|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 6, 2023 4:22:46 GMT
I see, ZG or should I say, professor. There's an awful lot of cut & paste there, am I supposed to take you word for it, or have you a link or two? Shall we assume the requested link/s will not be forthcoming?
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 6, 2023 7:19:16 GMT
I see, ZG or should I say, professor. There's an awful lot of cut & paste there, am I supposed to take you word for it, or have you a link or two? Why on earth would I attempt to write my own version when I didn't do the research. My hope was that you might look it up, discover how they know and appreciate the science over the conspiracy theories. However here's the link. le.utah.gov/publicweb/BRISCJK/PublicWeb/43170/43170.html#:~:text=However%2C%20the%20historical%20warming%20of,modern%20threat%20of%20greenhouse%20gases. Off to work now. Will offer more later.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 6, 2023 7:20:26 GMT
I see, ZG or should I say, professor. There's an awful lot of cut & paste there, am I supposed to take you word for it, or have you a link or two? Shall we assume the requested link/s will not be forthcoming? I'd gone to bed
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 6, 2023 8:34:26 GMT
The weird thing is that the Met Office (and others) try to exclude urban areas when recording temperatures - for the obvious reason that they are MUCH warmer than rural areas, so it's not a fair comparison with the past. It's obvious that we are vastly more urbanised than in 1850 (which is their baseline for temperature increase) so they try to factor it out - not very successfully. However, surely it's obvious that urbanisation is a major factor in warming - otherwise why do they try to filter it out? Are they saying that warming caused by urbanisation is not a problem? But warming caused by CO2 (if any) IS a problem. What do you reckon the logic of this is SP? Because it makes no sense to me. It is to obtain some consistency in comparisons. If one has fixed stations that become surrounded by asphalt and concrete and houses and cars and buses then you cannot operate any meaningful comparison as regards temperature increase over the decades. The Urban heat island effect seems to be very localised and does not seem to have any major impact on stations in rural areas reasonably close by but has an obvious daytime and nighttime effect on those in, or very close to, urban areas and the correction factors applied may be inadequate to keep up with the rate of urbanisation. Obviously if they shift the station because it is now in an urban area they have to try and apply factors to correct for changes in elevation, wind speeds, maritime proximity etc etc. The NOAA in the US used some 114 stations to compare with stations that were moved to show that factors applied were relevant. Many urban areas will dissipate their heat to space easily when skies clear so they do not appear to be a significant factor in warming of the planet as such. Warming by CO2 appears to be a Logarithmic relationship in that CO2 increases will force warming but always to a lessening degree. My brother did some work on anaesthetic gases for a company he had worked for and had to go through the principles in the IPCC report and explained it in layman's terms to me most of which shot well over my head with lots of Uh, huhs and yesses. What is very clear is 'the science' like all science, is very far from being settled. The warmists may in the end be right and we are all doomed but currently their catastrophic projections are at best shaky and at worst direct lies Yes that's all fine. The basic effect of CO2 in trapping radiative energy is not linear in that a doubling of CO2 concentration from 1ppm to 2ppm causes the same temperature rise as doubling the concentration from 200ppm to 400ppm. So it's very much a diminishing factor in warming. But the point I was trying to make is that it's OK for the Climate change bodies to try to filter out high urban temperatures in order to make modern temperature readings comparable to historic ones (when there was less urbanisation). However, that misses the fact that urban areas ARE much warmer than rural ones. And as urban areas expand over large areas of the planet they are the source of significant planet warming. And it's warming that is causing the climate change (if any). So a large part of that warming is caused by urban areas. Yet this is being dismissed by bodies like the IPCC because the albedo of urban areas is roughly the same as rural areas. And urban areas are simply storing this heat and radiating it - while rural areas are storing it and causing cooling.
