|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 5, 2024 21:32:21 GMT
Met Office Must Account for the ‘Junk’ Temperature Data Propping up Net Zero Insanity dailysceptic.org/2024/03/04/met-office-must-account-for-the-junk-temperature-data-propping-up-net-zero-insanity/Pressure is likely to grow in the coming days for the U.K. Met Office to make a full public statement about the state of its nationwide temperature measuring stations. This follows sensational revelations in last Friday’s Daily Sceptic that nearly eight out of ten sites had huge scientifically-designated ‘uncertainties’ that essentially disqualified them from providing the accurate data required to promote the collectivist Net Zero agenda. Our report went viral on social media with over 1,300 retweets on X, and it was reposted on a number of sites. The investigative journalist Paul Homewood has covered the Met Office’s temperature claims for many years, and in the light of the new disclosures he noted that if it wanted to continue to use its existing station measurements, it should show a warning that the margin of error is so great “that they have no statistical significance at all”. Specifically, nearly one in three (29.2%) Met Office sites are rated by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) as CIMO Class 5, and this comes with a warning of “estimated uncertainties added by siting of 5°C”. Class 5 can be termed a ‘junk’ rating since the WMO gives no guidance on where it can be located. The next to junk Class 4 comes with uncertainties of 2°C, while Class 3 has a 1°C warning. From information disclosed under a Freedom of Information request, the Daily Sceptic compiled the graph below that shows Class 4 accounted for 48.7% of the Met Office’s 380 recording stations. Only 13.7%, or 52 stations are free of ‘uncertainties’ warnings. Read more on link. This is the kind of problem that the likes of ZG says either does not exist or is fictitious information invented by climate sceptics yet the a very large proportion of the UK temperature data is possibly several degrees in error yet the world temperature is measured to two decimal places with the UK being a major contributor as well as other Western countries whose data is similarly open to many questions. As regards rainfall it is coming to light that several farmers in one US state have been tampering with rainfall gauges to show a lower than average rainfall in order to claim millions in subsidies. The whole issue is subject to inaccuracy, fraud, corruption and manipulation by some because there could be large amounts of money at stake. Let us put it this way would the weather records from any island nation be trustworthy if they stood to gain millions in compensation if they reflected higher temperatures and lower rainfall. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Mar 6, 2024 8:16:27 GMT
Interesting. If nearly 50% of our weather stations are accurate to only 2 degrees C, That seems inadequate given that the temperature rise since 1850 is only about 1 degree C.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 6, 2024 10:40:20 GMT
Met Office Must Account for the ‘Junk’ Temperature Data Propping up Net Zero Insanity dailysceptic.org/2024/03/04/met-office-must-account-for-the-junk-temperature-data-propping-up-net-zero-insanity/Pressure is likely to grow in the coming days for the U.K. Met Office to make a full public statement about the state of its nationwide temperature measuring stations. This follows sensational revelations in last Friday’s Daily Sceptic that nearly eight out of ten sites had huge scientifically-designated ‘uncertainties’ that essentially disqualified them from providing the accurate data required to promote the collectivist Net Zero agenda. Our report went viral on social media with over 1,300 retweets on X, and it was reposted on a number of sites. The investigative journalist Paul Homewood has covered the Met Office’s temperature claims for many years, and in the light of the new disclosures he noted that if it wanted to continue to use its existing station measurements, it should show a warning that the margin of error is so great “that they have no statistical significance at all”. Specifically, nearly one in three (29.2%) Met Office sites are rated by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) as CIMO Class 5, and this comes with a warning of “estimated uncertainties added by siting of 5°C”. Class 5 can be termed a ‘junk’ rating since the WMO gives no guidance on where it can be located. The next to junk Class 4 comes with uncertainties of 2°C, while Class 3 has a 1°C warning. From information disclosed under a Freedom of Information request, the Daily Sceptic compiled the graph below that shows Class 4 accounted for 48.7% of the Met Office’s 380 recording stations. Only 13.7%, or 52 stations are free of ‘uncertainties’ warnings. Read more on link. This is the kind of problem that the likes of ZG says either does not exist or is fictitious information invented by climate sceptics yet the a very large proportion of the UK temperature data is possibly several degrees in error yet the world temperature is measured to two decimal places with the UK being a major contributor as well as other Western countries whose data is similarly open to many questions. As regards rainfall it is coming to light that several farmers in one US state have been tampering with rainfall gauges to show a lower than average rainfall in order to claim millions in subsidies. The whole issue is subject to inaccuracy, fraud, corruption and manipulation by some because there could be large amounts of money at stake. Let us put it this way would the weather records from any island nation be trustworthy if they stood to gain millions in compensation if they reflected higher temperatures and lower rainfall. It does appear to be the case that the earths temperature is increasing, which means that anything humans are doing that helps that increase should be stopped or modified as soon as possible. Apart from anything else, going green will increasingly over time improve the air we breath and will no doubt be beneficial to the planet in general. So what's the problem? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 6, 2024 11:23:09 GMT
How much of a reduction in your standard of living are you willing to sacrifice?
