article cites the geology under the ice.
quote >>
Geothermal heat flow of the Antarctic continent is one of the essential geophysical parameters for both delineating and identifying tectonic and geodynamic features and processes, and improving the parameterization of basal conditions in ice-flow dynamic models
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-021-00242-3 << end quote
And then there is this;
quote; The Amundsen Sea Embayment is underlain by the eastern branches of the West Antarctic Rift System, which extends from the Ross Sea to the Amundsen Sea and Bellingshausen Sea sectors of West Antarctica9,10,11. Lithospheric and crustal properties, such as thin crust, thin elastic lithospheric thickness, and high uplift rates, as well as interpreted tectonic and magmatic features, such as individual rift basins, fault systems, and young volcanic activity, coincide with the presently observed largest ice mass loss in Antarctica (outside the northern Antarctic Peninsula) by rapid thinning and retreat of the Pine Island, Thwaites, Pope, and other glaciers in the embayment12,13,14.
end quote
Can the weight of the ice on Antarctica affect thin tectonic plates and allow for faults in the tectonic plates beneath it?
Basically what could be happening in the Arctic to a lesser extent. And because I'm me, if the amount of gasses and particles in the atmosphere below the tropopause push it higher, could that increase the global temperature when coupled with a depleted ozone layer? And would that allow for more extreme weather events? Those events require more water vapor in the atmosphere and over 90% of the excess heat in the warming climate is found in the oceans.
The experiment I am pursuing is because water absorbs 100% of UV radiation that reaches it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/10/2022 10:30:14
orbit becomes more elliptical because no ice age type glaciers to significantly change the Earth's moment of inertia.Tosh.
Post by: championoftruth on 26/10/2022 15:22:09
You can google the cliumategate emails. They are shocking.
You are the claimant. The burden of proof is on you to provide the evidence.constantly dismissing everything as a conspiracy theory
Until you can supply the evidence that something sinister is going on, calling it a conspiracy theory is justified.not that difficult for 2 evil people to do evil.
That doesn't mean that Bill Gates is making organizations falsify climate change data. You need to supply evidence for that. Him giving donations does not count as such evidence. What you need is evidence for sinister intent. Please supply us with such evidence.The place i live in had 7 to 12 days of 30 degrees this summer. in 1970 to 1980 the heat wave lasted 2 to 4 weeks.
That's called cherry-picking: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cherry_pickingI just discovered that infra red temperature measurements from a distance have a very large margin of error so your satellite data is worthless.
Link?And more proof is that the temperature of Jupiter as measured by old methods and by JWST is different by hundreds of degrees!!! It was in the News too.
Link?Using Nasa as a authority crutch is absurd. This organization spent a billion on building a launch tower when SpaceX spend only 20 million !
Many complex buildings in dubai cost 300 to 700 million. Yet a hunk of steel costing $3 a kilo cost Nasa a billion !
They spend 80 billion on the Artemis SLS. I just discovered its cobbled together from old space shuttle parts!
Where did the 80 billion go?
You're claiming they can't be trusted because they spend a lot of money? I'm afraid I don't understand how that follows.
Well well well. More evidence that current weather and temperature measurements and forecasts are based on incomplete data and neglect so many factors in the pathetic desperate race to get self validation for CC to keep the money flowing into vested interests
Look:-
Read and Weep.
https://www.livescience.com/honeybees-electrify-air-more-than-thunderstorms?utm_campaign=368B3745-DDE0-4A69-A2E8-62503D85375D
Post by: Kryptid on 26/10/2022 15:55:01
Post by: paul cotter on 26/10/2022 16:56:06
Post by: championoftruth on 26/10/2022 17:52:12
Non-sequitur. Bees aren't going to make the whole planet warm up (especially since their population has been in decline. If bees were responsible for global warming, then temperatures should be dropping in step with their population.)
over geological time scales?
The temperature measurements are false and made to fit the narrative of CC
PROOF:-
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/07/hacked-climate-emails-analysis
Post by: championoftruth on 26/10/2022 17:54:27
Nonsense. 100v/m to 1000v/m is nowhere near what an active thunderhead produces. 50kv/m is what is normally produced by an overhead thunderstorm.
