The REAL global warming

[dcraig1]

I've just posted one for Northern Australia. Maybe when other records are properly examined there will be others.

I can't even be bothered looking at these blog posts anymore. Come back when there is a decent peer reviewed scientific paper showing there is significant errors in the temperature record. By significant I mean showing a trend that disputes the mainstream science. What is important is to be as close to the truth as we can get. All temperature records show warming of about the same amount. None dispute that.

From what I understand, nobody disputes that the world has warmed.

If you accept that then all the nonsense about emails, Darwin temperature stations, evil conspiring scientists and the rest of the propaganda is irrelevant. It doesn't matter. What you are trying to do is a shameful exercise in obscuring the truth.

This does not mean that the warming has been caused by man.

Of course temperature records don't show cause. Who said that they do?

There is overwhelming evidence that GHGs emitted by humans are the major factor. That is why climate scientists assert the AGW is real.

 

[maiden22]

I can't even be bothered looking at these blog posts anymore. Come back when there is a decent peer reviewed scientific paper showing there is significant errors in the temperature record. By significant I mean showing a trend that disputes the mainstream science. What is important is to be as close to the truth as we can get. All temperature records show warming of about the same amount. None dispute that.



If you accept that then all the nonsense about emails, Darwin temperature stations, evil conspiring scientists and the rest of the propaganda is irrelevant. It doesn't matter. What you are trying to do is a shameful exercise in obscuring the truth.



Of course temperature records don't show cause. Who said that they do?

There is overwhelming evidence that GHGs emitted by humans are the major factor. That is why climate scientists assert the AGW is real.

I'm not surprised that you can't be bothered - the temperature record shown demonstrates astonishing manipulation - manipulation that turns a cooling trend into a warming trend. This, once again, covers the whole of Northern Australia for a century. Your attempts to ignore it are very revealing. As noted above whenever presented with something you find inconvenient, you throw your toys out of the pram and decide that you don't want to play anymore.

What you call "nonsense" matters a great deal. It is evidence that people are attempting to establish a false cause.

You implied strongly that there was nothing more to discuss because temperature records appear to show warming. I was merely pointing out that rising temperature in itself means nothing - one must also establish the cause.

Finally, the evidence is so poor it is laughable.

 

[dcraig1]

I'm not surprised that you can't be bothered - the temperature record shown demonstrates astonishing manipulation - manipulation that turns a cooling trend into a warming trend.

You just said you accepted that nobody disputes global warming. Then you babble on about falsification, fraud blah blah blah. Furthermore you set yourself up as some of prosecution, judge and jury dispensing justice on scientific misconduct. If there is misconduct, it will eventually be shown up by peer reviewed research not by internet kangaroo courts.That is the way science works - it is ultimately self correcting.

No doubt there will be from time to time corrections made to temperature records. There have been already - some even due to work by denialists. But the big picture doesn't change. IT IS WARMING. Unless somebody can publish properly peer reviewed research conclusively showing that it isn't, IT IS STILL WARMING. That is what is important because it is the future of the planet that is at stake.

You can be astonished as much as you like, but the facts don't change.

 

[maiden22]

You just said you accepted that nobody disputes global warming. Then you babble on about falsification, fraud blah blah blah. Furthermore you set yourself up as some of prosecution, judge and jury dispensing justice on scientific misconduct. If there is misconduct, it will eventually be shown up by peer reviewed research not by internet kangaroo courts.That is the way science works - it is ultimately self correcting.

No doubt there will be from time to time corrections made to temperature records. There have been already - some even due to work by denialists. But the big picture doesn't change. IT IS WARMING. Unless somebody can publish properly peer reviewed research conclusively showing that it isn't, IT IS STILL WARMING. That is what is important because it is the future of the planet that is at stake.

You can be astonished as much as you like, but the facts don't change.

What is it that is diffcult to understand? There has been warming, there has been cooling. The issue is what causes it. Why should we reduce CO2 emissions if they don't matter?

The falsification and fraud comes about because certain people are attempting to establish a false cause. They are also attempting to terrify people with ludicrous apocalyptic predictions based on flawed computer models. This is wrong.

Climate change is a fact. One that we cannot influence - man does not, and cannot, control the climate.

 

[maiden22]

I note again that you still make no attempt to address a serious data manipulation that covers a very large area. Instead you put your fingers in your ears, proclaim "The world is warming! That's all that matters!", and expect that to be the end of the matter.

The extent of the warming is important. The cause of the warming is important. To simply say that the world is warming, so we must do something, is ridiculous.

 

[montmorencyt2w]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8444399.stm

The UK is in the grip of its longest cold snap for almost 30 years. Snow depths taken around the UK include 48cm (19in) in Aviemore, 19cm (7.5in) at Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, and 17cm (7in) in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire.

Global warming may possibly kill some people some time.