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 6, 2024 12:54:39 GMT
Met Office Must Account for the ‘Junk’ Temperature Data Propping up Net Zero Insanity dailysceptic.org/2024/03/04/met-office-must-account-for-the-junk-temperature-data-propping-up-net-zero-insanity/Pressure is likely to grow in the coming days for the U.K. Met Office to make a full public statement about the state of its nationwide temperature measuring stations. This follows sensational revelations in last Friday’s Daily Sceptic that nearly eight out of ten sites had huge scientifically-designated ‘uncertainties’ that essentially disqualified them from providing the accurate data required to promote the collectivist Net Zero agenda. Our report went viral on social media with over 1,300 retweets on X, and it was reposted on a number of sites. The investigative journalist Paul Homewood has covered the Met Office’s temperature claims for many years, and in the light of the new disclosures he noted that if it wanted to continue to use its existing station measurements, it should show a warning that the margin of error is so great “that they have no statistical significance at all”. Specifically, nearly one in three (29.2%) Met Office sites are rated by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) as CIMO Class 5, and this comes with a warning of “estimated uncertainties added by siting of 5°C”. Class 5 can be termed a ‘junk’ rating since the WMO gives no guidance on where it can be located. The next to junk Class 4 comes with uncertainties of 2°C, while Class 3 has a 1°C warning. From information disclosed under a Freedom of Information request, the Daily Sceptic compiled the graph below that shows Class 4 accounted for 48.7% of the Met Office’s 380 recording stations. Only 13.7%, or 52 stations are free of ‘uncertainties’ warnings. Read more on link. This is the kind of problem that the likes of ZG says either does not exist or is fictitious information invented by climate sceptics yet the a very large proportion of the UK temperature data is possibly several degrees in error yet the world temperature is measured to two decimal places with the UK being a major contributor as well as other Western countries whose data is similarly open to many questions. As regards rainfall it is coming to light that several farmers in one US state have been tampering with rainfall gauges to show a lower than average rainfall in order to claim millions in subsidies. The whole issue is subject to inaccuracy, fraud, corruption and manipulation by some because there could be large amounts of money at stake. Let us put it this way would the weather records from any island nation be trustworthy if they stood to gain millions in compensation if they reflected higher temperatures and lower rainfall. It does appear to be the case that the earths temperature is increasing, which means that anything humans are doing that helps that increase should be stopped or modified as soon as possible. Apart from anything else, going green will increasingly over time improve the air we breath and will no doubt be beneficial to the planet in general. So what's the problem? No problem as regards a wish list to be sought, every bit a problem when it becomes a target in time based on erroneous 'settled science' data and progress towards that target results in people being less mobile and living darker, colder lives; even more so when the emissions of the 'elite' overshadow everyone else's. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Mar 7, 2024 7:24:03 GMT
Met Office Must Account for the ‘Junk’ Temperature Data Propping up Net Zero Insanity dailysceptic.org/2024/03/04/met-office-must-account-for-the-junk-temperature-data-propping-up-net-zero-insanity/Pressure is likely to grow in the coming days for the U.K. Met Office to make a full public statement about the state of its nationwide temperature measuring stations. This follows sensational revelations in last Friday’s Daily Sceptic that nearly eight out of ten sites had huge scientifically-designated ‘uncertainties’ that essentially disqualified them from providing the accurate data required to promote the collectivist Net Zero agenda. Our report went viral on social media with over 1,300 retweets on X, and it was reposted on a number of sites. The investigative journalist Paul Homewood has covered the Met Office’s temperature claims for many years, and in the light of the new disclosures he noted that if it wanted to continue to use its existing station measurements, it should show a warning that the margin of error is so great “that they have no statistical significance at all”. Specifically, nearly one in three (29.2%) Met Office sites are rated by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) as CIMO Class 5, and this comes with a warning of “estimated uncertainties added by siting of 5°C”. Class 5 can be termed a ‘junk’ rating since the WMO gives no guidance on where it can be located. The next to junk Class 4 comes with uncertainties of 2°C, while Class 3 has a 1°C warning. From information disclosed under a Freedom of Information request, the Daily Sceptic compiled the graph below that shows Class 4 accounted for 48.7% of the Met Office’s 380 recording stations. Only 13.7%, or 52 stations are free of ‘uncertainties’ warnings. Read more on link. This is the kind of problem that the likes of ZG says either does not exist or is fictitious information invented by climate sceptics yet the a very large proportion of the UK temperature data is possibly several degrees in error yet the world temperature is measured to two decimal places with the UK being a major contributor as well as other Western countries whose data is similarly open to many questions. As regards rainfall it is coming to light that several farmers in one US state have been tampering with rainfall gauges to show a lower than average rainfall in order to claim millions in subsidies. The