|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 4, 2023 6:45:50 GMT
Apologies (Especially to Red) for not replying last night, as you know I like to do a bit of research before I dispute a claim. Anyway. Yes you are right the promise of increased hurricane strength and frequency are not supported by the NOAA and are made up by the main stream press. That caught me out as they "quote" the NOAA. Wont fall for that again. I normally get my information from NASA, Scientific American or the IPCC. The NOAA site says. There is a 50% chance of above-normal tropical cyclone activity during the central Pacific hurricane season this year, according to the outlook from NOAA’s Central Pacific Hurricane Center and NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center, divisions of the National Weather Service. The outlook also indicates a 35% chance for near-normal activity, and only a 15% chance of a below-normal hurricane season. But I believe there is an exceptional El Nino this year. To complex to say if El Nino is strengthened by global warming. Logic would say as it heat driven more heat would effect it, but its not proven. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2023 6:54:23 GMT
Apologies (Especially to Red) for not replying last night, as you know I like to do a bit of research before I dispute a claim. Anyway. Yes you are right the promise of increased hurricane strength and frequency are not supported by the NOAA and are made up by the main stream press. That caught me out as they "quote" the NOAA. Wont fall for that again. I normally get my information from NASA, Scientific American or the IPCC. The NOAA site says. There is a 50% chance of above-normal tropical cyclone activity during the central Pacific hurricane season this year, according to the outlook from NOAA’s Central Pacific Hurricane Center and NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center, divisions of the National Weather Service. The outlook also indicates a 35% chance for near-normal activity, and only a 15% chance of a below-normal hurricane season. But I believe there is an exceptional El Nino this year. To complex to say if El Nino is strengthened by global warming. Logic would say as it heat driven more heat would effect it, but its not proven. Keep in mind that 'information' depends on how you process it, so treat the word with sceptism when it's given to you. It isn't a church and no holy man is there to answer all of your fears, even if the MSM has been attempting to take on that role as you have just found out. Sandypine correctly used the word 'data'. This to me suggests his sources understands science and expects a more scientific audience than the MSM does.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jun 4, 2023 12:29:46 GMT
That's quite an ambiguous question. And answer "In a study that surveyed 1,891 physicians, one-third reported that they “did not completely agree” that it is always necessary to inform patients of medical errors." I can think of a few examples where telling the patient you had accidentally nicked an artery while operating would do more harm than good. Some one with dementia who doesn't fully understand might worry themselves sick about it. The thing I find difficult with this subject is that it doesn't matter if I take the time to explain the science people still don't believe it. For instance I could go to a lot of trouble to explain. That we can extract long ice cores to study the thousands of layers ice representing separate snowfalls and their trapped air bubbles. In controlled laboratory environments, we can measure the chemical makeup of the air that has been trapped - how much oxygen, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen gas was present in the atmosphere at the time it was buried in the ice. From these measurements, we can calculate past temperatures using empirical data on how these gases hold heat in the modern atmosphere. Or use naturally occurring isotopes. Isotopes are atoms of the same element that are heavier or lighter depending on how many neutrons are in its nucleus. Even molecules of water, composed of one hydrogen atom and two oxygen atoms, can have different weights depending on what isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen are bonded together. The two most common isotopes of oxygen in nature are oxygen-16 (8 neutrons) and oxygen-18 (10 neutrons). When the Earth cools down, the lighter, oxygen-16 found in seawater is locked away in the ice of high latitude glaciers due to evaporative processes, leaving behind relatively more oxygen-18 in the oceans. During warm global climates, melted ice returns oxygen-16-rich waters to the oceans. So the proportion of oxygen-18 to oxygen-16 in the ocean reflects the Earth’s climate even if we can’t see the ice. Earth Scientists recognize this oxygen isotope pattern between glaciated and ice-free climates, referring to it as the “ice volume effect”, and have since used it to reconstruct ancient Earth climates. Great long explanations, but next day the people who read your words are still saying the same things a though nothing changed. They don't challenge the information they just ignore it. Nothing like telling granny, is there. My career subjects were chemistry and physics, something I both worked in and went on to further study until I decided to call it a day. Though there is much I no longer remember, isotope definition is not one of them. May I suggest you stop this constant wriggling. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 4, 2023 16:35:15 GMT
