|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 30, 2023 13:33:08 GMT
All the links you may wish and need are within the link I gave. wattsup is not making any decisions for you other than to provide the pathway for all that you may wish. They have done the hard work of collating all the info. I would remind you that this is the mind zone where derogatory comments such as wattsupwithcrap should realistically not be entertained. I don't want to wander through wattsupwithcrap again, trying to unravel the duplicitous information and cherry picked sentences I found last time I did this. Please can you link me climate scientists who are questioning the figures used by NASA the IPCC and the CMA. Cherry picking an ignored plus or minus 0.03degree variable is not proof the numbers are out. Plus or minus means just that. You did not have to wander it was clearly stated in the first few lines. However in order to take the horse to the water www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/23/13/5976EDIT.. They are not proving anything is out they are reporting inaccuracies and uncertainties that are frequently unaccounted for in the global warming warnings. A man reading a mercury thermometer in a wind blasted Stevenson screen at -20F in 1950 has uncertainties as does a man reading an 85F as he is pouring with sweat getting in his eyes and steaming up his glasses. Been there done it. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 30, 2023 13:40:20 GMT
Which seems to me would be missing the entire point of the hypothesis A bit like constructing a hypothesis that airports (specifically) are locally warmer and mixing in data from non airports to find that they aren't I wonder if these people do this sort of thing all the time - it would explain why all the future projections for climate are all so badly wrong in the same direction. But why would these errors always show a higher temperature. Umm..bias |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 30, 2023 14:01:45 GMT
Which seems to me would be missing the entire point of the hypothesis A bit like constructing a hypothesis that airports (specifically) are locally warmer and mixing in data from non airports to find that they aren't I wonder if these people do this sort of thing all the time - it would explain why all the future projections for climate are all so badly wrong in the same direction. But why would these errors always show a higher temperature. Largely because they are using readings that are being corrupted upwards by events and things unrelated to global warming; examples would be now using probe readings with instant response time as opposed to mercury readings with a slower response time. Another example would be using a probe reading at an airport where three Typhoon jets landed at the time using reverse thrust on the engines with hot air blasting from side vents. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jun 30, 2023 14:50:58 GMT
I agree, but that's the exact opposite of many so called "Green" agendas: Scrap your perfectly good car and buy an allegedly more eco friendly alternative (eg per ULEZ) which is a complete nonsense. Scrap your perfectly good boiler to buy a somewhat dubious heat pump. Stick solar panels everywhere, but what's the environmental impact of that? What about disposal? How long before there's a net benefit (if ever)? I'm not saying that we shouldn't embrace the new when we need to but scrapping perfectly usable stuff because it doesn't meet current standards is lunacy. The ULEZ charge is not about climate change. I never said it was. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 30, 2023 15:26:37 GMT
But why would these errors always show a higher temperature. Largely because they are using readings that are being corrupted upwards by events and things unrelated to global warming; examples would be now using probe readings with instant response time as opposed to mercury readings with a slower response time. Another example would be using a probe reading at an airport where three Typhoon jets landed at the time using reverse thrust on the engines with hot air blasting from side vents. But such rare cases would be dwarfed by the billions of correct readings. That's why they are ignored, not some conspiracy. And many of these so called dubious readings are from long before AGW started, yet still with all our modern sophisticated measuring devices we are still seeing temperatures rise. If errors from single thermometers in airports etc made a difference we would expect to see satellite readings telling us its cooler wouldn't we. www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-a-match-satellite-and-ground-measurements-agree-on-warming/It’s A Match: Satellite and Ground Measurements Agree on Warming
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 30, 2023 15:32:06 GMT
The ULEZ charge is not about climate change. I never said it was. My mistake. Strange that you lumped it in with Heat pumps and Solar panels. Anyway I disagree that trying to prevent local pollution in cities with rising asthma rates is lunacy. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 30, 2023 16:07:31 GMT
Largely because they are using readings that are being corrupted upwards by events and things unrelated to global warming; examples would be now using probe readings with instant response time as opposed to mercury readings with a slower response time. Another example would be using a probe reading at an airport where three Typhoon jets landed at the time using reverse thrust on the engines with hot air blasting from side vents. But such rare cases would be dwarfed by the billions of correct readings. That's why they are ignored, not some conspiracy. And many of these so called dubious readings are from long before AGW started, yet still with all our modern sophisticated measuring devices we are still seeing temperatures rise. If errors from single thermometers in airports etc made a difference we would expect to see satellite readings telling us its cooler wouldn't we. www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-a-match-satellite-and-ground-measurements-agree-on-warming/It’s A Match: Satellite and Ground Measurements Agree on Warming
Of course it is I repeat, as far as I am aware no one is saying the planet is not warming, the discussion is always by how much now, by how much from the recent past, by how much from centuries ago, what the cause is and what should we, and others, do about it. It is not errors from single airports (although just stop oil quote the 40.3C as evidence they are right) a few years back some 850 US stations were assessed for possible corruption of their readings and some 89% were found to be at odds with the parameters defined by the NOAA. These were all stations feeding into the planet climate values. You still struggle with the concept that record UK temperatures are recorded mainly at airports or areas with new buildings and/or large areas of glass. It is comments like this in the report "The satellite record seemed to suggest that less warming had occurred on Earth than the surface-based temperature set showed. But in 2017, a breakthrough paper published in the Journal of Climate suggested the satellite record required some important corrections." that raise concerns and with the new infrared system it is not clear how verification was carried out, we have seen in the past that climate science tends to lift itself up by its own bootstraps. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jun 30, 2023 16:13:02 GMT
