|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 21, 2024 20:56:03 GMT
To be perfectly honest if I can find one, and I can find many many more, then it is a question mark on the measurements. The trouble is there are thousands of sceptical climatologists and physicists working sometimes in the oil industry and you, and many others, say quite openly that their employment situation raises serious questions as regards their integrity. Why does that only work one way? And for effect the UK record temeperature measuremnet has been used by JSO protestors as the reasons for their actions. On an individual basis it is very important. Talking of drops in the ocean that is effectively even now what the measurement buoys are and was very much what the bucket measurements were. Dream on. There are readings taken every hour across hundreds of thousands of sites. Do you wish to stick by the hundreds of thousands of sites? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 21, 2024 21:24:13 GMT
Dream on. There are readings taken every hour across hundreds of thousands of sites. Do you wish to stick by the hundreds of thousands of sites? yes |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 21, 2024 21:32:34 GMT
Do you wish to stick by the hundreds of thousands of sites? yes Do you have a link or links to show that there are that many? There are approx 1300 drifting buoys with several networks in the hundreds so possibly tens of thousands but I am willing to be corrected. Most moored buoys are close to shore. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 21, 2024 22:01:40 GMT
Do you have a link or links to show that there are that many? There are approx 1300 drifting buoys with several networks in the hundreds so possibly tens of thousands but I am willing to be corrected. Most moored buoys are close to shore. Almost 2,000 Automated Surface Observation System (ASOS) stations located at airports throughout the country. These are maintained by the Federal Aviation Administration and observations are updated hourly, or more frequently when adverse weather affecting aviation occurs (low visibility, precipitation, etc). Over 250,000 Personal Weather Stations (PWS's) that are part of Weather Underground's ever-expanding PWS network. Stations are put through strict quality controls and observations are updated as often as every 2.5 seconds.
Over 26,000 weather stations that are part of the Meteorological Assimilation Data Ingest System (MADIS) which is managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). For further information, see madis.ncep.noaa.gov/. THat's just the states. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 22, 2024 7:41:17 GMT
But, as I said, the experiments show no evidence of warming if CO2 is increased in an area with plants present. So why have the models ASSUMED that the overall effect of CO2 is warming. You need to provide evidence that this is true - and there isn't any. . You mention deserts, how about oceans? The total area of the planet covered by vegetation is about 9% Oh dear, again. The experiments I mentioned are what are called control experiments, where they try to eliminate all factors apart from the the ones that they want to evaluate (i.e.CO2 concentration and temperature). The evidence of the rising temperatures on Earth include ALL the factors at play across the planet - and there are hundreds. You can't just say that all that warming is caused by CO2 - that's what you need to demonstrate. Again this is just basic scientific method. When all external factors are eliminated, CO2 warming is observed in desert like conditions, but not when there is vegetation. QED. The plants' cooling is on a par with CO2 heating. There's no other conclusion. And the models actually demonstrate this because they work best when the coefficient of CO2 warming is set to zero. Over the years they've been gradually lowering this coefficient because the early predictions were highly exaggerated. I don't think there haven't been any experiments to test the overall effect of CO2 on oceans, but the oceans produce most of the oxygen in our atmosphere - and, of course, this oxygen is produced by photosynthesis (of algae etc), which causes cooling. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 22, 2024 8:13:24 GMT
Are there questions as regards the temperature readings and their comparisons with past temperatures. I would say there are very many indeed and these are well documented. Just one example would be the UK temperature record set in 2022 beside a concrete apron in the middle of an industrialised area and upon that apron three typhoon jets landed all with the fifteen minute timeframe in which the temperature record was set. I am sure it is OK and uncorrupted though as you seem certain it is. Yes so you keep saying. But your two dozen examples are a drop in an ocean of data. And the idea that your story relies on thousands of climatologists all agreeing to lie for cash makes it a mockery. I'm more worried by processing that the readings are put through to "smooth" them out. Obviously if you look at all the data accumulated over the decades (and measured by various means) you end up with a forest of crosses which are all over the place - and it's very difficult to work out where to draw a line. So bodies like the IPCC use filtering algorithms to eliminate the "incorrect" data. The obvious problem is how do you identify which are wrong. The usual way it's done is to use a filtering algorithm that uses a working model which knows what the readings should be - so the filtering process can eliminate those that don't fit and you get a nice clean graph. The problem is that the climate models don't work. The IPCC's attitude to this is that they're the best we've got, so the data is processed by the models, such as they are. And guess what? The data tends to follow a curve that roughly correlates warming with CO2, because that's what the model assumes. So they now have the data fitting the models - so their model is accurate! It's a good trick isn't it? This is how they eliminated the "pause" of about 20 years when CO2 continued to rise but temperatures didn't - "pausegate". Except some of their senior scientists didn't think this was science and resigned, because the smoothing had eliminated the most accurate readings they'd got. Another little trick they've got is to then present their nicely cleaned up graph with a massively offset zero. So the "zero" is set at the 1850 average global temperature (about 15C). So the warming looks pretty spectacular, when in fact it's just a blip of about 1C - which is actually probably less than the error in data measurement. Very clever - and it fools most people. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 22, 2024 9:11:53 GMT
It is almost a technical description (or glass case example) of confirmation bias - filtering your data using the model you expect to confirm.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 22, 2024 11:07:33 GMT
More bad news for the doom goblin fans... Climate activist Greta Thunberg was blasted by a Swedish minister as Stockholm backed the aviation sector with a £76million cash injection. Infrastructure Minister Andreas Carlson announced more than one billion kronor would go into support carriers struggling to bounceback from the Covid pandemic, skyrocketing energy bills and the economic consequences of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Carlson, who is a member of the right-wing Christian Democrats, said: “There are few reasons to feel flight shame and as the [green] transition increases there will be even fewer.” The minister’s comments refuted the concept of “flygskam”, known in English as "flight shame".....
|
|
|
|
Post by piglet on Feb 22, 2024 12:49:17 GMT
The Universe is a very hostile place, the dangers are immense. The existence of humans, environmentally, is like balancing on one toe, on a tightrope.