MORE PROOF data being falsified.
https://stories.uea.ac.uk/the-story-behind-the-trick/
and the mindset of these 'scientists'
Post by: championoftruth on 26/10/2022 17:57:14
In geological terms, it does seem to align with some very spectacular climatic phenomena on a fairly short timescale, like 0.005% of the life of the planet.
Dishonesty seems to be rule in CC 'science'. So this proves more of cc are working to an agenda.
A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.
Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.
Climate scientist Michael Mann blasted the release of new leaked emails and documents taken from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit as "truly pathetic" and a "shameless effort to manufacture a false controversy" on Tuesday (Nov. 22)
Mann, along with other prominent climate scientists, features in the emails, which consists of conversations among researchers about data and public relations. A previous leak in 2009 released more than 1,000 emails in an episode dubbed "Climategate." According to the University of East Anglia (UEA), the current data dump, if genuine, appears to be culled from emails taken at the same time as the original Climategate documents.
Climate-change skeptics have pointed to the emails as evidence that researchers were manipulating data to make global warming look more serious than it is.
https://www.livescience.com/17151-climategate-emails-michael-mann.html
Post by: paul cotter on 26/10/2022 18:08:35
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/10/2022 18:14:56
Dishonesty seems to be rule in CC 'science'.It only seems that way to you.
Post by: Origin on 26/10/2022 18:40:15
Dishonesty seems to be rule in CC 'science'. So this proves more of cc are working to an agenda.That is an absurd thing to say and just points to you being a fanatic.
Post by: Kryptid on 26/10/2022 20:43:14
This is not a conspiracy theory website. This is not a science denialism website. If that is what you are looking for, then you need to head to the AboveTopSecret forums or some other fringe website.
Post by: championoftruth on 27/10/2022 21:17:44
Non-sequitur. Bees aren't going to make the whole planet warm up (especially since their population has been in decline. If bees were responsible for global warming, then temperatures should be dropping in step with their population.)
What makes you think only bees do it? what about birds? what about wheat fields swaying and undulating in the wind?
or the millions of other insects?
what about oceans and waves being charged?
Post by: championoftruth on 27/10/2022 21:20:08
In any discipline of science there will always be a small cohort who will bend the data suit their research. What you are talking about is one example of bad science-this does not negate the bulk of observations. If you think the climate is not changing you are out of touch with events. There is still a minority that disagree with anthropogenic cc and I don't by any means totally discount that position but all are agreed that the climate is getting warmer and more stormy.
Small cohort? Its across the board now. 85% of research is fake fraudulent or plagiarized.
Have you not heard of amyloid protein research being fake? wasting billions and decades of time.
or what about the serotonin drug suppressors fraud?
Post by: championoftruth on 27/10/2022 21:21:46
Those e-mails don't say what you claim they do: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Climategate
This is not a conspiracy theory website. This is not a science denialism website. If that is what you are looking for, then you need to head to the AboveTopSecret forums or some other fringe website.
What do they say?
What is a conspiracy?
a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
the activity of secretly planning with other people to do something bad or illegal:
Is that really hard?
The three men are accused of conspiracy.
[ + to infinitive ] She has been charged with conspiracy to murder.
I think there was a conspiracy to keep me off the committee.
is that really hard to do?
Post by: paul cotter on 27/10/2022 21:30:03
Post by: championoftruth on 27/10/2022 22:01:05
There are websites where you are told "everything you have been told is a lie". One of these sites might be more suitable for you. Here we discuss science backed by observation.
Observation? you failed in taking into account electric fields by bees at least so your observations are incomplete and your conclusions wrong.
Post by: championoftruth on 27/10/2022 22:02:04
Dishonesty seems to be rule in CC 'science'. So this proves more of cc are working to an agenda.That is an absurd thing to say and just points to you being a fanatic.
If I were to tell you that the moon was made out of cheese, would you believe that? Of course not. But now, if I tell you it's made out of sand....
You: Maybe.
Me: If I tell you I know for sure?
You: Then I would believe you.
Me: So you know that the moon is made out of sand. -
You: Yes.
Me: But it isn't.
You: i only said I knew because you said you knew.
Me: I lied.
Me: Knowledge isn't truth. It's just mindless agreement. You agree with me. I agree with someone else. We all have knowledge. We haven't come any closer to the truth of the moon.
You can never understand anything by agreeing... by making definitions. Only by turning over the possibilities. That's called thinking. If I say I know, I stop thinking. As long as I keep thinking, I come to understand. That way, I might approach some truth.
