|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 29, 2023 6:15:27 GMT
Oh yes possible, but the fact that we measure across the globe in a hundred different ways form a million points means the odds of the overall message being wrong is zero. I hope that is a tongue in cheek comment. There are ample opportunities for many of the readings being wrong for a multitude of reasons not least being that UHI has an effect and the application of corrections and smoothing anomalies is an ongoing process. Remember the message is not the readings the message is what causes the readings to be as interpreted. Many others have crunched the numbers and come up with a different message. This in itself would not be so bad if the warmists were not so secretive as regards what they are doing. I will not give you a link but there is an ongoing court case in Australia whereby probe and spirit/mercury readings have been taken side by side for a few years and the Aussie service will not release the data to those seeking to crunch the numbers. That is a strange way to behave when trying to win hearts and minds to your cause. Its not tongue in cheek, its basic maths. If you take enough readings and very few are anomalous then the margin of error is very small. You keep saying many scientists disagree with this, so I challenge you to list some meteorology scientists who say climate change is not predominantly caused by man made Co2. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 29, 2023 6:32:39 GMT
Moderator Notice
Keep it civil please
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 29, 2023 6:36:06 GMT
Reported. I'm sorry to have to do that. I hoped you would read back and see where you misunderstood what NASA said. But I can't have you keep calling me a liar. Don't apologise to me apologise to yourself. Hopefully someone you trust will explain why the words "DID NOT ANNOUNCE" do not mean NASA agree with you and disagree with me. I don't mind challenging your views on subjects, but I have no desire to mock you. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jun 29, 2023 6:37:42 GMT
Don't apologise to me apologise to yourself. Hopefully someone you trust will explain why the words "DID NOT ANNOUNCE" do not mean NASA agree with you and disagree with me. I don't mind challenging your views on subjects, but I have no desire to mock you. I am not playing you game Zany. So get over it. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 29, 2023 6:42:17 GMT
Hopefully someone you trust will explain why the words "DID NOT ANNOUNCE" do not mean NASA agree with you and disagree with me. I don't mind challenging your views on subjects, but I have no desire to mock you. I am not playing you game Zany. So get over it. OK. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 29, 2023 7:02:07 GMT
Wonder who the eco mob will blame when the lights go out ?? I should imagine they will blame it on 'capitalism' |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jun 29, 2023 7:16:46 GMT
It's so full of holes Zany I find you arguing with yourself, where will all the commodities come from and the infrastructure to create all these new homes? Who is going to pay for it and sustain it? Would anyone like to give an answer, or are we relying on Zany who obviously doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jun 29, 2023 7:42:47 GMT
I hope your scattergun generalisation isnt aimed at me steve.
Intelligence is keeping an open mind and evaluating debate and fact as it comes. Not dismissing everything that opposes your view while screaming heretic at those who dont share your political dogmatism.
Climate change is happening. The debate is about wether its natural or man made , what should be done about it and what can be done about it.
The whole climate argument is beginning to resemble the covid debate of recent years. Where we had one goup of people claiming the evidence was all on thier side (it wasnt) and another group being labelled as heretics for not jumping on the bandwagon.
Im an amateur weather enthusiast who is a member of numerous weather forums , with people posting who have far more knowledge of the cliamte globally than you or i. There isnt a consensus among them , with argument raging back and forth , so the idea people need to shut up and do as they are told is just the ususal labour party group thinking that normally switches off the general public.
I wasn't aiming my response at you no. But that man made global warming is a real phenomenon is taken as proven by most climate scientists. The greenhouse gas effect is nothing new steve. It was first being talked about in the mid nineteenth century , when eunice foote and irish physicist john tyndall talked about the heat trapping properties of carbon dioxide in the air could cause climate warming.
We then had scientists , climatologists and governments /media tell us after climax of warmth between the 1930`s and 50`s , world temperatures has started to fall and that we had to prepare for a new ice age.
So what scientists have a general consensus on one minute , can change the next as we know.
My view is somewhere in the middle. Humans can and should clean up their act and start behaving responsibly , but at the same time destroying industry , attacking the working classes , making us colder and poorer due to carbon taxes and green levies is a nonsense.