That's quite an ambiguous question. And answer "In a study that surveyed 1,891 physicians, one-third reported that they “did not completely agree” that it is always necessary to inform patients of medical errors." I can think of a few examples where telling the patient you had accidentally nicked an artery while operating would do more harm than good. Some one with dementia who doesn't fully understand might worry themselves sick about it. The thing I find difficult with this subject is that it doesn't matter if I take the time to explain the science people still don't believe it. For instance I could go to a lot of trouble to explain. That we can extract long ice cores to study the thousands of layers ice representing separate snowfalls and their trapped air bubbles. In controlled laboratory environments, we can measure the chemical makeup of the air that has been trapped - how much oxygen, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen gas was present in the atmosphere at the time it was buried in the ice. From these measurements, we can calculate past temperatures using empirical data on how these gases hold heat in the modern atmosphere. Or use naturally occurring isotopes. Isotopes are atoms of the same element that are heavier or lighter depending on how many neutrons are in its nucleus. Even molecules of water, composed of one hydrogen atom and two oxygen atoms, can have different weights depending on what isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen are bonded together. The two most common isotopes of oxygen in nature are oxygen-16 (8 neutrons) and oxygen-18 (10 neutrons). When the Earth cools down, the lighter, oxygen-16 found in seawater is locked away in the ice of high latitude glaciers due to evaporative processes, leaving behind relatively more oxygen-18 in the oceans. During warm global climates, melted ice returns oxygen-16-rich waters to the oceans. So the proportion of oxygen-18 to oxygen-16 in the ocean reflects the Earth’s climate even if we can’t see the ice. Earth Scientists recognize this oxygen isotope pattern between glaciated and ice-free climates, referring to it as the “ice volume effect”, and have since used it to reconstruct ancient Earth climates. Great long explanations, but next day the people who read your words are still saying the same things a though nothing changed. They don't challenge the information they just ignore it. Nothing like telling granny, is there. My career subjects were chemistry and physics, something I both worked in and went on to further study until I decided to call it a day. Though there is much I no longer remember, isotope definition is not one of them. May I suggest you stop this constant wriggling. Well as you are so well educated perhaps its you who should be pointing out to those who deny it that we can indeed accurately measure historic temperatures. And may I suggest you stop... |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 4, 2023 16:46:34 GMT
Nothing like telling granny, is there. My career subjects were chemistry and physics, something I both worked in and went on to further study until I decided to call it a day. Though there is much I no longer remember, isotope definition is not one of them. May I suggest you stop this constant wriggling. Well as you are so well educated perhaps its you who should be pointing out to those who deny it that we can indeed accurately measure historic temperatures. And may I suggest you stop... How accurately would that be? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 4, 2023 17:12:50 GMT
Well as you are so well educated perhaps its you who should be pointing out to those who deny it that we can indeed accurately measure historic temperatures. And may I suggest you stop... How accurately would that be? Depends on whether you are trying to measure in a specific area of estimate global temperature. Local ones are not that accurate as many factors can effect them. Globally average is accurate to less than a degree. That's my reading of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jun 4, 2023 17:51:23 GMT
Nothing like telling granny, is there. My career subjects were chemistry and physics, something I both worked in and went on to further study until I decided to call it a day. Though there is much I no longer remember, isotope definition is not one of them. May I suggest you stop this constant wriggling. Well as you are so well educated perhaps its you who should be pointing out to those who deny it that we can indeed accurately measure historic temperatures. And may I suggest you stop... I think it's you who needs to stop. You are screaming round these boards jumping from what you see as one social issue to another social issue with no convincing evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 4, 2023 18:07:15 GMT
Well as you are so well educated perhaps its you who should be pointing out to those who deny it that we can indeed accurately measure historic temperatures. And may I suggest you stop... I think it's you who needs to stop. You are screaming round these boards jumping from what you see as one social issue to another social issue with no convincing evidence. I am only on a couple of threads on this board. You are following me around offering nothing but personal insults. You need to stop. From now on any post you make to me that is either off topic or contains any sort of insult regardless how small will mean you get no response. This may be fine with you, it will certainly be fine with me. |
|
|
|
Post by besoeker3 on Jun 4, 2023 18:53:43 GMT
Climate change is increasing. More rapidly in 100 years and even more so in recent years. Evidence? The CO2 is a measurable figure but others don'r think it isn't. So just some observations from me. I am ancient grump. When I was at school we regularly got snow in the winter. Snowball fights were not unusual. Then there was the winter of 1962. The most recent snowfall for us was about 2015. Then there have been record temperatures. The 1976 was a scorcher. Last year we had another - a record 40.3C.
