|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 19, 2023 19:37:22 GMT
No I don't because its not the point. Most places have an all time high temperature from some distant past. An unusual set of circumstances in a localised area such as a high pressure held in place by the weather around it for a prolonged period. In 1913 one country in 1842 another. What we are seeing now is a global heatwave, every country is having an exceptionally hot summer. Not global, Zany. I know this is going to be hard to believe and obviously will have no effect at all on the record temperature but the record was set at Hawarden Airport. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 19, 2023 20:00:02 GMT
That sentence makes no sense whatsoever and reveals a lot of ignorance. Science is based on facts - observed facts. The "rules", as you call them, are the "theories" that scientists dream up in order to explain the observed data. And if the theories have exceptions then they're wrong. You don't understand scientific method. As for a "reasoned explanation as to why China is going along with the rest of the world on this ruse" - They're NOT. Surely that's obvious. They're building more and more coal-fired power stations for a start. And they've never agreed to put any of the COP agreements into law, as we have stupidly done. And they've cleverly just said that they'll maybe make the targets about 10 years later than everybody else. You have to be very gullible to not see through this. No, you are wrong, there are very few facts. Most things are beyond absolute proof and yet are accepted on evidence. All evidence tells us we are 92 million miles from the sun, but no one has been to it with a tape measure. The IPCC of course disagree with your interpretation of this. And the evidence is stacked in their direction, so with all due respect I believe them not you or the blogger who gave you the information. And still we have this strange phenomena of China going along with the IPCC and agreeing with the West. Something they're not generally known for. Of course they disagree. The evidence is the data. The interpretation of such is opinion. However using one's own model using historic readings to correct your actual historic readings sounds at best a bit iffy. Suppose we call it invoices which is the data and your debtor uses his own calculations and corrections to pay you based on his assessment of what the invoices should be I bet a pound to a pinch of .... you would not accept his calcs. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 19, 2023 20:30:21 GMT
The strange glee over the European heatwave. notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2023/07/19/the-strange-glee-over-the-european-heatwave/You could almost sense climate campaigners willing those thermometers in Sardinia to nudge into the unknown – a reading above 48.8°C would have marked a new European record and unleashed yet more forewarnings of climatic Armageddon. But alas, they don’t appear to have got their way – at least not today. As of 6.30 p.m. the highest reported temperatures measured today were in the region of 45ºC, on Sardinia. There was a consolation prize in that the World Meteorological Organisation did finally verify the reading of 48.8ºC in Sicily made on 10 August 2021. Prior to that, the European record was established way back in 1977, which was beginning to look a little inconvenient for the narrative of an Earth which is ‘on fire’. More... |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 19, 2023 21:39:20 GMT
It has been on and the record temperatures have not been reached, apart from a few local areas which have achieved local highs such as Verdun in the Pyrenees but in that respect I can quote your own belief that local conditions do not a record make. Its not record temperatures in particular towns or cities, you can quote me those endlessly from 1958 or 1942 or whatever. I am talking about the record of high temperatures at so many places at the same time. The news is full of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 20, 2023 6:43:21 GMT
What places got record highs? - Rome failed, Death Valley failed, the UK and India are having below normal temperatures, East China is higher and West China is lower..
