Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Are human activities influencing the climate?
Comments
-
This is what happens when someone has a David (them) versus Goliath (Big Climate Change) narrative running in their head - as representatives of the enemy, Samaris and Akrasia are supposed to laugh evilly and twirl their moustaches.
By asking for a little civility, and for some acknowledgement of the efforts you've made to back up your arguments with good data, (AKA being normal human beings) you're throwing the narrative all over the shop.0 -
-
This is what happens when someone has a David (them) versus Goliath (Big Climate Change) narrative running in their head - as representatives of the enemy, Samaris and Akrasia are supposed to laugh evilly and twirl their moustaches.
It's bizarre that a trillion-dollar industry would paint itself as David...then again, this is a world where the likes of Trump and Old Etonians like Boris Johnson ran with a "stick it to the man" narrative.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
You never know, could end up with a damp squid on the roof!0
-
Instead, maybe give us some details about the socialist agenda driving the alarmists bandwagon?Will do boss, Just have to unpack this crate with the sharks with solar powered lasers attached to their head.
http://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally
Is climate change a thing with the usual want everything for nothing brigade?
The Guardian comments are interesting, the usual hand wringing about evil neo liberals.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/19/un-climate-change-chief-steps-down-after-historic-paris-deal0 -
-
-
Solomon Pleasant wrote: »The world is using its natural resources 1.7 times faster than it should be.
How we currently live, our economy and society, is in absolutely no way sustainable.
To suggest that we are only having a minor impact on the the world's climate when we are polluting an overpopulated planet while fracking and deforestation take place is borderline madness.
I've heard that figure before how is it calculated?0 -
Advertisement
-
What are you talking about?
One of the solutions proposed by those alarmed by climate change necessitates moving away from the current global economic development model towards what sounds like a socialist utopia.
Can you tell us a little more about it please?
From the link:3 February 2015 - The Top UN Climate Change Official is optimistic that a new international treaty will be adopted at Paris Climate Change conference at the end of the year. However the official, Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of UNFCCC, warns that the fight against climate change is a process and that the necessary transformation of the world economy will not be decided at one conference or in one agreement.
"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history", Ms Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels.
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 - you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation."
Sounds very like the lefty stuff you'd hear from Paul Murphy and the lads.0 -
Wait, I'm the ringleader now?
AKRASIA, MY MINION! ATTACK!
42% of thermometers are hot? What?
The NASA bit was explained to you.
Puerto Rico..?
I'm..glad all that meant something to you, but it meant nothing to me. What are you on about?
Sorry, I had assumed you'd been reading the thread.
But apparently not!
We know the reasons put forward for NASA asjusting temperatures but no one could supply the NASA figure for how much the US is supposed to have warmed outside of how much NASA created itself, 0.5°c. Which is odd.
Puerto Rico? Why not? One of these unnamed places Akrasia wants to have running on solar power? Who knows, they never came back with any specifics, but there's a pipe dream about helping build communities running off solar power and desalination. Not a word about how their very existence is to be sustained in these areas that need this "help" or who's going to fund it.
You didn't know about the 42% of USHCN thermometers either? No worries, not many do.0 -
-
One of the solutions proposed by those alarmed by climate change necessitates moving away from the current global economic development model towards what sounds like a socialist utopia.
Can you tell us a little more about it please?
From the link:
Sounds very like the lefty stuff you'd hear from Paul Murphy and the lads.
The solution to climate change is to stop burning fossil fuels. It's a technological problem and a political and economic one for how it's going to be paid for and rapidly deployed.
I think it should be paid for with long term government debt administered by an organisation like the World Bank, with grants and development aid to developing countries to help them transition.
The technology we need will be a mix of solar, wind power, nuclear, geo-thermal, hydro electric etc depending on the resources available at each individual location.
I think places like north africa have a natural advantage in energy production because they have abundant solar resources and a lot of land that is currently not being used due to lack of water. Because of this, there is a development opportunity for them to build large scale solar farms which can be used to desalinate water pumped in from the sea. This could be used for irrigation, or it could be used for hydrogen production using electrolysis powered by that solar energy
This would be an economic boom for this region that could do a lot to improve the lives of these people and could at the same time, reduce the immigration flow into Europe.
http://www.saharaforestproject.com0 -
You didn't know about the 42% of USHCN thermometers either? No worries, not many do.
I am unaware of 42% of world thermometers being "hot". Are they stolen? Are they kept in ovens? Are they made of radioactive material? Are they only seen at nighttime in your head? Are you sexually attracted to (42% of) thermometers?
God knows. I can generally translate about seventy per cent of what you're talking about if I turn my head sidewards, squint and then try to work out what you've been reading, but "42% of thermometers are hot" (in an accusatory tone) could mean anything, including that I just nicked them.