You: That's the best conversation you ever had.
Me: Is it over?
You: You think it had better be.
Post by: Origin on 27/10/2022 22:07:46
If I were to tell you that the moon was made out of cheese, would you believe that? Of course not. But now, if I tell you it's made out of sand....Likewise, if you told me that the scientists in an entire branch of science got together and collective decided to lie about their research to hurt the world economy; I would think you were lying or maybe just completely nutz....
Post by: Kryptid on 27/10/2022 22:16:02
Those e-mails don't say what you claim they do: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Climategate
This is not a conspiracy theory website. This is not a science denialism website. If that is what you are looking for, then you need to head to the AboveTopSecret forums or some other fringe website.
What do they say?
What is a conspiracy?
a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
the activity of secretly planning with other people to do something bad or illegal:
Is that really hard?
The three men are accused of conspiracy.
[ + to infinitive ] She has been charged with conspiracy to murder.
I think there was a conspiracy to keep me off the committee.
is that really hard to do?
Your misrepresentation of e-mails and scientific research does not constitute evidence for a global conspiracy to falsify climate change data. Desist with this. If you ignore this warning, this thread will be locked. If you continue with it after the thread is locked, you will be banned.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/10/2022 14:33:50
Likewise, if you told me that the scientists in an entire branch of science got together and collective decided to lie about their research
Sadly, it wouldn't be a first. I've just been listening to stories of denial and disinformation around the British nuclear weapons test sites in Australia, and one mustn't forget the 100 Nazi professors who signed a letter condemning Einstein's absurd ideas of relativity. Did anyone challenge Lysenko? Or Mengele?
Being intellectually superior doesn't make us morally superior or incorruptible. It just gives us a bigger stick to beat our competitors. And for as long as we have families to feed, it's better to be on the bandwaggon than to point out that it is going the wrong way. Vita brevis.
Fortunately the current consensus on climate change is not directly harmful and there is anyway an underlying need to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels. The only people who will suffer from the wrongness of that consensus are doomed anyway, but at least they can die believing that it's someone else's fault.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/10/2022 14:44:25
I've just been listening to stories of denial and disinformation around the British nuclear weapons test sites in Australia, and one mustn't forget the 100 Nazi professors who signed a letter condemning Einstein's absurd ideas of relativity. Did anyone challenge Lysenko? Or Mengele?That's (some of) the scientists in a particular country.
Not the world.
Those Nazi professors were generally ridiculed by the rest of the world.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/10/2022 14:53:35
Fact is that not all scientists subscribe to the fashionable consensus on climate change. I don't think it's a conspiracy, just a convenient lack of curiosity. Like religion, perhaps.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/10/2022 18:18:37
Fact is that not all scientists subscribe to the fashionable consensus on climate change. I don't think it's a conspiracy, just a convenient lack of curiosity.Funny how they all agree on essentially everything else. I wonder if there's some other factor.
You may recall that the Nazis were initially fully supported by the governments of Russia, Italy, Spain and Japan, a significant number of Americans (including Henry Ford) and the King of England.None of which were scientists.
Post by: alancalverd on 31/10/2022 19:04:16
Funny how they all agree on essentially everything else.Now that is interesting. Like politics, favorite food, color of ties? It really does sound like a religion. The scientists I work with disagree about practically everything except experimental results - that's how we make progress!
Post by: alancalverd on 31/10/2022 19:09:27
None of which were scientists.You will still find racists and ultranationalists among scientists, alas.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/10/2022 19:12:20
True.None of which were scientists.You will still find racists and ultranationalists among scientists, alas.
But they don't generally gain a lot of traction because they have no actual evidence.
It's not like politics. In politics you can sell an idea with nothing more than a catchy lie written on a bus.
Post by: championoftruth on 20/12/2022 16:26:02
Those e-mails don't say what you claim they do: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Climategate
This is not a conspiracy theory website. This is not a science denialism website. If that is what you are looking for, then you need to head to the AboveTopSecret forums or some other fringe website.
Any comments on this then?
Data shows there’s no climate catastrophe looming – climatologist Dr J Christy debunks the narrative
The bit at from 14 mins was very interesting and not addressed by cc fanatics.
