|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 17, 2023 18:18:41 GMT
Send me the actual article by Dr Ronan. Why is that so hard? There are links to what he says contained in the link I gave you and to the full study, all you have to do is read down to where the link is. Why is that so hard, you can find it in about 20 seconds the link is in red. The article says Dr. Ronan Connolly, lead author of the study, at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES): “The IPCC is mandated to find a consensus on the causes of climate change. I understand the political usefulness of having a consensus view in that it makes things easier for politicians. However, science doesn’t work by consensus. In fact, science thrives best when scientists are allowed to disagree with each other and to investigate the various reasons for disagreement. I fear that by effectively only considering the datasets and studies that support their chosen narrative, the IPCC have seriously hampered scientific progress into genuinely understanding the causes of recent and future climate change. I am particularly disturbed by their inability to satisfactorily explain the rural temperature trends.” The 72 page review (18 figures, 2 tables and 544 references) explicitly avoided the IPCC’s consensus-driven approach in that the authors agreed to emphasize where dissenting scientific opinions exist as well as where there is scientific agreement. Indeed, each of the co-authors has different scientific opinions on many of the issues discussed, but they agreed for this paper to fairly present the competing arguments among the scientific community for each of these issues, and let the reader make up their own mind. Several co-authors spoke of how this process of objectively reviewing the pros and cons of competing scientific arguments for the paper has given them fresh ideas for their own future research. The authors also spoke of how the IPCC reports would have more scientific validity if the IPCC started to adopt this non-consensus driven approach. The full citation for the study is: R. Connolly, W. Soon, M. Connolly, S. Baliunas, J. Berglund, C. J. Butler, R. G. Cionco, A. G. Elias, V. M. Fedorov, H. Harde, G. W. Henry, D. V. Hoyt, O. Humlum, D. R. Legates, S. Luning, N. Scafetta, J.-E. Solheim, L. Szarka, H. van Loon, V. M. Velasco Herrera, R. C. Willson, H. Yan (晏宏) and W. Zhang (2021). How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate. Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131 I hasten to add these chaps know more about the sun than either you or me. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 17, 2023 18:22:12 GMT
Which of course is the point, that the models are wrong because they operate on incomplete information. I link again so you can consider that these are solar experts about 2 dozen of them, well worth ignoring from your point of view. wattsupwiththat.com/2021/08/16/climate-scientists-accuse-the-ipcc-of-cherrypicking-datasets-which-support-their-alarmist-narrative/Some bullet points from it. "The sun and not human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) may be the main cause of warmer temperatures in recent decades, according to a new study with findings that sharply contradict the conclusions of the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The peer-reviewed paper, produced by a team of almost two dozen scientists from around the world, concluded that previous studies did not adequately consider the role of solar energy in explaining increased temperatures." “Depending on which published data and studies you use, you can show that all of the warming is caused by the sun, but the IPCC uses a different data set to come up with the opposite conclusion,” lead study author Ronan Connolly, Ph.D. told The Epoch Times in a video interview. “In their insistence on forcing a so-called scientific consensus, the IPCC seems to have decided to consider only those data sets and studies that support their chosen narrative,” he added." Another link as regards the number of scientists wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/15/fellows-of-the-royal-geological-society-pushback-over-climate-position/From which I quote "As this letter makes clear, it is not true that 97% of scientists unreservedly accept that AGW theory is fixed, or that carbon and CO2 are ‘pollutants’ and their production should be penalised; how can the primary nutrient in photosynthesis be a pollutant? We also note that 700 scientists have made submissions to the US Senate expressing dissent from the consensus and 166 climate scientists issued a challenge to Ban Ki Moon on the eve of the Copenhagen Climate Summit in 2009 to provide proof of human induced global warming, which he did not do." This game has been ongoing a long time. … … That's a very interesting article, SP. The IPCC has been selectively using data to reach their required conclusions, which are driven by political motives. This is the problem time and again the IPCC assessments are shown to be wrong both in forecasting and in incomplete data yet we are being ruled by their view when there is a myriad of scientists who do not agree. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 17, 2023 19:09:49 GMT