(No, dense, I did not steal the thermometers as part of my dastardly conspiracy to wind you up.)0 -
Dense mightn't reply for a while. He/she is bound to be busy writing the research paper that will be published in a peer reviewed journal that shows that weather stations throughout the US are giving misleading outputs.
Dense knows this is true and can prove it because he/she has read a us GAO report from many years ago.0 -
The solution to climate change is to stop burning fossil fuels.
That presupposes that atmospheric water vapour and clouds don't play any part in climate or weather.It's a technological problem and a political and economic one for how it's going to be paid for and rapidly deployed.
It's going to be paid for by the same people that pay everything else, tax payers.
But yes, it'll have to be dressed up well, apathy to green taxes can't be far away.I think it should be paid for with long term government debt administered by an organisation like the World Bank, with grants and development aid to developing countries to help them transition.
If it's such a no brainer why don't they fund it themselves?The technology we need will be a mix of solar, wind power, nuclear, geo-thermal, hydro electric etc depending on the resources available at each individual location.
The technology they need.I think places like north africa have a natural advantage in energy production because they have abundant solar resources and a lot of land that is currently not being used due to lack of water. Because of this, there is a development opportunity for them to build large scale solar farms which can be used to desalinate water pumped in from the sea. This could be used for irrigation, or it could be used for hydrogen production using electrolysis powered by that solar energy
This would be an economic boom for this region that could do a lot to improve the lives of these people and could at the same time, reduce the immigration flow into Europe.
http://www.saharaforestproject.com
There are a number of flaws here.
Given that developing countries are not primarily responsible for emissions, is this more about keeping them where they are rather than mitigating against climate change?
Put that message out and the far right will embrace it.
But I don't see how that will simultaneously placate the UN's global socialist agenda.
Or am I missing something in the fine print as to how the economic model we've had for the last 150 years will be dramatically changed?
The wealth distribution bit, how will that work? Quadrupling green taxes to supplement an income of sorts for those for whom we've built the solar powered north African villages?
And I think we're veering towards the over populating argument again.
If there's a problem with over populating and consumption why isn't being addressed in developed countries first, I've never heard anyone open their mouth to say a woman hasn't the right to control her own body and have as many kids as she likes. It wouldn't go down well, would it?
But it's OK to apply it to developing countries. Double standards?0 -
Dense mightn't reply for a while. He/she is bound to be busy writing the research paper that will be published in a peer reviewed journal that shows that weather stations throughout the US are giving misleading outputs.
Dense knows this is true and can prove it because he/she has read a us GAO report from many years ago.
For anyone lately coming upon this, I've given the link to the US government report, but Akrasia has taken the highly scientific approach of refusing to read it.
I wouldn't have thought 2011 was "many years ago", but each to their own....0 -
We know what the role of water vapour is. It's come up before and probably been explained within this thread, let alone by a google search. It doesn't presuppose anything of the sort, you're pulling on two threads and trying to tie a bow.That presupposes that atmospheric water vapour and clouds don't play any part in climate or weather.
Politics. I'm a scientist, not a politician. Akrasia probably has a better handle on that, tbh. Likely what s/he said earlier regarding loans via the World Bank. I can already say "why don't they fund it for themselves" won't work, although massive corruption in various countries is a difficult problem to overcome.It's going to be paid for by the same people that pay everything else, tax payers.
But yes, it'll have to be dressed up well, apathy to green taxes can't be far away.
If it's such a no brainer why don't they fund it themselves?
No.There are a number of flaws here.
Given that developing countries are not primarily responsible for emissions, is this more about keeping them where they are rather than mitigating against climate change?
More politics. I pretty much see the far right onboard only if it is drilled in a lot that this reduces migrants. But since the far right don't tend to be overly interested in dealing with this issue, it's likely that it's not an audience that is likely to be swayed by evidence and data and other globalist conspiracy things.Put that message out and the far right will embrace it.
But I don't see how that will simultaneously placate the UN's global socialist agenda.
Not sure, but I suspect so.Or am I missing something in the fine print as to how the economic model we've had for the last 150 years will be dramatically changed?The wealth distribution bit, how will that work? Quadrupling green taxes to supplement an income of sorts for those for whom we've built the solar powered north African villages?
And I think we're veering towards the over populating argument again.
If there's a problem with over populating and consumption why isn't being addressed in developed countries first, I've never heard anyone open their mouth to say a woman hasn't the right to control her own body and have as many kids as she likes. It wouldn't go down well, would it?
But it's OK to apply it to developing countries. Double standards?
Wait, you're the one applying over-population, let me just be clear here. You can just produce a semi-related issue, come up with a solution that won't work and present it as if someone else came up with it so you can argue with it, but debate doesn't really work that way.