Dr John Christy, distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has been a compelling voice on the other side of the climate change debate for decades. Christy, a self-proclaimed “climate nerd”, developed an unwavering desire to understand weather and climate at the tender age of 10, and remains as devoted to understanding the climate system to this day. By using data sets built from scratch, Christy, with other scientists including NASA scientist Roy Spencer, have been testing the theories generated by climate models to see how well they hold up to reality. Their findings? On average, the latest models for the deep layer of the atmosphere are warming about twice too fast, presenting a deeply flawed and unrealistic representation of the actual climate. In this long-form interview, Christy – who receives no funding from the fossil fuel industry – provides data-substantiated clarity on a host of issues, further refuting the climate crisis narrative.
Post by: championoftruth on 20/12/2022 16:45:34
I find the remark about "rent an expert" offensive. Not everyone can be bought, by a long shot. I consider myself relatively expert in lv and mv grid protection systems having worked in this area for 20 years up to my recent retirement, though others may disagree. I will not be bought short of someone putting a gun to my head, for any amount. I do not claim to be a particularly virtuous person, just a person with integrity, along with many shortcomings.
Dr John Christy’s research has consistently shown that the atmosphere is warming at a much slower rate than what the climate models predict. This is due to the fact that the climate models are overly sensitive to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and do not take into account other factors that strongly influence the climate. Christy believes that the current focus on carbon dioxide is a distraction from the more important issues of air pollution mitigation and energy efficiency.
Dr Christy also argues that the climate change narrative is too often presented in a way that is designed to evoke fear and that fails to present alternative solutions or paths to progress. He believes that if we are to make any meaningful progress on climate change, it is essential to focus on the “real” science and to look for solutions that are based in data and evidence. Christy is a strong proponent of the idea that a mix of energy sources and technological innovation are the keys to a sustainable future.
Post by: alancalverd on 20/12/2022 17:31:13
Data shows there’s no climate catastrophe looming – climatologist Dr J Christy debunks the narrativeThat's a pity, as there has been one every 150,000 years and the next one is due right about now. Assuming, of course, that we are talking about a "hot catastrophe". The more spectacular ones are the ice ages, which occur about 100,000 years later.
The current consensus "anthropogenic CO2" narrative is obviously bunk but the facts all point to a repeat of previous climate cycles - and why not?
Post by: championoftruth on 20/12/2022 18:06:54
Data shows there’s no climate catastrophe looming – climatologist Dr J Christy debunks the narrativeThat's a pity, as there has been one every 150,000 years and the next one is due right about now. Assuming, of course, that we are talking about a "hot catastrophe". The more spectacular ones are the ice ages, which occur about 100,000 years later.
The current consensus "anthropogenic CO2" narrative is obviously bunk but the facts all point to a repeat of previous climate cycles - and why not?
150000 +/- how much or is it exactly 150000?
how accurate is this 150000?
is it 140000 or 160000 or 120000 or 170000 ?
Post by: alancalverd on 20/12/2022 22:33:34
Post by: Kryptid on 20/12/2022 23:41:00
Dr John Christy’s research has consistently shown that the atmosphere is warming at a much slower rate than what the climate models predict.
If I'm not mistaken, the original argument you created this thread for is to claim that there isn't evidence that the atmosphere is warming at all. So which is it? Is it warming, albeit it slower than predicted by climate models, or is it not warming at all?
Post by: alancalverd on 21/12/2022 12:08:02
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/12/2022 13:49:47
Far too few people do anything about what is actually happening.Not least because some people are desperately pretending that it isn't happening because the models are wrong.
Post by: alancalverd on 21/12/2022 17:21:50
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/12/2022 18:50:13
All the more reason to stop spending public money on worthless models and start addressing the inevitable.The value of the models is, among other things, that they can persuade people to believe they should act.
Post by: alancalverd on 21/12/2022 23:46:11
There has been a gradual trend towards eating less meat in the West, but much of that derives from a paper written by a dyed-in-the -wool "model skeptic". And a substantial decline in passenger transport (of humans, not politicians) due to COVID and Zoom.
But as long as "growth" remains an objective, whatever influence humans may have on the environment can only make it less habitable.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/12/2022 08:58:58
So far, they seem to have had no effect beyond increasing CO2 levelsPlease show how climate models have increased CO2 levels beyond those which would have been released in the absence of those models.
(Please note that, in general, the people who fly to conferences will do that regardless of the topic and that those who want to play with computers will model something as a test case.)