Steppen. I don't dismiss the storage effect of urban areas, nor the local cooling effect of forests, you are mistaken to think that. I am simply saying they are very small compared to the effect of increased Co2 and therefore decreasing Co2 should be our primary objective. I'll try one more time to explain this. In order to calculate the contribution to GLOBAL warming from urban heatsinks you would need to divide the increased temperatures in these areas by the surface area of the planet. Approx 0.003% of the earths surface is urbanised. The average difference annually between urban and rural areas is about 6 degrees. So contribution to increased global temperature from this source is 6 x 0.003 = 0.02 degrees Even this is an over estimate as it assumes entire urban areas are 6 degrees warmer when in fact only small fractions of them are. You would need to reduce this figure even more by taking away the existing urban areas in 1970 when global warming began to be calculated. You could do the same calculation for forests if you would like to. (Total earths surface divided by area of forested land times temperature difference) Incidentally when counting the reduction of Co2 by vegetation you should not just consider trees. All your figures are wrong - and you've missed the fundamental point I was making. For start the figure of urbanisation of land of 0.003% is completely wrong. The UK is 1.3% roads alone - and most of the land in the UK (and in many other places) has been "repurposed", which means that it's been built on or given over to crop growing or deforested. You really need to look at a map of the Earth from space from 1970 to present day. And FYI global warming is calculated from 1850, not 1970. But the main thing is that you've missed the point. It doesn't matter how much of the Earth's surface is urbanised or rural. I was simply comparing two areas - one urbanised and one rural which share the same concentration of CO2- and looking at their temperatures. You've at least understood that the urban areas are far hotter, which is a start. The question is WHY is the rural area so much cooler. And it's because the trees absorb the Sun's energy and lock it away, while the urban areas absorb the energy and release it later. The relative areas of urban and rural land are irrelevant for the calculation. This is simply a means of calculating how much cooling is caused by photosynthesis. Is that simple enough for you? This is just a basic sanity test on the CO2 warming theory - which it fails completely. And it seems that photosynthesis is cooling the area - to use your average figure - by about 6C. Yet the WHOLE effect of the rise in CO2 from about 280ppm in 1850 to about 400ppm now has accounted for only a rise of 1.1C. Is the penny dropping yet? Oh ffs. Do your bloody homework. I gave you the numbers for urban areas across the planet and you come back with tarmac roads in the UK. You want to dispute my calculations come back with some real figures until then you're on your own with your fantasies. You are beyond reach, thank Christ the scientific community can add up. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 17, 2023 19:11:31 GMT
Send me the actual article by Dr Ronan. Why is that so hard? There are links to what he says contained in the link I gave you and to the full study, all you have to do is read down to where the link is. Why is that so hard, you can find it in about 20 seconds the link is in red. The article says Dr. Ronan Connolly, lead author of the study, at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES): “The IPCC is mandated to find a consensus on the causes of climate change. I understand the political usefulness of having a consensus view in that it makes things easier for politicians. However, science doesn’t work by consensus. In fact, science thrives best when scientists are allowed to disagree with each other and to investigate the various reasons for disagreement. I fear that by effectively only considering the datasets and studies that support their chosen narrative, the IPCC have seriously hampered scientific progress into genuinely understanding the causes of recent and future climate change. I am particularly disturbed by their inability to satisfactorily explain the rural temperature trends.” The 72 page review (18 figures, 2 tables and 544 references) explicitly avoided the IPCC’s consensus-driven approach in that the authors agreed to emphasize where dissenting scientific opinions exist as well as where there is scientific agreement. Indeed, each of the co-authors has different scientific opinions on many of the issues discussed, but they agreed for this paper to fairly present the competing arguments among the scientific community for each of these issues, and let the reader make up their own mind. Several co-authors spoke of how this process of objectively reviewing the pros and cons of competing scientific arguments for the paper has given them fresh ideas for their own future research. The authors also spoke of how the IPCC reports would have more scientific validity if the IPCC started to adopt this non-consensus driven approach. The full citation for the study is: R. Connolly, W. Soon, M. Connolly, S. Baliunas, J. Berglund, C. J. Butler, R. G. Cionco, A. G. Elias, V. M. Fedorov, H. Harde, G. W. Henry, D. V. Hoyt, O. Humlum, D. R. Legates, S. Luning, N. Scafetta, J.-E. Solheim, L. Szarka, H. van Loon, V. M. Velasco Herrera, R. C. Willson, H. Yan (晏宏) and W. Zhang (2021). How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate. Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131 I hasten to add these chaps know more about the sun than either you or me. Not a single link there and the link in the article is 404. I'll draw my own conclusions. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 17, 2023 21:31:19 GMT