The double standards, as you put it regarding (let me reiterate) your suggestion, is one of the reasons why this isn't followed up that much. That and religion. And, currently, impracticality. There is a reason that people still have many children in various parts of the world, and there is no point telling them not to until the underlying reasons (i.e. high childhood mortality) is dealt with. Not to mention the whole issue that China and India have faced with population control (a severe lack of women, since female babies are the most likely to be killed or gotten rid of). That's a bit of a problem I think at least.
Ironically, a consistent source of clean energy for power, cleaning water and irrigation would go a long way towards helping with that. Population becomes more steady, population explosion dies down (albeit there is often a period where there is high birth rates and steadily declining death rates in the transition period.) It's not as madly drastic as some would like, but most of us just aren't going to get around either mass sterilization or carefully-unspoken solutions predicated on eliminating two thirds of the world's population. (And oddly enough, no, it doesn't tend to be the scientists to suggest that approach! It's the "Let it happen and lock the borders down" lot I'm referring to. They're kinda nuts, which is why they're not taken all that seriously.)
Why are you completely focussed on the developing world though? There are energy sources further north too. Norway is almost entirely hydroelectric (and export oil). Ireland and Scotland are well-placed for wind energy, and could, with improvement to design and the technology, be net exporters of energy to an international grid. Iceland is geothermal. This is a global issue, although regional impacts will be most noticeable (well, that and the overall global temperature and sea level rise). As with any other major works project, it is an investment for future returns, including energy independence, which any "national sovereignty" folks might want to give some consideration to.
Even if you think that climate change is a massive hoax (possibly made up by me for...reasons?), there are a wealth of reasons as to why this is a sensible approach.
Fortunately, a lot of governments agree on that. Again ironically, but possibly Trump's greatest legacy will be pissing the rest of the world off enough to make serious inroads to the problem. Screwing with Trump is an entertaining side-benefit, and it's a little daft that it took that to galvanise more action, but hell, any port in a storm.
Scientists: Bad thing coming. Here is all the evidence.
World: Lol.
Scientists: No, really. Look at it.
World: Maybe but lol.
Trump: CLIMATE CHANGE IS A CHINESE HOAX! #MAGA!
World: Fcuk you Trump, we're going green.
Scientists: ...Okay. Whatever works? We'll be back over here with our data.
World: ...We're still not entirely okay with you guys.
Scientists: *look at Trump, while still offering evidence with a sense of bemused futility*
Trump: *Says something else dumb*
World: *implements policies*
(Yes, very potted).
People are...strange. Mind you, given American interest in controlling oil resources, it's probably not entirely without a sense of self-preservation.
Also, I have not gone through all of these policies yet. UK and Ireland are introducing some with some enthusiastic measures, but we'll have to see how they are to be implemented (and I don't really see the UK following through for a while yet) to have an idea as to whether they'll work or are likely to be effective. Still, semi-solid movement is something.0 -
For anyone lately coming upon this, I've given the link to the US government report, but Akrasia has taken the highly scientific approach of refusing to read it.
I wouldn't have thought 2011 was "many years ago", but each to their own....
Here's a page with a sample of the other Climate change related reports from the GAO that have been released since 2011
Now, go and read them all and come back to me with a summary of their findings
https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/climate_change_response/issue_summary#t=1
Note, the GAO must not have read their own 2011 report that you insist refutes climate change, because they still believe it is happening, and they advocate setting up a federal climate change body to coordinate the US response to mitigation and adaptation and data collection.
I have said about a hundred times at this stage, if you have a peer reviewed study that shows that the USA temperature rises are being systematically exaggerated, then provide it and we'll look at it. Your assertion based on your own cherry picked analysis is not convincing. I do not have confidence that you have accounted for all the data and that your conclusions are sound. No offense, but the same standard applies to professional scientists too, Their research needs to be validated by going through the peer review process before it can be considered as part of the literature on the subject.0 -
Advertisement
-
Perhaps the biggest question should be,
Which countries are the biggest contributors to this issue?
Surely not Former Soviet Union and China?
Explain to us please, How can WE stop those nations from creating such levels of pollution?
If Ireland ceased creating ANY pollutants, the difference would be Negligible.
So where do WE fit into That scheme of things??0 -
cfuserkildare wrote: »Perhaps the biggest question should be,
Which countries are the biggest contributors to this issue?
Surely not Former Soviet Union and China?
Explain to us please, How can WE stop those nations from creating such levels of pollution?
If Ireland ceased creating ANY pollutants, the difference would be Negligible.
So where do WE fit into That scheme of things??
Every country needs to do what it takes.