You are all going to die.
Flood, fire, air, its all going bad. Oh, and starvation, no crops or animals.
Its all about when, its been raining for five months. The first ten dominos have gone, the rest will follow, human kind is not smart enough to prevent it, OR cope with it in action, like now. Nature ends dead ends.....us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 22, 2024 13:13:30 GMT
Not to mention supernova
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 22, 2024 19:05:21 GMT
Yes so you keep saying. But your two dozen examples are a drop in an ocean of data. And the idea that your story relies on thousands of climatologists all agreeing to lie for cash makes it a mockery. I'm more worried by processing that the readings are put through to "smooth" them out. Obviously if you look at all the data accumulated over the decades (and measured by various means) you end up with a forest of crosses which are all over the place - and it's very difficult to work out where to draw a line. So bodies like the IPCC use filtering algorithms to eliminate the "incorrect" data. The obvious problem is how do you identify which are wrong. The usual way it's done is to use a filtering algorithm that uses a working model which knows what the readings should be - so the filtering process can eliminate those that don't fit and you get a nice clean graph. The problem is that the climate models don't work. The IPCC's attitude to this is that they're the best we've got, so the data is processed by the models, such as they are. And guess what? The data tends to follow a curve that roughly correlates warming with CO2, because that's what the model assumes. So they now have the data fitting the models - so their model is accurate! It's a good trick isn't it? This is how they eliminated the "pause" of about 20 years when CO2 continued to rise but temperatures didn't - "pausegate". Except some of their senior scientists didn't think this was science and resigned, because the smoothing had eliminated the most accurate readings they'd got. Another little trick they've got is to then present their nicely cleaned up graph with a massively offset zero. So the "zero" is set at the 1850 average global temperature (about 15C). So the warming looks pretty spectacular, when in fact it's just a blip of about 1C - which is actually probably less than the error in data measurement. Very clever - and it fools most people. I think we're back to square one. Not starting again with they're all lying. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 22, 2024 19:42:35 GMT
Do you have a link or links to show that there are that many? There are approx 1300 drifting buoys with several networks in the hundreds so possibly tens of thousands but I am willing to be corrected. Most moored buoys are close to shore. Almost 2,000 Automated Surface Observation System (ASOS) stations located at airports throughout the country. These are maintained by the Federal Aviation Administration and observations are updated hourly, or more frequently when adverse weather affecting aviation occurs (low visibility, precipitation, etc). Over 250,000 Personal Weather Stations (PWS's) that are part of Weather Underground's ever-expanding PWS network. Stations are put through strict quality controls and observations are updated as often as every 2.5 seconds.
Over 26,000 weather stations that are part of the Meteorological Assimilation Data Ingest System (MADIS) which is managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). For further information, see madis.ncep.noaa.gov/. THat's just the states. I was referring to the temperature measurements of the oceans. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 22, 2024 20:15:02 GMT
Almost 2,000 Automated Surface Observation System (ASOS) stations located at airports throughout the country. These are maintained by the Federal Aviation Administration and observations are updated hourly, or more frequently when adverse weather affecting aviation occurs (low visibility, precipitation, etc). Over 250,000 Personal Weather Stations (PWS's) that are part of Weather Underground's ever-expanding PWS network. Stations are put through strict quality controls and observations are updated as often as every 2.5 seconds.
Over 26,000 weather stations that are part of the Meteorological Assimilation Data Ingest System (MADIS) which is managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). For further information, see madis.ncep.noaa.gov/. THat's just the states. I was referring to the temperature measurements of the oceans. I wasn't. |
|
|
|
Post by borchester on Feb 22, 2024 20:46:26 GMT
You mean a longer growing season which means more food which will bind the mouth of famine ?
That is so crazy it might just work, although I suppose Greta Glumberg and co will have to find something else to worry on.
Anyway, I am off to plant my potatoes. It will be a month early, but if I succeed I will have increased my food supply by about 10%. And if I fail, think how happy that will make the environmentalists !
Farmers disagree with you. www.emergingrisks.co.uk/agricultural-fears-amid-warning-of-future-water-shortage/Another cost of doing nothing, More reservoirs to adjust to changing rainfall patterns in the UK. Of course the stupid deniers will only point to overall rainfall. Not when, where and how it falls. But a hint for you, the UK natural and man made water courses are not designed for monsoons. Farmers don't count. These days their main crops are holiday makers and government subsidies.
Anyway, I have planted a row of Arran Pilot and another of of Red Duke of York, so we shall see. Meanwhile, my environmentally aware chums continue to restrict their gardening to the organic veg section of Waitrose
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 22, 2024 21:45:23 GMT
Farmers don't count. These days their main crops are holiday makers and government subsidies.
Anyway, I have planted a row of Arran Pilot and another of of Red Duke of York, so we shall see. Meanwhile, my environmentally aware chums continue to restrict their gardening to the organic veg section of Waitrose
Thank god I thought we were all going to starve. |
|