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 20, 2023 6:58:07 GMT
That sentence makes no sense whatsoever and reveals a lot of ignorance. Science is based on facts - observed facts. The "rules", as you call them, are the "theories" that scientists dream up in order to explain the observed data. And if the theories have exceptions then they're wrong. You don't understand scientific method. As for a "reasoned explanation as to why China is going along with the rest of the world on this ruse" - They're NOT. Surely that's obvious. They're building more and more coal-fired power stations for a start. And they've never agreed to put any of the COP agreements into law, as we have stupidly done. And they've cleverly just said that they'll maybe make the targets about 10 years later than everybody else. You have to be very gullible to not see through this. . All evidence tells us we are 92 million miles from the sun, but no one has been to it with a tape measure. The IPCC of course disagree with your interpretation of this. And the evidence is stacked in their direction, so with all due respect I believe them not you or the blogger who gave you the information. And still we have this strange phenomena of China going along with the IPCC and agreeing with the West. Something they're not generally known for. I'm not wrong, zany. I have a degree in physics so I do at least understand the fundamentals. Science is based on observed facts. In some cases it's also based on hypotheses - assumptions made to enable the theory to be developed. For example Relativity assumes that the speed of light is a universal constant. The Climate models are based on the weather models - which are based on observed facts - but the climate models also make the hypothesis that CO2 causes warming and they have a coefficient to calculate how much warming each ppm of CO2 causes. Nobody knows if the speed of light (in a vacuum) actually is constant - in fact it probably isn't - but that doesn't matter because the predictions made by Relativity have proved remarkably accurate. On the other hand no one knows if CO2 actually does cause warming in the Earth's system but the models based on this hypothesis do NOT make accurate predictions. So we're none the wiser. As for the IPCC not agreeing with "my" interpretation of their smoothing it is the IPCC themselves who have said that this is how they "smooth" their data (or more accurately how they work out which data to delete). You seem to have a misunderstanding of what the IPCC is zany. It's not a scientific research organisation. It's an organisation that was founded to present governments with a consistent view of a particular area of science. To this end they have made up their minds that man-made CO2 causes most warming (which is why it's an assumption in their models) and they only employ scientists who believe this - and they only use research that backs this up. This is completely different from an organisation that does scientific research to find the "truth", where scientists are allowed to pursue any theories they like. That's why they resort to changing observed data when it doesn't fit their theories. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 20, 2023 7:41:52 GMT
No, you are wrong, there are very few facts. Most things are beyond absolute proof and yet are accepted on evidence. All evidence tells us we are 92 million miles from the sun, but no one has been to it with a tape measure. The IPCC of course disagree with your interpretation of this. And the evidence is stacked in their direction, so with all due respect I believe them not you or the blogger who gave you the information. And still we have this strange phenomena of China going along with the IPCC and agreeing with the West. Something they're not generally known for. I'm not wrong, zany. I have a degree in physics so I do at least understand the fundamentals. Science is based on observed facts. In some cases it's also based on hypotheses - assumptions made to enable the theory to be developed. For example Relativity assumes that the speed of light is a universal constant. The Climate models are based on the weather models - which are based on observed facts - but the climate models also make the hypothesis that CO2 causes warming and they have a coefficient to calculate how much warming each ppm of CO2 causes. Nobody knows if the speed of light (in a vacuum) actually is constant - in fact it probably isn't - but that doesn't matter because the predictions made by Relativity have proved remarkably accurate. On the other hand no one knows if CO2 actually does cause warming in the Earth's system but the models based on this hypothesis do NOT make accurate predictions. So we're none the wiser. As for the IPCC not agreeing with "my" interpretation of their smoothing it is the IPCC themselves who have said that this is how they "smooth" their data (or more accurately how they work out which data to delete). You seem to have a misunderstanding of what the IPCC is zany. It's not a scientific research organisation. It's an organisation that was founded to present governments with a consistent view of a particular area of science. To this end they have made up their minds that man-made CO2 causes most warming (which is why it's an assumption in their models) and they only employ scientists who believe this - and they only use research that backs this up. This is completely different from an organisation that does scientific research to find the "truth", where scientists are allowed to pursue any theories they like. That's why they resort to changing observed data when it doesn't fit their theories. Well if you have a degree in Physics you ought to know better than to claim science is based on observed fact. The Science council states: Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.
The Oxford English dictionary states:the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained. Berkeley University California:Scientists strive to test their ideas with evidence from the natural world. Science relies on evidence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2023 8:01:53 GMT
Zany, I admire your tenacity and erudition in debating with this bunch of flat earthers. I lack the time all too often and also have insufficient motivation to spend hours engaging with various degrees of nonsense. We even had someone appearing to argue that global warming cannot be true because it is still cold in winter, lol.
But I have long since come to recognise that debating with these people on this issue is a waste of time. Til their dying breath they will deny reality and conjure any argument they can to deny it. Because accepting it would pose too great a challenge to their lifelong ideological convictions.