Russia and China are both parties to the Paris Agreement. They have committed to reduce their greenhouse emissions. Paris is only a step in the right direction. Ireland can have a role to play as a leader in the renewable energy sector. If we can show that renewable power is viable and economically beneficial, then others will follow.
One thing I would very much like Ireland to do, is announce substantial research funding for the commercial scale production of Asparagopsis taxiformis Seaweed which has been shown to almost eliminate methane emissions from ruminant livestock. If Ireland could help to develop the technology to commercially produce this on a large scale, or isolate the compounds in that seaweed that have these beneficial properties, then Ireland could do an enormous amount to reduce the impacts of climate change.0 -
If our controllers weren't manipulating the weather through HAARP and chemtrails, we wouldn't be discussing climate change.0
-
Every country needs to do what it takes.
Russia and China are both parties to the Paris Accord. They have committed to reduce their greenhouse emissions. Paris is only a step in the right direction. Ireland can have a role to play as a leader in the renewable energy sector. If we can show that renewable power is viable and economically beneficial, then others will follow.
One thing I would very much like Ireland to do, is announce substantial research funding for the commercial scale production of Asparagopsis taxiformis Seaweed which has been shown to almost eliminate methane emissions from ruminant livestock. If Ireland could help to develop the technology to commercially produce this on a large scale, or isolate the compounds in that seaweed that have these beneficial properties, then Ireland could do an enormous amount to reduce the impacts of climate change.
And where does this Research Funding come from?
No-on asked Me if I want to pay extra taxation to fund this?
Same as No-one asked me if I wanted to pay Higher VAT and Road-Tax so they could pay for water improvements!!0 -
conditioned games wrote: »If our controllers weren't manipulating the weather through HAARP and chemtrails, we wouldn't be discussing climate change.
Do you have any peer reviewed papers to support this interesting theory?0 -
I'm sorry to hear that. It must be very traumatic to live in a world where you don't have control over every single decision that affects you.cfuserkildare wrote: »And where does this Research Funding come from?
No-on asked Me if I want to pay extra taxation to fund this?
Same as No-one asked me if I wanted to pay Higher VAT and Road-Tax so they could pay for water improvements!!
It certainly is outrageous that the state would impose a tax in order to improve essential infrastructure.0 -
I have said about a hundred times at this stage, if you have a peer reviewed study that shows that the USA temperature rises are being systematically exaggerated, then provide it and we'll look at it.
What USA temperature rises?
You've been asked for a figure from NASA outside of the half a degree they've created but can't provide one.
Provide the figure and we'll determine just how much US warming NASA adjustments are responsible for.0 -
Every country needs to do what it takes.
Russia and China are both parties to the Paris Agreement. They have committed to reduce their greenhouse emissions. Paris is only a step in the right direction. Ireland can have a role to play as a leader in the renewable energy sector. If we can show that renewable power is viable and economically beneficial, then others will follow.
One thing I would very much like Ireland to do, is announce substantial research funding for the commercial scale production of Asparagopsis taxiformis Seaweed which has been shown to almost eliminate methane emissions from ruminant livestock. If Ireland could help to develop the technology to commercially produce this on a large scale, or isolate the compounds in that seaweed that have these beneficial properties, then Ireland could do an enormous amount to reduce the impacts of climate change.
I thought you said fossil fuels were the problem and stopping using them was the solution.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
I gave you Berkeley Earth charts.What USA temperature rises?
You've been asked for a figure from NASA outside of the half a degree they've created but can't provide one.
Provide the figure and we'll determine just how much US warming NASA adjustments are responsible for.
If you want NASA figures, send them an email0 -
I apologise to anyone unfortunate enough to stumble onto this thread in the state it's in.
I have been trying to engage arguments but whenever I say anything, it gets ignored or misrepresented or funnelled back to the same old 'gotcha' talking point.
NASA Do adjust raw data. That is not in question. Dense has never shown that their adjustments are either erroneous or fraudulent.
I have explained multiple times the reasons why raw temperature data is worse than properly adjusted data. I have a feeling Dense won't address this point.0 -
Top physicist Michio Kaku has spoken about their manipulation of the weather, along with numerous people who were close to what their doing have come forward and spoken out.0
-
It is. But we can help by finding ways to reduce other greenhouse gasses to buy us time to complete the transition
But CO2 was the problem earlier.
Now it's methane.
And you want lots more public money to look into that too.
Have you considered taking up chugging on Grafton Street?
At least we now agree that Ireland's co2 emissions are negligible in a global context.0 -
I apologise to anyone unfortunate enough to stumble onto this thread in the state it's in.
I have been trying to engage arguments but whenever I say anything, it gets ignored or misrepresented or funnelled back to the same old 'gotcha' talking point.