My mistake. Strange that you lumped it in with Heat pumps and Solar panels. Anyway I disagree that trying to prevent local pollution in cities with rising asthma rates is lunacy. I never said that, either. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 30, 2023 16:21:28 GMT
But such rare cases would be dwarfed by the billions of correct readings. That's why they are ignored, not some conspiracy. And many of these so called dubious readings are from long before AGW started, yet still with all our modern sophisticated measuring devices we are still seeing temperatures rise. If errors from single thermometers in airports etc made a difference we would expect to see satellite readings telling us its cooler wouldn't we. www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-a-match-satellite-and-ground-measurements-agree-on-warming/It’s A Match: Satellite and Ground Measurements Agree on Warming
Of course it is Yep Can I see the evidence for that, not from Wuwt. You see I wonder if the original data says 850 US stations out of 5,897 were found to be inaccurate. And that's the bit Wuwt forgot to mention. This is the problem I found with the site, it lies by manipulation of facts. It is comments like this in the report And yet where are these numbers? Why don't WUWT publish them if they have them. Yet as you agree, no one is claiming warming isn't happening and no scientist is saying we need not worry about AGW. Frankly if global warming is slower than thought it would still have a job at being slower than our attempts at mitigation. We've done bugger all for 30 years, how much slower would you like our response to be. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jun 30, 2023 17:10:25 GMT
Of course it is Yep Can I see the evidence for that, not from Wuwt. You see I wonder if the original data says 850 US stations out of 5,897 were found to be inaccurate. And that's the bit Wuwt forgot to mention. This is the problem I found with the site, it lies by manipulation of facts. It is comments like this in the report And yet where are these numbers? Why don't WUWT publish them if they have them. Yet as you agree, no one is claiming warming isn't happening and no scientist is saying we need not worry about AGW. Frankly if global warming is slower than thought it would still have a job at being slower than our attempts at mitigation. We've done bugger all for 30 years, how much slower would you like our response to be. Of course any Londoner that disagrees with this little tinpot dictator is called far right and an anti vaxxer........The Wrath of Khan.
Sadiq Khan is brutally heckled by Londoners over his hated ULEZ expansion plans and told to 'stop lying' about the real reason behind the tax on motorists - as he is rapped by watchdog on data transparency
Sadiq Khan was told to 'stop lying' by a heckler last night as he sought to defend his controversial Ulez expansion plans - as watchdogs rapped him for a 'lack of data transparency' over his justification for the scheme.
The Labour politician sought to defend his flagship clean air policy at LBC's State of London debate at the 02 Arena after heavy criticism for lumbering hard-pressed families and businesses with extra costs.
An anti-Ulez heckler shouting at Sadiq Khan during the State of London Debate at the O2 Arena in Greenwich
Explaining to presenter James O'Brien how he hoped the Ultra Low Emission Zone will cover all of London from August, Mr Khan said: 'Each year, in our city, around 4,000 people die prematurely, directly, because of air pollution. There are children in our city with stunted lungs, permanently, because of air pollution.'
At this point a heckler berated Mr Khan over the scientific evidence he had used to justify Ulez, with the man arguing he had 'misconstrued it'.
'No-one has died, stop lying!' he shouted - as Mr O'Brien urged him to stop because he did not have a microphone so could not be heard by the radio audience.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jun 30, 2023 17:16:31 GMT
Yep, sounds about right for James O' Brown Nose.
The fact is that in the last 20 years only one death in London can be provably put down to vehicle emmissions.
ULEZ is about topping up TFLs coffers due to Khan's inability to manage the budget.
But of course the mayors office is a major advertiser with the Labour Broadcasting Company, so they'll be at pains to shut down any dissent.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 30, 2023 17:51:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 30, 2023 18:10:18 GMT
For Zany who said
And yet where are these numbers? Why don't WUWT publish them if they have them.
I have linked to graphs, histograms and data published on WUWT and obtained directly from the official data and plotted directly from that data and still you generally just ignore it
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 30, 2023 18:21:40 GMT
Zany said.
"Yet as you agree, no one is claiming warming isn't happening and no scientist is saying we need not worry about AGW. Frankly if global warming is slower than thought it would still have a job at being slower than our attempts at mitigation. We've done bugger all for 30 years, how much slower would you like our response to be."
This presupposes so much, I gave a link to 500 scientists/experts who said many things including that human beings were not specifically to blame for climate change and there was no emergency. The attempts at 'mitigation' are akin to Canute ordering the tide to turn as it is not necessarily CO2 that is to blame as even now there is no direct link between CO2 levels and temperature. I would like our response to be on the same level as everyone on the planet as that is the only equitable solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 30, 2023 18:47:40 GMT
The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific consensus on climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking. www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute"Despite criticizing climate scientists for being overconfident about their data, models and theories, the Heartland Institute proclaims a conspicuous confidence in single studies and grand interpretations....makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading.... Many climate sceptics seem to review scientific data and studies not as scientists but as attorneys, magnifying doubts and treating incomplete explanations as falsehoods rather than signs of progress.
Well who'd have thought. You really need to check your sources.
|
|