But I have also noted that for the most part they are people of a certain age and a certain political persuasion, ie they mostly tend to be elderly right wingers. I see little value in wasting my time engaging with them on this topic, lest I feel like doing so on any particular day for my own pleasure. Fact is, as time moves on and they gradually die off even as the climate crisis gets ever worse, their arguments will be lost anyway, their cause ever more untenable and guaranteed to die with them Time will lose them their ever more untenable arguments.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2023 9:41:13 GMT
What places got record highs? - Rome failed, Death Valley failed, the UK and India are having below normal temperatures, East China is higher and West China is lower.. You could be wasting your keyboard time. I've tried to say much the same. Cultists rarely listen, they just keep preaching their isms. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2023 9:45:46 GMT
Zany, I admire your tenacity and erudition in debating with this bunch of flat earthers. I lack the time all too often and also have insufficient motivation to spend hours engaging with various degrees of nonsense. We even had someone appearing to argue that global warming cannot be true because it is still cold in winter, lol. But I have long since come to recognise that debating with these people on this issue is a waste of time. Til their dying breath they will deny reality and conjure any argument they can to deny it. Because accepting it would pose too great a challenge to their lifelong ideological convictions. But I have also noted that for the most part they are people of a certain age and a certain political persuasion, ie they mostly tend to be elderly right wingers. I see little value in wasting my time engaging with them on this topic, lest I feel like doing so on any particular day for my own pleasure. Fact is, as time moves on and they gradually die off even as the climate crisis gets ever worse, their arguments will be lost anyway, their cause ever more untenable and guaranteed to die with them Time will lose them their ever more untenable arguments. Exactly. Please don't waste any more of your valuable time. However, thanks for making the time to provide this valuable post which misrepresented "someone" who never posted any such thing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2023 10:21:14 GMT
Zany, I admire your tenacity and erudition in debating with this bunch of flat earthers. I lack the time all too often and also have insufficient motivation to spend hours engaging with various degrees of nonsense. We even had someone appearing to argue that global warming cannot be true because it is still cold in winter, lol. But I have long since come to recognise that debating with these people on this issue is a waste of time. Til their dying breath they will deny reality and conjure any argument they can to deny it. Because accepting it would pose too great a challenge to their lifelong ideological convictions. But I have also noted that for the most part they are people of a certain age and a certain political persuasion, ie they mostly tend to be elderly right wingers. I see little value in wasting my time engaging with them on this topic, lest I feel like doing so on any particular day for my own pleasure. Fact is, as time moves on and they gradually die off even as the climate crisis gets ever worse, their arguments will be lost anyway, their cause ever more untenable and guaranteed to die with them Time will lose them their ever more untenable arguments. Exactly. Please don't waste any more of your valuable time. However, thanks for making the time to provide this valuable post which misrepresented "someone" who never posted any such thing. You did feel the need to point out citing temperature examples that there was no heatwave in the southern hemisphere where it happens to be winter. And apparently in order to refute the notion of global warming. If ever we were getting heatwaves all over the place in winter as well we would probably already be in runaway greenhouse territory. In the distant future as the Sun heats up this will happen at some point as our planet becomes another Venus. We are nowhere near that point now and are more likely to decimate the agricultural food chain thereby wiping billions of ourselves out before it got so far. But nothing is certain when scientists are having to use evidence on which to base scientific predictions. There have certainly been times in the distant past when the earth was much warmer and CO2 concentrations much greater. But we were not around then nor was the agriculture which currently supports billions of us and relies fairly heavily on existing climatic conditions. The earth and life on it would adapt to warming but it has never happened so fast before, nor has any advanced civilisation such as ours, so ultimately dependent upon food production which is in turn dependent upon favourable climatic conditions had to survive it. Whether our civilisations can survive massive climatic disruption to our food supply on a global scale is - or certainly ought to be - an issue of considerable concern. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2023 10:32:56 GMT