It just the records that are important. The temperature has significant risen in my lifetime.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 4, 2023 19:52:54 GMT
How accurately would that be? Depends on whether you are trying to measure in a specific area of estimate global temperature. Local ones are not that accurate as many factors can effect them. Globally average is accurate to less than a degree. That's my reading of it. So what was the global temperature during the medieval warm period. We have several estimates and much conjecture based on useful but pretty sparse data. Each proxy has a level of accuracy and I would think your accuracy to less than a degree for a global temperature is a bit of wishful thinking. I assume you mean 1 C. The MWP is, even by you in a previous discussion, a matter of debate where mays and coulds indicate that colder areas existed. Even now the tree ring proxy is diverging from the instrument readings with poor correlation becoming apparent. There are several papers studying this with global dimming and sulphur dioxide being blamed. One thing is very clear, the science is far from settled. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jun 4, 2023 20:04:33 GMT
I think it's you who needs to stop. You are screaming round these boards jumping from what you see as one social issue to another social issue with no convincing evidence. I am only on a couple of threads on this board. You are following me around offering nothing but personal insults. You need to stop. From now on any post you make to me that is either off topic or contains any sort of insult regardless how small will mean you get no response. This may be fine with you, it will certainly be fine with me. But you have not been on just a couple of threads and I do not follow you around any more than I could accuse you of following me around. As I explained to someone else, I go through a set of threads in a fairly strict order and respond as I think fit, I guess that's pretty true of many posters on here. I really don't care if you don't respond, I won't take it as an affront anymore than I might consider your contributions fallacious. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 4, 2023 21:08:58 GMT
Depends on whether you are trying to measure in a specific area of estimate global temperature. Local ones are not that accurate as many factors can effect them. Globally average is accurate to less than a degree. That's my reading of it. So what was the global temperature during the medieval warm period. We have several estimates and much conjecture based on useful but pretty sparse data. Each proxy has a level of accuracy and I would think your accuracy to less than a degree for a global temperature is a bit of wishful thinking. I assume you mean 1 C. The MWP is, even by you in a previous discussion, a matter of debate where mays and coulds indicate that colder areas existed. Even now the tree ring proxy is diverging from the instrument readings with poor correlation becoming apparent. There are several papers studying this with global dimming and sulphur dioxide being blamed. One thing is very clear, the science is far from settled. The medieval warm period was not a world wide event. It effected Europe. As such its less easy to predict. But far more importantly is that my example was not an argument for or against AGW. I deliberately chose something that is not important to AGW. No one disputes the earth has been hotter and colder than now, for a hundred different reasons. What matters is why its heating up now. We know the reasons the planet warms, we know why some bits do separately to the main, but very few things can cause the whole planet to warm. There in no doubt that atmospheric Co2 is increasing, so the argument becomes is it Co2 doing the warming or something else. But what else? To increase the whole earths temperature by 1.5c takes trillions of terawatts of energy, its not something like an El Nino can do. So what? That question is the one that must be answered if we are to claim its not Co2. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 4, 2023 21:59:12 GMT
Climate change is increasing. More rapidly in 100 years and even more so in recent years. Evidence? The CO2 is a measurable figure but others don'r think it isn't. So just some observations from me. I am ancient grump. When I was at school we regularly got snow in the winter. Snowball fights were not unusual. Then there was the winter of 1962. The most recent snowfall for us was about 2015. Then there have been record temperatures. The 1976 was a scorcher. Last year we had another - a record 40.3C. It just the records that are important. The temperature has significant risen in my lifetime. Not sure where you live but down in the West Country where snowfall is quite unusual our last fall was in January this year. Last years 'record' temp is quite questionable - at the time people were querying its sudden rapid peak. Putting the measuring station next to an active runway might be a clue. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jun 4, 2023 22:02:49 GMT
Climate change is increasing. More rapidly in 100 years and even more so in recent years. Evidence? The CO2 is a measurable figure but others don'r think it isn't. So just some observations from me. I am ancient grump. When I was at school we regularly got snow in the winter. Snowball fights were not unusual. Then there was the winter of 1962. The most recent snowfall for us was about 2015. Then there have been record temperatures. The 1976 was a scorcher. Last year we had another - a record 40.3C. It just the records that are important. The temperature has significant risen in my lifetime. Not sure where you live but down in the West Country where snowfall is quite unusual our last fall was in January this year. Last years 'record' temp is quite questionable - at the time people were querying its sudden rapid peak. Putting the measuring station next to an active runway might be a clue. The same temperature was recorded here on the farm's thermometer. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 5, 2023 13:15:54 GMT
So what was the global temperature during the medieval warm period. We have several estimates and much conjecture based on useful but pretty sparse data. Each proxy has a level of accuracy and I would think your accuracy to less than a degree for a global temperature is a bit of wishful thinking. I assume you mean 1 C. The MWP is, even by you in a previous discussion, a matter of debate where mays and coulds indicate that colder areas existed. Even now the tree ring proxy is diverging from the instrument readings with poor correlation becoming apparent. There are several papers studying this with global dimming and sulphur dioxide being blamed. One thing is very clear, the science is far from settled. The medieval warm period was not a world wide event. It effected Europe. As such its less easy to predict. But far more importantly is that my example was not an argument for or against AGW. I deliberately chose something that is not important to AGW. No one disputes the earth has been hotter and colder than now, for a hundred different reasons. What matters is why its heating up now. We know the reasons the planet warms, we know why some bits do separately to the main, but very few things can cause the whole planet to warm. There in no doubt that atmospheric Co2 is increasing, so the argument becomes is it Co2 doing the warming or something else. But what else? To increase the whole earths temperature by 1.5c takes trillions of terawatts of energy, its not something like an El Nino can do. So what? That question is the one that must be answered if we are to claim its not Co2. Well herein lies the essence of the problem. We do not know why it heated up in the past just as we do not know why it is heating up now. There are efforts to align C02 as the specific culprit but we can see now that the relationship is uncertain between C02 and increasing temperatures. The temperatures themselves are a bit of a problem as the methods of measuring, the locations of measuring, the correction factors applied and the models generated and their predictions are all at odds with the actual temperature rise recorded. We know that one isolated incident is not proof of planetary warming or proof of planetary warming not occurring. What is worrying is that many 'warmists' use individual events as proof of AGW. Just stop oil spokespeople have referred to the UK's record 40C temp and the Pakistan floods as evidence that AGW is real yet both have questions as to their validity as an indication of a changing climate. |
|