whole issue is subject to inaccuracy, fraud, corruption and manipulation by some because there could be large amounts of money at stake. Let us put it this way would the weather records from any island nation be trustworthy if they stood to gain millions in compensation if they reflected higher temperatures and lower rainfall. It does appear to be the case that the earths temperature is increasing, which means that anything humans are doing that helps that increase should be stopped or modified as soon as possible. Apart from anything else, going green will increasingly over time improve the air we breath and will no doubt be beneficial to the planet in general. So what's the problem? The problem is that the governments are putting nearly all of their effort into cutting CO2 emissions (with the usual complete lack of success - CO2 emissions continue to rise) when there is no real evidence that CO2 is the cause of warming. Meanwhile the population continues to grow and we continue to build houses and infrastructure all over the planet - and we know for sure that this causes warming (and pollution, extinction of animals etc). Yet no one even mentions it any more. And we have to put up with morons like Justin Rowlatt (BBC Climate Change editor) saying that February was the warmest February on record and that this is "all caused by man-made emissions". He adds, as an afterthought, that it's been given a "boost" by the current El Nino - which warms the surface of the ocean. The thing is that the warming of the ocean's surface is up to 3 degrees C, while the "underlying warming by CO2" is so small it's not measurable over a year. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 7, 2024 8:21:32 GMT
Only 15% now deny man made climate change.
The Youtubers who were pushing denial have quietly switched position to "The figures are not accurate" and "Nothing we can do will stop it, so don't bother"
Strange these converts never publish their change in position. In the meantime they earned £18 million from you tube advertising on their blogs last year. ;-)
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 7, 2024 10:59:30 GMT
Only 15% now deny man made climate change. The Youtubers who were pushing denial have quietly switched position to "The figures are not accurate" and "Nothing we can do will stop it, so don't bother" Strange these converts never publish their change in position. In the meantime they earned £18 million from you tube advertising on their blogs last year. ;-) Who has changed position? As far as I can see consistency in questioning the detail presented to us as the settled science as proof of man made climate change has been noted for 30 years plus. You have to bear in mind that we are informed 'reliably' that the planet has warmed by 1.54 C yet the data that that estimate is based on is often from the likes of the Met office and if there are questions, and there are serious questions, as regards the accuracy of that information then it should be addressed should it not? You would not base your business decisions on such dodgy info would you? |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 7, 2024 15:32:35 GMT
WMO is fucked. This is the CIMO guide. community.wmo.int/en/activity-areas/imop/cimo-guideEvery link to every chapter is dead. Only text I can find on the site is just sheer waffle bullshit, saying nothing other than we say you should follow all recommendations and guidance blar blar. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 7, 2024 16:24:49 GMT
It does appear to be the case that the earths temperature is increasing, which means that anything humans are doing that helps that increase should be stopped or modified as soon as possible. Apart from anything else, going green will increasingly over time improve the air we breath and will no doubt be beneficial to the planet in general. So what's the problem? No problem as regards a wish list to be sought, every bit a problem when it becomes a target in time based on erroneous 'settled science' data and progress towards that target results in people being less mobile and living darker, colder lives; even more so when the emissions of the 'elite' overshadow everyone else's. I have no idea where you get your conclusions from. IMO NO government is going to allow your conclusions to become reality while searching for a cleaner greener world. But the journey to a cleaner and greener world could be delayed unnecessarily by people with a fear led approach. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 7, 2024 16:39:28 GMT
It does appear to be the case that the earths temperature is increasing, which means that anything humans are doing that helps that increase should be stopped or modified as soon as possible. Apart from anything else, going green will increasingly over time improve the air we breath and will no doubt be beneficial to the planet in general. So what's the problem? The problem is that the governments are putting nearly all of their effort into cutting CO2 emissions (with the usual complete lack of success - CO2 emissions continue to rise) when there is no real evidence that CO2 is the cause of warming. Meanwhile the population continues to grow and we continue to build houses and infrastructure all over the planet - and we know for sure that this causes warming (and pollution, extinction of animals etc). Yet no one even mentions it any more. And we have to put up with morons like Justin Rowlatt (BBC Climate Change editor) saying that February was the warmest February on record and that this is "all caused by man-made emissions". He adds, as an afterthought, that it's been given a "boost" by the current El Nino - which warms the surface of the ocean. The thing is that the warming of the ocean's surface is up to 3 degrees C, while the "underlying warming by CO2" is so small it's not measurable over a year. Its true that no one knows the true cause of the planet warming BUT everyone knows that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If there were no reduction in some areas of green house gas production then CO2 would be at an even greater level than it is. If people voice idiotic comments then it is just as well there are others to recognise it for what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 7, 2024 20:03:47 GMT