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 6, 2023 8:57:47 GMT
LOL, good try ZG but no banana. The medieval warm period was about 1000 years ago. I mentioned the the fact that temps were higher 2000 years ago than today. This is called the Roman warm period which lasted for a few hundred years, which was followed by a cold period which lasted for a few hundred years. Which was followed by your medieval warm period, which was inevitably followed by a cold period that lasted until the early 1800's when a warm period started, again. The only reason eco alarmists are flapping today is because of the internet and 24/7 news. Oops my bad, lazy of me, so used to repeatedly answering these questions for those who like conspiracy but can't be arsed to look it up for themselves. The Roman warm period was caused by a period of intense period of solar activity. Here, if you want to really learn some science. The warmest period of the last 2,000 years. Blah, blah bollocks. Very amusing to hear you talking about " really learning some science", Zanygame. Good one. But let's take a more recent bit of "climate change" the ETCW (Early Twentieth Century Warming). Two of the strongest global warming periods that occurred in the 20th century are: 1925–1944 with a temperature increase of 0.37 C and 1978–1997 with a global mean temperature increase of about 0.32 C. The former event has been coined the Early Twentieth Century Warming or ETCW. I've mentioned the ETCW to you before because it looks almost exactly like the 1978-1997 warming period - yet it can't be attributed to CO2 rises. In order to explain it the warmists have had to attribute it to natural causes. But the most interesting thing about it is that on later graphs produced by the likes of the IPCC the ETCW has almost completely been "smoothed" out after going through their filtering algorithms. It now just looks like a slight linear increase over 20 years, because the filtering algorithm assumes any temperature readings that don't follow the CO2 theory are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 6, 2023 9:32:32 GMT
You think he is boring, lol. ZG I have to ask, have you ever listened to Starmer? Anyhoo. You claim " We know what caused heating and cooling in the past", really? Perhaps then you could explain why it was warmer 2000 years ago than it is today? Yes Starmer is that old style politician full of facts and lacking in all that exciting rhetoric. The medieval warm period was caused by increased solar activity at a time of lower volcanic activity. Both combined to caused global warming. So let us be clear. We have a period of Global warming that was not down to human activity of any size shape or form. That is a good start as the attempts to hide, downplay or eradicate the MWP have been quite spectacular with an an equal spectacular level of failure. You are reverting to Mann and his assumptions and the same Mann of the Hockey Stick fiasco. He also tried to push the regional nature of the MWP trying to rebrand it a MWAnomaly. That has taken a few more years but gradually that is also starting to be shown to be bunkum.
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 6, 2023 14:45:11 GMT
It is to obtain some consistency in comparisons. If one has fixed stations that become surrounded by asphalt and concrete and houses and cars and buses then you cannot operate any meaningful comparison as regards temperature increase over the decades. The Urban heat island effect seems to be very localised and does not seem to have any major impact on stations in rural areas reasonably close by but has an obvious daytime and nighttime effect on those in, or very close to, urban areas and the correction factors applied may be inadequate to keep up with the rate of urbanisation. Obviously if they shift the station because it is now in an urban area they have to try and apply factors to correct for changes in elevation, wind speeds, maritime proximity etc etc. The NOAA in the US used some 114 stations to compare with stations that were moved to show that factors applied were relevant. Many urban areas will dissipate their heat to space easily when skies clear so they do not appear to be a significant factor in warming of the planet as such. Warming by CO2 appears to be a Logarithmic relationship in that CO2 increases will force warming but always to a lessening degree. My brother did some work on anaesthetic gases for a company he had worked for and had to go through the principles in the IPCC report and explained it in layman's terms to me most of which shot well over my head with lots of Uh, huhs and yesses. What is very clear is 'the science' like all science, is very far from being settled. The warmists may in the end be right and we are all doomed but currently their catastrophic projections are at best shaky and at worst direct lies Yes that's all fine. The basic effect of CO2 in trapping radiative energy is not linear in that a doubling of CO2 concentration from 1ppm to 2ppm causes the same temperature rise as doubling the concentration from 200ppm to 400ppm. So it's very much a diminishing factor in warming. But the point I was trying to make is that it's OK for the Climate change bodies to try to filter out high urban temperatures in order to make modern temperature readings comparable to historic ones (when there was less urbanisation). However, that misses the fact that urban areas ARE much warmer than rural ones. And as urban areas expand over large areas of the planet they are the source of significant planet warming. And it's warming that is causing the climate change (if any). So a large part of that warming is caused by urban areas. Yet this is being dismissed by bodies like the IPCC because the albedo of urban areas is roughly the same as rural areas. And urban areas are simply storing this heat and radiating it - while rural areas are storing it and causing cooling. As I understand it global warming has little to do with what heat is created it is how much is allowed to escape. So Urban Heat Islands will have little or no effect on the warming as most of it is dissipated to space. The UHI is important in terms of the readings as there is little doubt that they retain and radiate heat locally for a short period of time and as such can skew the readings showing a warming trend where there may not be.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 6, 2023 17:16:45 GMT