Exactly. Please don't waste any more of your valuable time. However, thanks for making the time to provide this valuable post which misrepresented "someone" who never posted any such thing. You did feel the need to point out citing temperature examples that there was no heatwave in the southern hemisphere where it happens to be winter. I felt the need to disprove the word global asserted by Zany. STOP PRESS Heatwaves happen in summer. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 20, 2023 12:28:20 GMT
I'm not wrong, zany. I have a degree in physics so I do at least understand the fundamentals. Science is based on observed facts. In some cases it's also based on hypotheses - assumptions made to enable the theory to be developed. For example Relativity assumes that the speed of light is a universal constant. The Climate models are based on the weather models - which are based on observed facts - but the climate models also make the hypothesis that CO2 causes warming and they have a coefficient to calculate how much warming each ppm of CO2 causes. Nobody knows if the speed of light (in a vacuum) actually is constant - in fact it probably isn't - but that doesn't matter because the predictions made by Relativity have proved remarkably accurate. On the other hand no one knows if CO2 actually does cause warming in the Earth's system but the models based on this hypothesis do NOT make accurate predictions. So we're none the wiser. As for the IPCC not agreeing with "my" interpretation of their smoothing it is the IPCC themselves who have said that this is how they "smooth" their data (or more accurately how they work out which data to delete). You seem to have a misunderstanding of what the IPCC is zany. It's not a scientific research organisation. It's an organisation that was founded to present governments with a consistent view of a particular area of science. To this end they have made up their minds that man-made CO2 causes most warming (which is why it's an assumption in their models) and they only employ scientists who believe this - and they only use research that backs this up. This is completely different from an organisation that does scientific research to find the "truth", where scientists are allowed to pursue any theories they like. That's why they resort to changing observed data when it doesn't fit their theories. Well if you have a degree in Physics you ought to know better than to claim science is based on observed fact. The Science council states: Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.
The Oxford English dictionary states:the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained. Berkeley University California:Scientists strive to test their ideas with evidence from the natural world. Science relies on evidence.
They're all wrong. You shouldn't use google to tell you want you want to believe - it's pointless. Science is based on facts. "Evidence" is something different - it's what you've been told is the case, preferably by more than one person. It may or may not be true. Facts are something that can be demonstrated to be true. The word you're looking for is "empirical". You simply don't understand anything about science zany. It's based on facts. You're getting confused with "theories". DId you ever even do O-level in any science? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2023 12:39:16 GMT
What places got record highs? - Rome failed, Death Valley failed, the UK and India are having below normal temperatures, East China is higher and West China is lower.. Damn, how disappointing is that. I was getting excited over the prospect of the world ending in a ball of fire this year.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 20, 2023 18:24:52 GMT
Zany, I admire your tenacity and erudition in debating with this bunch of flat earthers. I lack the time all too often and also have insufficient motivation to spend hours engaging with various degrees of nonsense. We even had someone appearing to argue that global warming cannot be true because it is still cold in winter, lol. But I have long since come to recognise that debating with these people on this issue is a waste of time. Til their dying breath they will deny reality and conjure any argument they can to deny it. Because accepting it would pose too great a challenge to their lifelong ideological convictions. But I have also noted that for the most part they are people of a certain age and a certain political persuasion, ie they mostly tend to be elderly right wingers. I see little value in wasting my time engaging with them on this topic, lest I feel like doing so on any particular day for my own pleasure. Fact is, as time moves on and they gradually die off even as the climate crisis gets ever worse, their arguments will be lost anyway, their cause ever more untenable and guaranteed to die with them Time will lose them their ever more untenable arguments. In part my arguments are trying to correct their views, but I also feel responsible to a certain extent to inform visitors reading these posts. At a glance many of the things they say appear credible especially when backed up with claims of insider knowledge. You are right in that they have lost the fight, governments across the globe recognise AGW and they only have isolated bloggers and Iran left on their side. Nonetheless they can be very convincing and need to be challenged. Codicil. Some of the things posted are interesting and some arguments intriguing, So I wouldn't brand them all as the same. |
|
So older temperature data that is "too high" is either deleted or decertified and newer temperature data is manipulated to select the higher readings.