NASA Do adjust raw data. That is not in question. Dense has never shown that their adjustments are either erroneous or fraudulent.
I have explained multiple times the reasons why raw temperature data is worse than properly adjusted data. I have a feeling Dense won't address this point.
I have never said the adjustments are erroneous or fraudulent.
I did say the data NASA was manipulating came from weather stations which in a 2011 US government report were found to have had a 42% failure rate to meet standards regarding where they were sited, being prone to UHI. Prone to being sited near sources of heat. The result: a half degree of warming for the US.
A report that Akrasia is still refusing to read.
You can bring a horse to water........0 -
cfuserkildare wrote: »And where does this Research Funding come from?
No-on asked Me if I want to pay extra taxation to fund this?
Same as No-one asked me if I wanted to pay Higher VAT and Road-Tax so they could pay for water improvements!!
You're not paying anything, it's not yours until it's after been taxed. That's how society is set up, without that you would have no money at all. If you try to illegally take the money as your own it will be rightfully taken from you.
No one had to or wanted to ask you anything as you have shown no reason why your opinion would be meaningful or relevant. Your opinion is also not worth more than someone who pays nothing in taxation.0 -
Advertisement
-
I gave you Berkeley Earth charts.
If you want NASA figures, send them an email
OK so no one knows anything about NASA's figures other than the half a degree they didn't know about either until they read it here.
You are familiar with Berkeley Earth figures. I'm not.
The Berkeley Earth figure for US warming for the last century, what is it and what proportion of it comes from adjustments?
It would have been of some use if we could compare it with NASA'S figures to see if they correlate but that's not going to happen is it?
No need for charts and things.0 -
Someday, dense might even go back a few pages and notice he was answered. Not the answer he wanted, sure, but an answer and even an explanation.
Also, dense, that you keep demanding "no charts" is rather akin to someone doing orienteering demanding "no maps". Do you actually understand what trending data is? It often involves charts, unless you have time to find, download, convert and export climate data into excel (or stats program of your choice if you prefer) and go through it line by line to assess the relevant information and render it comprehensible and interpretable. Why not actually give that a go, and because I am a kindly person (sometimes), I'll throw in that you can use climate models. I've done the excel thing. It was agonising.
Have you noticed yet that you keep circling your wagons closer and closer in, apparently in a very dishonest attempt to make the question as difficult to answer as possible so you can complain that you're not being answered? No charts (presumably because they are useful tools, so "no charts" limits the information that can be presented, especially in this sort of communication). It must be contiguous AMERICA. And it must be NASA. No-one else. But I (that is, you) can link whatever nonsense you like and then complain just as much when the fairly reasonable starting point of "peer-reviewed work from at least within the last two decades please" is literally the only bar you have to clear.
I suspect what you are looking for in a rather clumsy way is for me to reveal the gaspworthy news that there was...oh no..a COOLING SPOT in the south-east US over a period of decades, presumably because I've had it (and the state of Missouri) hidden in a bank vault protected by 24/7 armed guards. Is that really what this is about? If so, that's all in the answer you didn't read or respond to several pages back too. This is a well-known thing and made for some interesting studies, alas, in the end, most likely due to a rather prosaic cause.0 -
conditioned games wrote: »Top physicist Michio Kaku has spoken about their manipulation of the weather, along with numerous people who were close to what their doing have come forward and spoken out.
No he didn't
https://www.snopes.com/did-prof-michio-kaku-say-haarp-caused-irma-and-harvey/
And your conspiracies are not welcome in this thread0 -
Great. So you accept that NASA adjusted the figures for good reason to get a more accurate representation of Temperature trends. I'm glad we finally agreeI have never said the adjustments are erroneous or fraudulent.
Good thing they adjusted the raw data so, otherwise the data would be wrong, as you agreed above.I did say the data NASA was manipulating came from weather stations which in a 2011 US government report were found to have had a 42% failure rate to meet standards regarding where they were sited, being prone to UHI. Prone to being sited near sources of heat. The result: a half degree of warming for the US0 -
Not nobody, I'm pretty sure GISS and plenty of academics and actively publishing climate scientists know about them, though they don't get their information from lay people on internet forumsOK so no one knows anything about NASA's figures other than the half a degree they didn't know about either until they read it here.You are familiar with Berkeley Earth figures. I'm not.
The Berkeley Earth figure for US warming for the last century, what is it and what proportion of it comes from adjustments?
It would have been of some use if we could compare it with NASA'S figures to see if they correlate but that's not going to happen is it?
No need for charts and things.
As Samaris already pointed out, graphs and charts are the easiest way to present the data in a way that shows the trends. You seem to want to pluck outliers and anomalies from those trends to obfuscate the argument.