Oops my bad, lazy of me, so used to repeatedly answering these questions for those who like conspiracy but can't be arsed to look it up for themselves. The Roman warm period was caused by a period of intense period of solar activity. Here, if you want to really learn some science. The warmest period of the last 2,000 years. Blah, blah bollocks. Very amusing to hear you talking about " really learning some science", Zanygame. Good one. But let's take a more recent bit of "climate change" the ETCW (Early Twentieth Century Warming). Two of the strongest global warming periods that occurred in the 20th century are: 1925–1944 with a temperature increase of 0.37 C and 1978–1997 with a global mean temperature increase of about 0.32 C. The former event has been coined the Early Twentieth Century Warming or ETCW. I've mentioned the ETCW to you before because it looks almost exactly like the 1978-1997 warming period - yet it can't be attributed to CO2 rises. In order to explain it the warmists have had to attribute it to natural causes. But the most interesting thing about it is that on later graphs produced by the likes of the IPCC the ETCW has almost completely been "smoothed" out after going through their filtering algorithms. It now just looks like a slight linear increase over 20 years, because the filtering algorithm assumes any temperature readings that don't follow the CO2 theory are wrong. But what caused the 1925 and 1978 warm periods then? That is the question you need to address, its not a matter of whether the earth has been warmer or colder in the past but what caused it. Then you can try and answer what is causing the current warming if its not Co2. As for the graphs being smoothed both you and I easily find numerous articles discussing ETCW and its causes. So whoever these dark undercover forces are they are pretty useless at their jobs, so I wouldn't worry too much.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 6, 2023 17:44:40 GMT
Yes Starmer is that old style politician full of facts and lacking in all that exciting rhetoric. The medieval warm period was caused by increased solar activity at a time of lower volcanic activity. Both combined to caused global warming. So let us be clear. We have a period of Global warming that was not down to human activity of any size shape or form. That is a good start as the attempts to hide, downplay or eradicate the MWP have been quite spectacular with an an equal spectacular level of failure. You are reverting to Mann and his assumptions and the same Mann of the Hockey Stick fiasco. He also tried to push the regional nature of the MWP trying to rebrand it a MWAnomaly. That has taken a few more years but gradually that is also starting to be shown to be bunkum. Yes we all know what a mistake that was and how much ammunition it gave the deniers. As for Mann and his assumptions you'd have to be clearer as I cannot guess where your conspiracy theories diverge from accepted science. We can see evidence of decreased volcanic activity, changes in oceanic currents. We have evidence that the MWP was not global and effected different areas at different times. We are able to evidence these (As I'm sure you know) even though they happened a 1,000 years ago. So we can tell this from a 1,000 years ago but you think we can't measure these things today.
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 6, 2023 19:39:36 GMT
So let us be clear. We have a period of Global warming that was not down to human activity of any size shape or form. That is a good start as the attempts to hide, downplay or eradicate the MWP have been quite spectacular with an an equal spectacular level of failure. You are reverting to Mann and his assumptions and the same Mann of the Hockey Stick fiasco. He also tried to push the regional nature of the MWP trying to rebrand it a MWAnomaly. That has taken a few more years but gradually that is also starting to be shown to be bunkum. Yes we all know what a mistake that was and how much ammunition it gave the deniers. As for Mann and his assumptions you'd have to be clearer as I cannot guess where your conspiracy theories diverge from accepted science. We can see evidence of decreased volcanic activity, changes in oceanic currents. We have evidence that the MWP was not global and effected different areas at different times. We are able to evidence these (As I'm sure you know) even though they happened a 1,000 years ago. So we can tell this from a 1,000 years ago but you think we can't measure these things today. He has gone along the same old game. He has used the proxies of ice cores, tree ring, pollen grains. corals etc. to draw a conclusion that the MWP was regional. However this has been seriously challenged through research. co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.phpFor easier reference I have linked to Wattsup as well wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/04/causation-of-climate-change-was-the-medieval-warm-period-regional/Who concludes "compiled by Craig Idso at the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Idso has listed well over 100 studies from literally every corner of the world, organized under categories that include Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australia/New Zealand, Europe, North America, Northern Hemisphere, Oceans, and South America. As with the Hockey Stick graph, the idea that the MWP was merely “regional” has been thoroughly demolished."