Post by: alancalverd on 22/12/2022 10:37:27
Nobody can argue with the facts, only about how to interpret them and who to blame, and you need a model for that.
So that's at least 80,000 additional passenger flights per year for the delegates, plus whatever fuel is expended on armed presidential motorcades, whatever it takes to get the protestors and TV crews there and back again, and the entire spurious industry behind it all.
The net output directly attributable to COP and the activities of IPCC (more travel, and a fair bit of diesel, gasoline and JETA1 expended in Arctic "research") since 1988 has been hot air.
At your expense.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/12/2022 11:34:57
In the absence of climate models there would be nothing to talk about at COP pissups.
Nobody can argue with the facts, only about how to interpret them and who to blame, and you need a model for that.
So that's at least 80,000 additional passenger flights per year for the delegates, plus whatever fuel is expended on armed presidential motorcades, whatever it takes to get the protestors and TV crews there and back again, and the entire spurious industry behind it all.
The net output directly attributable to COP and the activities of IPCC (more travel, and a fair bit of diesel, gasoline and JETA1 expended in Arctic "research") since 1988 has been hot air.
At your expense.
(Please note that, in general, the people who fly to conferences will do that regardless of the topic and that those who want to play with computers will model something as a test case.)
Post by: alancalverd on 22/12/2022 14:07:07
Here's a good test of value. Thinking about your carbon footprint (never mind the climate) complete the sentence:
"Because Rishi Sunak flew to Cairo and back again, I have...... and I will......"
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/12/2022 15:46:02
, they might spend their precious time and your money on something useful.Maybe; but your claim was about reducing CO2 and I don't see a mechanism, or evidence.
Since Sunak just authorised a new coal mine, you can't really say he's "low carbon".
He's just some lying waster who got in because some people were conned into thinking brexit could actually work.
The thing is that, if Sunak hadn't flown to wherever to lie about whatever, he would very probably flown to somewhere else and lied about something else. That's what politicians do.
They generate hot air by wasting resources.
Post by: championoftruth on 22/12/2022 16:21:21
Dr John Christy’s research has consistently shown that the atmosphere is warming at a much slower rate than what the climate models predict.
If I'm not mistaken, the original argument you created this thread for is to claim that there isn't evidence that the atmosphere is warming at all. So which is it? Is it warming, albeit it slower than predicted by climate models, or is it not warming at all?
my main argument is temperature measurements are untrustworthy up or down...
Post by: alancalverd on 22/12/2022 17:18:45
We are currently in a major upswing that began about 15,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age. Geological precedent suggests this will turn over within the next 500 years and slide slowly down for the next 100,000 years. The total excursion is around 12°C.
Witin that broad sawtooth are all sorts of short-term fluctuations. As far as the British Isles are concerned, and probably much of the northern quarter of the globe, the present annual mean temperature is about the same as in the Roman period, say 1500 years ago. The sudden appearance of chimneys and structured fireplaces in 12-13th century European architecture indicates a rapid decline and slow recovery until the 19th century, by which time we were acquiring credible instrumental temperature records.
Problem is that most of the records are from the inhabited areas, which still only account for about 5% of the total, or from a few shipping routes, mostly in the north Atlantic. Any statement about the surface temperature of the middle of the Pacific in, say, January 1800, is pure guesswork, and nobody had taken a thermometer to the poles before 1914.
There was a rapid expansion of very accurate data from 1910 to 1950 because surface temperature is critical to aviation. Airports measure and broadcast surface temperature to ± 0.5°C every 20 minutes and report to a central meteorological service every 4 hours. But from 1950 onwards the number of active airfields decreased and the remainder tended to be concrete or tarmac and close to cities, so inevitably hotter than the surrounding countryside.
Satellite surveillance gives us credibly comparable data for the entire globe, but much historic surface data was "adjusted" after 1970 to coincide with satellite measurements, which raised a number of skeptical eyebrows.
Post by: championoftruth on 22/12/2022 20:02:17
It's likely that actual measurements have been reported honestly, and it is bloody obvious that the earth's atmosphere has warmed in the last 200 years. However there is plenty of room for doubt about the meaning of much 20th century data, and the validity of extrapolation from earlier measurements. A lot also depends on the timescale you choose.
We are currently in a major upswing that began about 15,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age. Geological precedent suggests this will turn over within the next 500 years and slide slowly down for the next 100,000 years. The total excursion is around 12°C.