The vast preponderance of evidence points to an increasingly warming world.
You're looking at a hospital chart of someone with a broken leg and saying he can't be injured because his cholesterol level is normal.0 -
Advertisement
-
Jaysus, is that what he meant? 42% of thermometers used in NASA's calculations have a noticeable urban heat island effect?
Why on earth not just say so instead of a wildly accusatory nonsensical non-sequitur like "42% of thermometers are hot" and following it up with "oh, so you didn't know about it, not many do"?
It wasn't so much that I had no idea what the UHIE was, I had just no idea of what context your comment was in. Missed the original flick back and forth on it, but there were a lot of segues since.
Also, what's the problem with that? That sort of thing is why there are corrections to the raw data backed up by satellite and "pristine" stations (i.e. those nearby in pristine conditions the results of which can be compared with the affected station to account for slight UHI effects.
As you commented, you don't necessarily feel that the corrections are fraudulent or untrue results, and appear to accept the necessity for correcting for minor variations like that (bear in mind that when a lot of these stations were placed, they were outside cities that have expanded since), what's your issue?
Even just taking a simple example shows your protest carries little water;
Station A reads 14.3C in the daytime in a UHI-affected area. Satellite data and nearby pristine stations indicate that it is over-estimating by 0.5C. Due to the very nature of the phenomenon, that would mean that the raw data is showing hotter than corrected data. Therefore, corrected data would undergo 14.3-0.5 = 13.8C (Frankly, I'd be surprised if the correction factor was that large, but to make it more visible as an example.)
Raw Data - 14.3C
Correction factor - 0.5C
Adjusted data - 13.8C
The corrections are actually lessening the perceived warmth of the record. Your raw data would actually show a greater increase.0 -
But CO2 was the problem earlier.
Now it's methane.
And you want lots more public money to look into that too.
Have you considered taking up chugging on Grafton Street?
At least we now agree that Ireland's co2 emissions are negligible in a global context.
CO2 is the problem. It is the most long term greenhouse gas in the atmosphere so it has the biggest cumulative effect
Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas so over the short term, it has a big warming effect but it does not build up in the atmosphere in the same way as Co2. Methane emitted now will have left the atmosphere by about 12 years time. Co2 emitted now will still be elevating atmopsheric co2 levels in a hundred years time.
Also, methane concentrations in the atmosphere are about 1.8 parts per million (it's measured in parts per billion) compared with CO2 which is at over 400 parts per million. Methane contributes about 30% of the global warming we have observed, so reducing our emissions would help a lot in the short term, but CO2 is still the main problem.
If we can drastically reduce our Methane emissions from grazing cattle and sheep, we will cut a major source of global warming, but we will still need to transition away from CO2, we will just have a little bit more time to do it.
It's really not that hard to understand. It's very basic climate science really. You should already know this given that you think you know enough about global warming to know it's not happening/not caused by humans0 -
Fun Fact:
So called 'off grid' living is much more damaging to natural resources than 'normal' living.0 -
Jaysus, is that what he meant? 42% of thermometers used in NASA's calculations have a noticeable urban heat island effect?
Why on earth not just say so instead of a wildly accusatory nonsensical non-sequitur like "42% of thermometers are hot" and following it up with "oh, so you didn't know about it, not many do"?
It wasn't so much that I had no idea what the UHIE was, I had just no idea of what context your comment was in. Missed the original flick back and forth on it, but there were a lot of segues since.
Also, what's the problem with that? That sort of thing is why there are corrections to the raw data backed up by satellite and "pristine" stations (i.e. those nearby in pristine conditions the results of which can be compared with the affected station to account for slight UHI effects.
As you commented, you don't necessarily feel that the corrections are fraudulent or untrue results, and appear to accept the necessity for correcting for minor variations like that (bear in mind that when a lot of these stations were placed, they were outside cities that have expanded since), what's your issue?
Even just taking a simple example shows your protest carries little water;
Station A reads 14.3C in the daytime in a UHI-affected area. Satellite data and nearby pristine stations indicate that it is over-estimating by 0.5C. Due to the very nature of the phenomenon, that would mean that the raw data is showing hotter than corrected data. Therefore, corrected data would undergo 14.3-0.5 = 13.8C (Frankly, I'd be surprised if the correction factor was that large, but to make it more visible as an example.)
Raw Data - 14.3C
Correction factor - 0.5C
Adjusted data - 13.8C
The corrections are actually lessening the perceived warmth of the record. Your raw data would actually show a greater increase.
This is why I asked Dense for a peer reviewed paper to back up his claim.