There are links to what he says contained in the link I gave you and to the full study, all you have to do is read down to where the link is. Why is that so hard, you can find it in about 20 seconds the link is in red. The article says Dr. Ronan Connolly, lead author of the study, at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES): “The IPCC is mandated to find a consensus on the causes of climate change. I understand the political usefulness of having a consensus view in that it makes things easier for politicians. However, science doesn’t work by consensus. In fact, science thrives best when scientists are allowed to disagree with each other and to investigate the various reasons for disagreement. I fear that by effectively only considering the datasets and studies that support their chosen narrative, the IPCC have seriously hampered scientific progress into genuinely understanding the causes of recent and future climate change. I am particularly disturbed by their inability to satisfactorily explain the rural temperature trends.” The 72 page review (18 figures, 2 tables and 544 references) explicitly avoided the IPCC’s consensus-driven approach in that the authors agreed to emphasize where dissenting scientific opinions exist as well as where there is scientific agreement. Indeed, each of the co-authors has different scientific opinions on many of the issues discussed, but they agreed for this paper to fairly present the competing arguments among the scientific community for each of these issues, and let the reader make up their own mind. Several co-authors spoke of how this process of objectively reviewing the pros and cons of competing scientific arguments for the paper has given them fresh ideas for their own future research. The authors also spoke of how the IPCC reports would have more scientific validity if the IPCC started to adopt this non-consensus driven approach. The full citation for the study is: R. Connolly, W. Soon, M. Connolly, S. Baliunas, J. Berglund, C. J. Butler, R. G. Cionco, A. G. Elias, V. M. Fedorov, H. Harde, G. W. Henry, D. V. Hoyt, O. Humlum, D. R. Legates, S. Luning, N. Scafetta, J.-E. Solheim, L. Szarka, H. van Loon, V. M. Velasco Herrera, R. C. Willson, H. Yan (晏宏) and W. Zhang (2021). How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate. Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131 I hasten to add these chaps know more about the sun than either you or me. Not a single link there and the link in the article is 404. I'll draw my own conclusions. You really do not want to know do you. iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131 |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 17, 2023 21:41:10 GMT
Not a single link there and the link in the article is 404. I'll draw my own conclusions. Since you say Sandy has it wrong, perhaps you'd like to deal with my earlier question: Overnight it was -6C here. At the moment its bright sunshine but -4C. A 2 degree drop but the frost and ice still very visible. Question: How does a 1 degree fall manage to thaw the polar icecaps? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 17, 2023 22:21:30 GMT
Not a single link there and the link in the article is 404. I'll draw my own conclusions. Since you say Sandy has it wrong, perhaps you'd like to deal with my earlier question: Overnight it was -6C here. At the moment its bright sunshine but -4C. A 2 degree drop but the frost and ice still very visible. Question: How does a 1 degree fall manage to thaw the polar icecaps? If you don't know that you are so far behind the curve I can't help you. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 18, 2023 7:01:07 GMT
Since you say Sandy has it wrong, perhaps you'd like to deal with my earlier question: Overnight it was -6C here. At the moment its bright sunshine but -4C. A 2 degree drop but the frost and ice still very visible. Question: How does a 1 degree fall manage to thaw the polar icecaps? If you don't know that you are so far behind the curve I can't help you. It rather looks as if you either don't know or you don't want to look silly. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 18, 2023 8:19:09 GMT
That's very interesting indeed. That's a balanced summary of the various scientific debates that are going on, but which are not allowed to be given air time on the MSM or the BBC. Genuine science is being shut down. The bottom line is that we simply don't know what the cause of the current warming is. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 18, 2023 8:25:09 GMT
If you don't know that you are so far behind the curve I can't help you. It rather looks as if you either don't know or you don't want to look silly. Nope. Its just really basic stuff and I can't be bothered explaining it to you because you are not really interested, but just want to sneer. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 18, 2023 8:33:08 GMT
Zanygame said: "Oh ffs. Do your bloody homework. I gave you the numbers for urban areas across the planet and you come back with tarmac roads in the UK.
You want to dispute my calculations come back with some real figures until then you're on your own with your fantasies.
You are beyond reach, thank Christ the scientific community can add up."