Cooling is killing people right now.

 

[dcraig1]

I note again that you still make no attempt to address a serious data manipulation that covers a very large area. Instead you put your fingers in your ears, proclaim "The world is warming! That's all that matters!", and expect that to be the end of the matter.

Is the world warming or not?

I actually skimmed through the blog post. More conspiracy theory stuff. Data corrections != scientific malpractice. More internet kangaroo court drivel.

 

[montmorencyt2w]

Proponents of man-made-global-warming and climate scientists love models.

Let's look at a model then:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/06/stat-model-predicts-flat-temperatures-through-2050/#more-14854

 

[dcraig1]

Proponents of man-made-global-warming and climate scientists love models.

Let's look at a model then:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/06/stat-model-predicts-flat-temperatures-through-2050/#more-14854

At best it is a statistical model. The IPCC would have been roasted alive for making climate projections from statistical models and for very good reasons (left as an exercise for the reader to find out why - but you may consider the abject failure of statistical models of price behavior in financial markets to form good basis for trading systems). IPCC models are physical models based on physical properties of the climate system.

Love the link to prison planet

 

[maiden22]

At best it is a statistical model. The IPCC would have been roasted alive for making climate projections from statistical models and for very good reasons (left as an exercise for the reader to find out why - but you may consider the abject failure of statistical models of price behavior in financial markets to form good basis for trading systems). IPCC models are physical models based on physical properties of the climate system.

Love the link to prison planet

The models haven't done too well in predicting the future from what I can see. Most models of any kind are next to useless, and the IPCC has had a severe roasting over many things. Not severe enough, but such is life.

The difference is the reason crowd, unlike the religious fanatics, do not endlessly point to flawed models to terrify the peasantry into compliance.

 

[Benton D Struckcheon]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8444399.stm





Global warming may possibly kill some people some time.

Cooling is killing people right now.

This is a blatant appeal to emotion.
Here in the US, more than one legislator has pointed to heat being more of a killer than cold, during arguments over whether or not to subsidize either heat in the winter or electricity (to power a/c) in the summer.
Our weather is more extreme on both ends than that of Western Europe, because we don't have as much of a moderating influence from the oceans, so our arguments over stuff like this tend to get more, um, heated.
BTW, you guys need to put screens on your windows if you're not going to use a/c, just as a sidebar comment. We use both over here, 'cause, like, the stuff's been invented and is useful and keeps you comfortable.
You know, progress on the front of human comfort in various climates has been made. We wonder, over here sometimes, if you guys over there have gotten the word on this.
Also, you might want to inform your French compatriots to buy more fans for the occasional heat wave that kills old folks. My mother-in-law wound up in Paris the year they had that infamous heat wave that killed lots of their old folks, and she had a tough time even getting a fan, much less a/c.
Crazy.

 

[montmorencyt2w]

I have just looked at the BBC weather website for my resident location (OX14 3XL)

and the nearest observation (not forecast, actual observation), at Benson, Oxfordshire) is showing -17°C.

This is a blatant appeal to facts.



Observed at 01:00 on Thu 7th Jan
Weather
Clear Sky

Clear Sky

* Temp
(°C°F) -17°C 1°F
* Wind
(mphkm/h) North Easterly




http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/2001?area=OX14


It's perfectly true. We don't - by and large - use air conditioning in England. We have drafts.
I have air conditioning in my car but I find it just as effective to open the window.
(in summer, that is, all 3 days of it).

 

[Benton D Struckcheon]

I have just looked at the BBC weather website for my resident location (OX14 3XL)

and the nearest observation (not forecast, actual observation), at Benson, Oxfordshire) is showing -17°C.

This is a blatant appeal to facts.



Observed at 01:00 on Thu 7th Jan
Weather
Clear Sky

Clear Sky

* Temp
(°C°F) -17°C 1°F
* Wind
(mphkm/h) North Easterly




http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/2001?area=OX14


It's perfectly true. We don't - by and large - use air conditioning in England. We have drafts.
I have air conditioning in my car but I find it just as effective to open the window.
(in summer, that is, all 3 days of it).

Are you trying to argue that a single day's weather proves your entire argument? I mean, I could wait until a 100 degree day in summer and post that. You and I both know it would prove precisely nothing.
Beyond that, I still don't see why you don't make use of screens to keep the bugs out at least.

 

[Benton D Struckcheon]

Are you trying to argue that a single day's weather proves your entire argument? I mean, I could wait until a 100 degree day in summer and post that. You and I both know it would prove precisely nothing.
Beyond that, I still don't see why you don't make use of screens to keep the bugs out at least.

100 Fahrenheit, that is. I know it's not used outside the US, but it's actually a more precise scale for temps that folks in temperate climates actually experience, and therefore more useful when setting the thermostat for your heat and, of course, a/c.