Do you trust politicians and global western elites to "save the planet" and have our interests at heart?
like i said steve , this climate debate is all starting to resemble the covid debate. One side claiming science is on thier side , so its and open and shut book with no more debate , and that we all have to trot along behind the bus like nodding dogs agreeing with everything these nice politicians say about whats in our best interests.
climatology and weather is something as i said i have always had an interest in , and i find now its almost impossible to have a sensible conversation on climate change as the science , questions and learning are all overshadowed by political dogma.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jun 29, 2023 7:59:17 GMT
UK could be starved of energy, says North Sea boss
The UK is at risk of being "starved" of North Sea energy leaving it reliant on imports, a major oil and gas producer has told the BBC.
Ithaca Energy said Labour's pledge to ban new oil and gas exploration in the North Sea and current taxation policy was "spooking" investors.
Ithaca is almost entirely invested in North Sea oil and gas.
Environmental groups and scientists say new oil and gas fields would take the UK over its carbon budget limits.
Last week, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said a Labour government would not grant licences to explore new fields in the North Sea, saying it would be an "historic mistake" to wait until UK oil and gas runs out.
But Gilad Myerson, executive chairman of Ithaca, said the move would threaten the UK's energy security.
"By a new government imagining they'll be able to stop licences and oil development in the UK, ultimately what that means is that they'll be starving the UK of energy, and it will become very dependent on energy from abroad," he said.
The oil and gas sector supports 200,000 UK jobs, according to trade body Offshore Energies UK.
One of Mr Myerson's biggest concerns is around job losses if the North Sea sees no further investment.
He believes it is unrealistic to expect someone working on an oil platform to be able to install a windfarm as they would not have the technical expertise.
However, Friends of the Earth and others argue that with the right support and investment, the renewable energy sector could support three times as many jobs as oil and gas.
Mr Dalhuijsen, who previously worked as a petroleum engineer in the oil and gas sector, is himself looking to retrain to retrofit buildings to make them more energy-efficient.
My Myerson agrees that wind and solar are important technologies and Ithaca is looking to invest in them as well, but says: "It's impossible to just turn off a switch and imagine we can live in a world without hydrocarbons."
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 29, 2023 8:15:33 GMT
I hope that is a tongue in cheek comment. There are ample opportunities for many of the readings being wrong for a multitude of reasons not least being that UHI has an effect and the application of corrections and smoothing anomalies is an ongoing process. Remember the message is not the readings the message is what causes the readings to be as interpreted. Many others have crunched the numbers and come up with a different message. This in itself would not be so bad if the warmists were not so secretive as regards what they are doing. I will not give you a link but there is an ongoing court case in Australia whereby probe and spirit/mercury readings have been taken side by side for a few years and the Aussie service will not release the data to those seeking to crunch the numbers. That is a strange way to behave when trying to win hearts and minds to your cause. Its not tongue in cheek, its basic maths. If you take enough readings and very few are anomalous then the margin of error is very small. You keep saying many scientists disagree with this, so I challenge you to list some meteorology scientists who say climate change is not predominantly caused by man made Co2. 1 Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming. 2. Warming is far slower than predicted. 3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models. 4. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a plant food that is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide. 5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters. 6. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities. 7. There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2023 10:48:57 GMT
I know. The naysayers have nothing and are not showcasing much in the way of intelligence. In spite of the fact that many of us have pointed out the science in simple terms for them to understand. If you want intelligent debate this thread appears to be one to avoid. One thing the entire forum constantly seems to demonstrate is just how damned thick the average right winger is. No wonder this country is in the state it is in. Any intelligent post gets ignored if they cannot refute it. An object lesson in how to believe what you want to believe regardless of facts. One of them thinks the science is all brazen lies whilst believing everything the Daily Mail tells him. You just cant reason with stupid and it is probably best to ignore them which is why I have mostly given up on this thread. I do however reserve the right to respond to any intelligent posts. But at the moment this thread is rapidly becoming an intellectual desert. The ashes have been fanned back to flame. We are in the hands of the G Mods I guess people who aren't supporting the spoodfed version of how the world works are too unintelligent and should be constrained. I think what's required is a good smear. Calling people unintelligent isn't enough, because it doesn't have that emotional impact like calling somebody a racist. I would suggest the intelligentsia work on this, because I don't think this social science can survive on ego alone. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 29, 2023 20:21:32 GMT