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 6, 2023 19:44:06 GMT
Very amusing to hear you talking about " really learning some science", Zanygame. Good one. But let's take a more recent bit of "climate change" the ETCW (Early Twentieth Century Warming). Two of the strongest global warming periods that occurred in the 20th century are: 1925–1944 with a temperature increase of 0.37 C and 1978–1997 with a global mean temperature increase of about 0.32 C. The former event has been coined the Early Twentieth Century Warming or ETCW. I've mentioned the ETCW to you before because it looks almost exactly like the 1978-1997 warming period - yet it can't be attributed to CO2 rises. In order to explain it the warmists have had to attribute it to natural causes. But the most interesting thing about it is that on later graphs produced by the likes of the IPCC the ETCW has almost completely been "smoothed" out after going through their filtering algorithms. It now just looks like a slight linear increase over 20 years, because the filtering algorithm assumes any temperature readings that don't follow the CO2 theory are wrong. But what caused the 1925 and 1978 warm periods then? That is the question you need to address, its not a matter of whether the earth has been warmer or colder in the past but what caused it. Then you can try and answer what is causing the current warming if its not Co2. As for the graphs being smoothed both you and I easily find numerous articles discussing ETCW and its causes. So whoever these dark undercover forces are they are pretty useless at their jobs, so I wouldn't worry too much. It seems just as relevant to consider what stopped them as it was not CO2 emissions reductions.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 6, 2023 19:56:43 GMT
Yes we all know what a mistake that was and how much ammunition it gave the deniers. As for Mann and his assumptions you'd have to be clearer as I cannot guess where your conspiracy theories diverge from accepted science. We can see evidence of decreased volcanic activity, changes in oceanic currents. We have evidence that the MWP was not global and effected different areas at different times. We are able to evidence these (As I'm sure you know) even though they happened a 1,000 years ago. So we can tell this from a 1,000 years ago but you think we can't measure these things today. He has gone along the same old game. He has used the proxies of ice cores, tree ring, pollen grains. corals etc. to draw a conclusion that the MWP was regional. However this has been seriously challenged through research. co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.phpFor easier reference I have linked to Wattsup as well wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/04/causation-of-climate-change-was-the-medieval-warm-period-regional/Who concludes "compiled by Craig Idso at the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Idso has listed well over 100 studies from literally every corner of the world, organized under categories that include Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australia/New Zealand, Europe, North America, Northern Hemisphere, Oceans, and South America. As with the Hockey Stick graph, the idea that the MWP was merely “regional” has been thoroughly demolished." Thanks Sandy. I'm happy to accept your evidence here and agree that there is poor evidence that the MWP was regional. Thank you for taking the time to present links to the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 6, 2023 19:58:04 GMT
But what caused the 1925 and 1978 warm periods then? That is the question you need to address, its not a matter of whether the earth has been warmer or colder in the past but what caused it. Then you can try and answer what is causing the current warming if its not Co2. As for the graphs being smoothed both you and I easily find numerous articles discussing ETCW and its causes. So whoever these dark undercover forces are they are pretty useless at their jobs, so I wouldn't worry too much. It seems just as relevant to consider what stopped them as it was not CO2 emissions reductions. As well as what caused them. The current solar maunder is slowing the current global warming. Lucky for us God has turn the suns stat down to buy us some time. 😅
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 6, 2023 20:04:14 GMT
It seems just as relevant to consider what stopped them as it was not CO2 emissions reductions. As well as what caused them. Does it matter. If it is not CO2 then there is little we can do about it. It may be technically interesting but the globe warmed a bit then went back a bit and that seems to be something that has been happening off and on for various reasons for .. well... ever.
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 6, 2023 20:05:10 GMT
It seems just as relevant to consider what stopped them as it was not CO2 emissions reductions. As well as what caused them. The current solar maunder is slowing the current global warming. Lucky for us God has turn the suns stat down to buy us some time. 😅 Oh dear!
|
|