 

[Splitlink]

100 Fahrenheit, that is. I know it's not used outside the US, but it's actually a more precise scale for temps that folks in temperate climates actually experience, and therefore more useful when setting the thermostat for your heat and, of course, a/c.

A bit off topic but I thought that I would comment.

There are 180º between freezing and boiling in Fº and 100º in Cº It is more accurate, but in theory rather than practice, surely? As a tankerman I used temperatures of oil as part of my cargo calculations and, once you've got used to it, there is no difference.

Where metric wins is in teaching. Counting in metric must make it far easier to learn. Temperature doesn't matter so much but money, weights and measures it is a far easier system.

 

[kelvinjona]

Yeah....I agree with you....“Though far from perfect, the Copenhagen Accord is a hard-fought political agreement. With most countries likely to sign, it is a breakthrough towards collective international action to limit global emissions and help build cleaner, more resilient economies”, said OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría.

The Accord’s package of measures, which includes new financing for developing countries, was agreed by leaders of both the largest emitting countries and small vulnerable states. It was also noted by the fifteenth Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

“We look forward to working with Mexico and the broader international community, ideally to establish a legally-binding agreement for post-2012 action under the UNFCCC by the 16th Conference of Parties (COP16) in Mexico City in 2010. To achieve this agreement, international organisations have a major role to play by informing the discussions and helping negotiating parties reach a common understanding of the issues at stake”.

In the coming year, the OECD will contribute to international efforts by engaging in discussions with governments, advising on the design, and encouraging the implementation of cost-effective policies to adapt to and mitigate climate change.

Countries’ declared emissions reduction targets are not yet enough. OECD analysis suggests that developed countries would reduce emissions by only 18% in 2020 compared with 1990 levels, still below the 25-40% reduction needed to stay within a 2oC temperature increase. Developing countries also need to go further. OECD will support efforts to help both developed and developing countries identify where they can step-up reductions, while still growing the economy.

Given the climate change that is already likely to take place, we will also step-up analysis of how to integrate adaptation to climate change into all aspects of economic development. Much of the focus will be on ways to assist developing countries to best manage the risks and make their development resilient to the impacts of climate change.

On the issue of financing, OECD is investigating mechanisms for innovative international finance. It is looking at ways governments can ensure that their domestic policy frameworks set the right price for carbon and send the right signal to encourage private investment to support a low-carbon society. For example, recent OECD analysis found that, if the proper mix of policies and instruments to price carbon is put in place to reduce emissions by 20% in developed countries by 2020, this could raise the equivalent of 2.5% of their GDP. While there will be many competing demands for using these revenues, a fraction of that amount would be enough to supply the public money developed countries agreed to provide in the Copenhagen Accord.

In addition, OECD is advancing policy options to stimulate innovation, from the early stages of technology development through to diffusion and transfer. Easy and rapid access to low-carbon technologies and technologies that can support adaptation will be critical to ensuring timely and effective action in developing countries. OECD is also looking at ways to better inform consumer and industry choices and working with sub-national governments to identify and disseminate good local-level policy practices to reduce emissions.

Last but not least, to help advance the Accord, OECD will build on existing work to propose ways to measure, report and verify (MRV) timely progress on national emissions reduction targets, mitigation efforts and finance. This will be critical to ensure the transparent accountability of actions by all countries.

 

[maiden22]

Is the world warming or not?

I actually skimmed through the blog post. More conspiracy theory stuff. Data corrections != scientific malpractice. More internet kangaroo court drivel.

It depends upon where to take your starting date. From the end of 70s or the little ice age? Probably. From the MWP? Probably not.

Again, whether the world is warming is not the question. What is causing the warming, on the other hand, is.

These are not "data corrections". It is deliberate manipulation to turn a cooling trend into a warming one. The scale of the "corrections" is simply staggering. You are attempting to dismiss this without addressing it because you cannot accept the truth.

People have tampered with the temperature record to create a false impression of warming. For the region under discussion, it does not exist.

Your responses have been illuminating - it is very difficult to take you seriously due to your refusal to accept very obvious facts. This is not a conspiracy theory - it is pointing out an obvious truth, one that cannot be denied by any reasonable person.

That temperature record is completely bogus. It is a lie.

On a related but lighter note, I have found a picture of you carefully examing the various sides of the argument with your self-proclaimed disinterest and scepticism:

 

[maiden22]

Here you are again, bravely and successfully refuting arguments that you disagree with:

 

[maiden22]

http://www.amazon.com/Emperors-Clot...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262905147&sr=1-1

A link that you might find useful.

 

[maiden22]

It's a shame that you weren't around back then. You could have informed this chap about the correct way to turn back the waves.

Imagine! What an idiot - imagining that he can't control the planet! He was probably on the take from BIG OIL or somebody.