Here's one
Unfortunately global warming is real and not an artifact of local temperature measurements
https://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-104.pdfThe effect of urban heating on estimates of global average
land surface temperature is studied by applying an urban-rural
classification based on MODIS satellite data to the Berkeley
Earth temperature dataset compilation of 36,869 sites from 15
different publicly available sources. We compare the distribution
of linear temperature trends for these sites to the distribution for a
rural subset of 15,594 sites chosen to be distant from all MODISidentified
urban areas. While the trend distributions are broad,
with one-third of the stations in the US and worldwide having a
negative trend, both distributions show significant warming. Time
series of the Earth’s average land temperature are estimated using
the Berkeley Earth methodology applied to the full dataset and the
rural subset; the difference of these is consistent with no urban
heating effect over the period 1950 to 2010, with a slope of -0.10 ±
0.24/100yr (95% confidence).0 -
Jaysus, is that what he meant? 42% of thermometers used in NASA's calculations have a noticeable urban heat island effect?
Why on earth not just say so instead of a wildly accusatory nonsensical non-sequitur like "42% of thermometers are hot" and following it up with "oh, so you didn't know about it, not many do"?
It wasn't so much that I had no idea what the UHIE was, I had just no idea of what context your comment was in. Missed the original flick back and forth on it, but there were a lot of segues since.
Also, what's the problem with that? That sort of thing is why there are corrections to the raw data backed up by satellite and "pristine" stations (i.e. those nearby in pristine conditions the results of which can be compared with the affected station to account for slight UHI effects.
As you commented, you don't necessarily feel that the corrections are fraudulent or untrue results, and appear to accept the necessity for correcting for minor variations like that (bear in mind that when a lot of these stations were placed, they were outside cities that have expanded since), what's your issue?
Even just taking a simple example shows your protest carries little water;
Station A reads 14.3C in the daytime in a UHI-affected area. Satellite data and nearby pristine stations indicate that it is over-estimating by 0.5C. Due to the very nature of the phenomenon, that would mean that the raw data is showing hotter than corrected data. Therefore, corrected data would undergo 14.3-0.5 = 13.8C (Frankly, I'd be surprised if the correction factor was that large, but to make it more visible as an example.)
Raw Data - 14.3C
Correction factor - 0.5C
Adjusted data - 13.8C
The corrections are actually lessening the perceived warmth of the record. Your raw data would actually show a greater increase.
The raw data didn't show any increase in temperatures to begin with.
"Are atmospheric “greenhouse” effects apparent in the climatic record of the contiguous U.S. (1895-1987)?"
"Test results indicate that overall trends are near zero."
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989GeoRL..16...49H
Using your simple logic, the raw data analysed in that research included heat from the UHI, which, when adjusted out by NASA later as per your example, would have resulted in some cooling for the 100 years.
Instead, NASA's "corrections" to the raw data ADDED half a degree of warming.0 -
I see you're cutting off at 1987 again. Tis a reputable paper, just about fifteen-twenty years out of date.
Will ye ever go back and read that post - this was all explained to you. Probably more than once, but definitely at least once.
And no, if you're going to extrapolate a bag of beans from a hare, don't ascribe it to me. That's all your claim.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-temperature
I know the graph is upsetting, but look UNDER the graph. At the data. Download that data. Analyse it. Come to your own conclusions (god knows what, admittedly)
Not going into it too deeply at this time of night, but I suspect that the average trends over the contiguous US was swung by the cooling patch in the lower south eastern states through most of the 20thC. That faded off at some point in the last couple of decades (This is all in that last post as well, but it's late and I cba). So taking that paper you keep bouncing on is extremely convenient for you, as it takes in the period where it was more or less balancing (but notably not in the same places), but - and this is not their fault, this is your fault for misrepresenting their paper as relevant to a later period than it was written - leaving out the softening of that cooling patch since.
To sum up as they did, more or less what I just said;Some parts of the United States have experienced more warming than others (see Figure 3). The North, the West, and Alaska have seen temperatures increase the most, while some parts of the Southeast have experienced little change. Not all of these regional trends are statistically significant, however.
Also, given you started the UHI business - need I remind you of your claim that 42% of thermometers are hot (not many people know this)? - it's a bit rich to suddenly reverse positions, claim that the raw data showed nothing, then claim that NASA adjusted the temperatures to account for UHI and wind up with that they adjusted them the wrong direction.
But sure, link on that raw data you have, I'd be interested to compare it to city expansion around weather stations.0 -
I see you're cutting off at 1987 again. Tis a reputable paper, just about fifteen-twenty years out of date.
Will ye ever go back and read that post - this was all explained to you. Probably more than once, but definitely at least once.