I'm just pointing out that the observed data shows fairly conclusively that the cooling effect of photosynthesis is greater than the warming effect of CO2. And your numbers on the relative size of urban and rural areas are not relevant - as you would understand if you bothered to try (or were intelligent enough) to follow the argument.
But never mind. SP's links have demonstrated clearly that the science is NOT settled - and that the IPCC (which is widely quoted in the MSM) is deliberately ignoring data that does not support its mandated position on climate change, i.e. that it's driven by man-made CO2.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 18, 2023 8:38:17 GMT
Zanygame said: " Oh ffs. Do your bloody homework. I gave you the numbers for urban areas across the planet and you come back with tarmac roads in the UK.
You want to dispute my calculations come back with some real figures until then you're on your own with your fantasies.
You are beyond reach, thank Christ the scientific community can add up." I'm just pointing out that the observed data shows fairly conclusively that the cooling effect of photosynthesis is greater than the warming effect of CO2. And your numbers on the relative size of urban and rural areas are not relevant - as you would understand if you bothered to try (or were intelligent enough) to follow the argument. But never mind. SP's links have demonstrated clearly that the science is NOT settled - and that the IPCC (which is widely quoted in the MSM) is deliberately ignoring data that does not support its mandated position on climate change, i.e. that it's driven by man-made CO2. You're just repeating yourself against the facts. I've already told you that isn't how it works. I went to the trouble of giving you actual figures, I wish I hadn't bothered. You give me tarmac roads in the tiny overpopulated UK. Well consider this; How many tarmac roads are there in Africa? And does Africa have the same amount of atmosphere and the UK? |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 18, 2023 8:52:42 GMT
Zanygame said: " Oh ffs. Do your bloody homework. I gave you the numbers for urban areas across the planet and you come back with tarmac roads in the UK.
You want to dispute my calculations come back with some real figures until then you're on your own with your fantasies.
You are beyond reach, thank Christ the scientific community can add up." I'm just pointing out that the observed data shows fairly conclusively that the cooling effect of photosynthesis is greater than the warming effect of CO2. And your numbers on the relative size of urban and rural areas are not relevant - as you would understand if you bothered to try (or were intelligent enough) to follow the argument. But never mind. SP's links have demonstrated clearly that the science is NOT settled - and that the IPCC (which is widely quoted in the MSM) is deliberately ignoring data that does not support its mandated position on climate change, i.e. that it's driven by man-made CO2. You're just repeating yourself against the facts. I've already told you that isn't how it works. I went to the trouble of giving you actual figures, I wish I hadn't bothered. You give me tarmac roads in the tiny overpopulated UK. Well consider this; How many tarmac roads are there in Africa? And does Africa have the same amount of atmosphere and the UK? Zanygame, I was simply pointing out that your figures of 0.003% of land being urbanised are wrong - massively wrong. But it's not relevant to my rough "sanity check" of the data. Basically all I'm doing is comparing the temperatures of areas that have no "greenery" with equivalent areas that DO have greenery. Since they have the same concentrations of CO2 the difference in temperatures (according to the theories that you subscribe to) can only be due to the energy that photosynthesis captures. And that difference in temperature is MUCH higher than the agreed figure for CO2 warming of 1.1C. (in fact it's much less than 1.1C because even the IPCC don't claim that all that temperature rise is caused by greenhouse gases). |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 18, 2023 9:51:27 GMT
It rather looks as if you either don't know or you don't want to look silly. Nope. Its just really basic stuff and I can't be bothered explaining it to you because you are not really interested, but just want to sneer. Why can't I find the answer then or are you the only one who knows? I think you've well lost the argument. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 18, 2023 13:23:22 GMT
Not a single link there and the link in the article is 404. I'll draw my own conclusions. Since you say Sandy has it wrong, perhaps you'd like to deal with my earlier question: Overnight it was -6C here. At the moment its bright sunshine but -4C. A 2 degree drop but the frost and ice still very visible. Question: How does a 1 degree fall manage to thaw the polar icecaps? But it hasn't thawed the polar ice caps.  Contrary to many predictions. What interests me is the prediction that the melting of the ice caps will lead to huge rises in sea levels. The thing is that about 30% of the ice caps (the outer caps) are floating. The rest of the ice caps are based on land. The bits of the ice caps that have been prone to melting so far are the bits that are floating and, as any schoolboy knows, when floating ice melts it doesn't cause a rise in the level of the water it's floating in (Archimedes principle). |
|
Contrary to many predictions.