I hope that is a tongue in cheek comment. There are ample opportunities for many of the readings being wrong for a multitude of reasons not least being that UHI has an effect and the application of corrections and smoothing anomalies is an ongoing process. Remember the message is not the readings the message is what causes the readings to be as interpreted. Many others have crunched the numbers and come up with a different message. This in itself would not be so bad if the warmists were not so secretive as regards what they are doing. I will not give you a link but there is an ongoing court case in Australia whereby probe and spirit/mercury readings have been taken side by side for a few years and the Aussie service will not release the data to those seeking to crunch the numbers. That is a strange way to behave when trying to win hearts and minds to your cause. Its not tongue in cheek, its basic maths. If you take enough readings and very few are anomalous then the margin of error is very small. You keep saying many scientists disagree with this, so I challenge you to list some meteorology scientists who say climate change is not predominantly caused by man made Co2. There is a peer reviewed paper that may disagree with your belief. Some brief extracts from a very well researched and very long paper. "LiG Metrology, Correlated Error, and the Integrity of the Global Surface Air Temperature Record has passed peer-review and is now published in the MDPI journal, Sensors (pdf)." "But the take-home message is simple: The people compiling the global air temperature record do not understand thermometers. The rate or magnitude of climate warming since 1900 is unknowable." "Non-linearity: Both mercury and especially ethanol (spirit) expand non-linearly with temperature. The resulting error is small for mercury LiG thermometers, but significant for the alcohol variety. In the standard surface station prior to 1980, an alcohol thermometer provided Tmin, which puts 2s = ±0.37 C of uncertainty into every daily land-surface Tmean. Temperature error due to non-linearity of response is uncorrected in the historical record." "I.2.3 The SST is unknown: In 1964 (LiG Met. Section 3.4.4) Robert Stevenson carried out an extended SST calibration experiment aboard the VELERO IV oceanographic research vessel. Simultaneous high-accuracy SST measurements were taken from the VELERO IV and from a small launch put out from the ship. Stevenson found that the ship so disturbed the surrounding waters that the SSTs measured from the ship were not representative of the physically true water temperature (or air temperature). No matter how accurate, the bucket, engine-intake, or hull-mounted probe temperature measurement did not reveal the true SST. The only exception was an SST obtained using a prow-mounted probe, but iff the measurement was made when the ship was heading into the wind “or cruising downwind at a speed greater than the wind velocity.” Stevenson concluded, “One may then question the value of temperatures taken aboard a ship, or from any large structure at sea. Because the measurements vary with the wind velocity and the orientation of the ship with respect to the wind direction no factor can be applied to correct the data. It is likely that the temperatures are, therefore, useless for any but gross analyses of climatic factors, excepting, perhaps, those taken with a carefully-oriented probe.” Links can be found in your favourite keen to ignore blog. wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/29/the-verdict-of-instrumental-methods/There are several interesting graphs and histograms. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 29, 2023 20:29:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 29, 2023 20:48:20 GMT
The basic problem is (and this is not confined to just the UK) that weather recording sites that have been used historically have, due to progress, become less than ideally placed. What used to be out in the middle of nowhere is now in the middle of a heat sink development. What it needs is enforcement of the guidelines for siting weather stations - of course this might not give the results that some are looking for. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 29, 2023 21:29:44 GMT
The basic problem is (and this is not confined to just the UK) that weather recording sites that have been used historically have, due to progress, become less than ideally placed. What used to be out in the middle of nowhere is now in the middle of a heat sink development. What it needs is enforcement of the guidelines for siting weather stations - of course this might not give the results that some are looking for. The NOAA did initiate 114 pristinely located stations that were used in tandem with existing stations to assess differences. These stations readings when plotted show no warming since 2005 (2019 article). This is claim is refuted in a rather complicated and somewhat unclear article later in 2019 which says there is a warming trend What is clear is that the claim there was no warming was based directly on the readings taken from the 114 stations. If I read the other article correctly they seem to take the pristine stations and the corrected stations and accept a level of comparison and use all the results www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2019/08/23/climate_alarmists_foiled_no_us_warming_since_2005.htmlclimatefeedback.org/claimreview/claim-of-no-us-warming-since-2005-is-directly-contradicted-by-the-data-it-is-based-on/ |
|