No problem as regards a wish list to be sought, every bit a problem when it becomes a target in time based on erroneous 'settled science' data and progress towards that target results in people being less mobile and living darker, colder lives; even more so when the emissions of the 'elite' overshadow everyone else's. I have no idea where you get your conclusions from. IMO NO government is going to allow your conclusions to become reality while searching for a cleaner greener world. But the journey to a cleaner and greener world could be delayed unnecessarily by people with a fear led approach. But they are searching for a greener cleaner world as a matter of urgency based on the information from data such as the Met office present the IPCC with If that data is subject to inaccuracies greater than initially believed then the 'urgency' of the case presented is wrong and we can seek the greener cleaner future at a more leisurely pace so that the hoi polloi will not have their mobility limited nor expected to endure colder darker winter times in their poorly heated and poorly lit houses in order to limit world temperature increases that are potentially no where near as bad as presented. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Mar 8, 2024 7:39:33 GMT
Only 15% now deny man made climate change. The Youtubers who were pushing denial have quietly switched position to "The figures are not accurate" and "Nothing we can do will stop it, so don't bother" Strange these converts never publish their change in position. In the meantime they earned £18 million from you tube advertising on their blogs last year. ;-) I'm surprised that ANYONE denies "man made climate change" - I certainly never have. Increasing the population of the Earth from about 1 billion (in 1850) to nearly 8 billion now is BOUND to cause climate change. As usual you've forgotten what the argument is about zany. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 8, 2024 7:50:46 GMT
Only 15% now deny man made climate change. The Youtubers who were pushing denial have quietly switched position to "The figures are not accurate" and "Nothing we can do will stop it, so don't bother" Strange these converts never publish their change in position. In the meantime they earned £18 million from you tube advertising on their blogs last year. ;-) I'm surprised that ANYONE denies "man made climate change" - I certainly never have. Increasing the population of the Earth from about 1 billion (in 1850) to nearly 8 billion now is BOUND to cause climate change. As usual you've forgotten what the argument is about zany. Lets run with the increased population idea. Its obviously true that increased population IS the cause of MAN made climate change. For if there were no humans there would be no MAN. More specifically how are more humans causing climate change. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Mar 8, 2024 8:01:57 GMT
The problem is that the governments are putting nearly all of their effort into cutting CO2 emissions (with the usual complete lack of success - CO2 emissions continue to rise) when there is no real evidence that CO2 is the cause of warming. Meanwhile the population continues to grow and we continue to build houses and infrastructure all over the planet - and we know for sure that this causes warming (and pollution, extinction of animals etc). Yet no one even mentions it any more. And we have to put up with morons like Justin Rowlatt (BBC Climate Change editor) saying that February was the warmest February on record and that this is "all caused by man-made emissions". He adds, as an afterthought, that it's been given a "boost" by the current El Nino - which warms the surface of the ocean. The thing is that the warming of the ocean's surface is up to 3 degrees C, while the "underlying warming by CO2" is so small it's not measurable over a year. Its true that no one knows the true cause of the planet warming BUT everyone knows that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If there were no reduction in some areas of green house gas production then CO2 would be at an even greater level than it is. If people voice idiotic comments then it is just as well there are others to recognise it for what it is. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but water vapour is a far stronger greenhouse gas (about 80 times stronger) and is present in the atmosphere in far greater concentrations than CO2 (which is a trace gas). But like many factors that influence our climate they both have complex effects on our climate/weather. They both can cause warming or cooling. Water can exist either as a vapour causing significant warming but it can also condense and form clouds which cause significant cooling. And CO2 can cause warming but it also causes cooling because it drives photosynthesis which uses vast amounts of the Sun's energy to grow plants. The Earth is a relatively stable system because the various factors combine to keep it so. So if CO2 increases it may tend to cause warming but it also causes cooling. Unfortunately the models that the IPCC and various bodies use don't model the cooling effects of CO2 - too complicated. In fact they don't even model the warming effect - they simply make a hypothesis that CO2 causes warming using a coefficient that says for every ppm increase in concentration of CO2 the Earth will warm by x degrees C. That's the level at which our modeling is at. I suggest you do a bit of reading about the subject before you call those, who question the climate orthodoxy, "idiotic". |
|