Witin that broad sawtooth are all sorts of short-term fluctuations. As far as the British Isles are concerned, and probably much of the northern quarter of the globe, the present annual mean temperature is about the same as in the Roman period, say 1500 years ago. The sudden appearance of chimneys and structured fireplaces in 12-13th century European architecture indicates a rapid decline and slow recovery until the 19th century, by which time we were acquiring credible instrumental temperature records.
Problem is that most of the records are from the inhabited areas, which still only account for about 5% of the total, or from a few shipping routes, mostly in the north Atlantic. Any statement about the surface temperature of the middle of the Pacific in, say, January 1800, is pure guesswork, and nobody had taken a thermometer to the poles before 1914.
There was a rapid expansion of very accurate data from 1910 to 1950 because surface temperature is critical to aviation. Airports measure and broadcast surface temperature to ± 0.5°C every 20 minutes and report to a central meteorological service every 4 hours. But from 1950 onwards the number of active airfields decreased and the remainder tended to be concrete or tarmac and close to cities, so inevitably hotter than the surrounding countryside.
Satellite surveillance gives us credibly comparable data for the entire globe, but much historic surface data was "adjusted" after 1970 to coincide with satellite measurements, which raised a number of skeptical eyebrows.
That is what i am trying to say.
197,060,800 square miles times 100 kilometres upwards = huge.
each cubic kilometre being dynamic.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/12/2022 20:07:48
my main argument is temperature measurements are untrustworthy up or down...
Which is the same as saying that you don't think there is evidence that the Earth is warming.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/12/2022 21:29:06
It's likely that actual measurements have been reported honestly, and it is bloody obvious that the earth's atmosphere has warmed in the last 200 years. However there is plenty of room for doubt about the meaning of much 20th century data, and the validity of extrapolation from earlier measurements. A lot also depends on the timescale you choose.Have you given up on your claim that
We are currently in a major upswing that began about 15,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age. Geological precedent suggests this will turn over within the next 500 years and slide slowly down for the next 100,000 years. The total excursion is around 12°C.
Witin that broad sawtooth are all sorts of short-term fluctuations. As far as the British Isles are concerned, and probably much of the northern quarter of the globe, the present annual mean temperature is about the same as in the Roman period, say 1500 years ago. The sudden appearance of chimneys and structured fireplaces in 12-13th century European architecture indicates a rapid decline and slow recovery until the 19th century, by which time we were acquiring credible instrumental temperature records.
Problem is that most of the records are from the inhabited areas, which still only account for about 5% of the total, or from a few shipping routes, mostly in the north Atlantic. Any statement about the surface temperature of the middle of the Pacific in, say, January 1800, is pure guesswork, and nobody had taken a thermometer to the poles before 1914.
There was a rapid expansion of very accurate data from 1910 to 1950 because surface temperature is critical to aviation. Airports measure and broadcast surface temperature to ± 0.5°C every 20 minutes and report to a central meteorological service every 4 hours. But from 1950 onwards the number of active airfields decreased and the remainder tended to be concrete or tarmac and close to cities, so inevitably hotter than the surrounding countryside.
Satellite surveillance gives us credibly comparable data for the entire globe, but much historic surface data was "adjusted" after 1970 to coincide with satellite measurements, which raised a number of skeptical eyebrows.
So far, they seem to have had no effect beyond increasing CO2 levels
Post by: alancalverd on 23/12/2022 10:34:20
The value of the models is, among other things, that they can persuade people to believe they should act.still lacks evidence of any effect arising from the presumed cause. Apart, possibly, from inducing idiots to throw soup at paintings or glue themselves to the road.
Greenwash is a good marketing ploy ("green" is the new "new") but according to pretty well everyone who has measured it, both T and pCO2 have increased fairly continuously since Arrhenius published his model.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/12/2022 11:23:13
still lacks evidence of any effect arising from the presumed cause.Do you really not know anyone who has done anything to reduce their carbon footprint because they are concerned about global warming?
Post by: alancalverd on 23/12/2022 16:41:35
I know that as a result of COP, a lot of people are claiming financial compensation for a natural and inevitable process, but God is not known for answering prayers, let alone paying hard cash because His Creation doesn't suit everyone.
But I asked you the direct question: what effect did Rishi Sunak's trip to Cairo have on your behavior?