And no, if you're going to extrapolate a bag of beans from a hare, don't ascribe it to me. That's all your claim.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-temperature
I know the graph is upsetting, but look UNDER the graph. At the data. Download that data. Analyse it. Come to your own conclusions (god knows what, admittedly)
Not going into it too deeply at this time of night, but I suspect that the average trends over the contiguous US was swung by the cooling patch in the lower south eastern states through most of the 20thC. That faded off at some point in the last couple of decades (This is all in that last post as well, but it's late and I cba). So taking that paper you keep bouncing on is extremely convenient for you, as it takes in the period where it was more or less balancing (but notably not in the same places), but - and this is not their fault, this is your fault for misrepresenting their paper as relevant to a later period than it was written - leaving out the softening of that cooling patch since.
To sum up as they did, more or less what I just said;
Also, given you started the UHI business - need I remind you of your claim that 42% of thermometers are hot (not many people know this)? - it's a bit rich to suddenly reverse positions, claim that the raw data showed nothing, then claim that NASA adjusted the temperatures to account for UHI and wind up with that they adjusted them the wrong direction.
But sure, link on that raw data you have, I'd be interested to compare it to city expansion around weather stations.
Anthony Watts from the wattsupwiththat.com website has been leading climate change 'skepticism' in the blogsphere for more than a decade and he was hugely involved in pushing the Urban Heat Island effect as the main reason global warming is not real. He started the surfacestations.org website that I mentioned earlier on this thread, in order to catalogue the weather stations in the US and create a database of the defective positioning and changes to the environment around these stations over the course of the 20th century
The thing is in 2011 even Anthony Watts now has been forced to accept (by the evidence) that the UHI effect can not explain the warming. He has not updated surfacestations.org since 2012 because the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature Project had comprehensively re-analysed the data and found that their findings were that the UHI effect cannot account for the warming.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/science/earth/21climate.html
First Watts went made because Berkley Earth published their findings before the peer review process was complete (something Watts himself previous to this) but he did have a point, the findings shouldn't be accepted until they have been reviewed and published. Good thing all 4 BEST Papers passed review.
Climate 'skeptics' peridically write articles criticising Berkley Earth's methodology or analysis, and re-questioning the adjustments that climate data needs to go through to maintain their integrity but they have never got anything published, unless you count the article that was a deliberate fraud that Dense linked to earlier and Samaris posted the Snopes link to.
https://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming/
TLDR
The UHI effect as an explanation for global warming was debunked many times, most comprehensively in 2012/2013. So it's time for global warming 'skeptics' to either have their theories published in respectable peer reviewed journals, or quit flogging a dead horse.0 -
UHIE was always treated a bit cautiously in uni, but it was treated as something to be corrected (downwards! :P) for - that whole pristine stations etc business. I'd have to look out my notes again, but it didn't make a huge deal of difference, especially by the first decade of this century and the end of the last. I remember my prof talking about it, but a nasty illness was leaving me absolutely knocked out in those classes, which was very annoying. Not certain what methodology they were using in that paper, but I gave benefit of the doubt that if you took the warming pattern from the west and north of the mainland and the cooling pattern over the mid-to-late part of the 20thC, they'd roughly cancel each other in an add-em-up-and-divide way across the 48 states.
Also, some of the hoop-leaping that has to go on to disprove everything...sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct one. Actually, usually it is. The details may be complicated, but generally things work on a fairly predictable pattern. This pattern is pretty predictable. There's nothing else out there that currently explains the sharp reversal of the natural cooling trend over the past millennia. 'Skeptics' can rarely produce any suggestions that even partially explain it (and generally don't try to!). Most 'skeptics' have have long-since abandoned the "there IS no warming" argument.
I use 'skeptic' because it's a hell of a bit of chutzpah to claim that utter denial of evidence is skepticism. One can be skeptical, and the scientific method demands it, but swearing up is black and down is white (let alone sticking with a coherent line) ain't skepticism. It's crass bullsh*tting.0 -
Dense really is all over the place.
It's a lot easier to argue a case when the evidence is on your side. If you respect the scientific method, you can point to scientific literature and datasets to support your arguments.
Dense is stuck with fragments, taking figures and facts out of context, and then throwing them together to make a jigsaw that looks a bit like this0 -
I quote these figures:-
Over the last 400,000 years the natural upper limit of atmospheric CO2 concentrations is assumed from the ice core data to be about 300 ppm. Other studies using proxy such as plant stomata, however, indicate this may closer to the average value, at least over the last 15,000 years. Today, CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 380 ppm. Compared to former geologic periods, concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere are still very small and may not have a statistically measurable effect on global temperatures. For example, during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the same as they are today.
and here is my source:-
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
So can someone PLEASE EXPLAIN our involvement in raising the Global CO2 levels, even though they are at almost the lowest levels EVER RECORDED????0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement