All my points are scientific fact.
If so, let's see this data then.
Looks like this might be useful to some on here
https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/climate-change-challenges-and-solutions
Then take yourself out of that pain Captain ironic. Waves! and take the silly smoking analogy with you old chap.
I think they were lamenting the fact they had been dragged into do a discussion about science with someone who knew next to nothing
Correct. Though adding the "about it [science]" was a little redundant in theocb's case
OCB: This 'data'?
Read the IPCC reports.
Read the IPCC reports.
A curious request, given your stance, but given the lateness of the hour here in our non-record-breaking-climate-stricken nation of Australia, I did get as far as the SPM, which seems to be quite clear, even to the apparently undereducated:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed
changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have
warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the
concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased
Read the IPCC reports.
Or just get a suitable quote:
This round has also faced challenges such as the recent decade-long "pause" in global warming, which initially confounded predictions.The synthesis report acknowledges "the rate of warming over the past 15 years ... is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951".
However, it puts this down to "natural variability" and the problem with cherry-picking the start and end dates of short-term trends.
Recent research suggests that much of the extra heat generated over that time has been absorbed by the world's oceans.
Where have I argued against that point? I will accept your unspoken apology and we don't need to discuss it further.
Weren't you in Colorado recently? Is your flying around the world really justified if you are so passionate about this subject.. Haven't you heard of the damage pollution causes?
Which point? Best to use "quotes" like them Scientists do.
Where have I argued against that point?
You have been calling a certified dataset from when records began at a national meteorological body 'cherry picked' - the implication that it is incorrect. You have been asked many times to provide the data that backs up this assertion. The best you managed was to point me (surprisingly) in the direction of the IPCC report.
Given that said report is over 370 MB in size, and that it's nearly midnight here, I read the start of the SPM, which appeared to elucidate the overall essence of my argument: that climate change is very real, and can be attributed primarily to anthropogenic activity. If you wish to trawl the 370 MB for find a graph to discredit Mike's figure, then be my guest, but the burden of proof is upon you, not Mike or I.
Weren't you in Colorado recently?
Yes
Is your flying around the world really justified if you are so passionate about this subject.
Perhaps, perhaps not (and I personally err towards the 'not' side of that). However, far from being a jolly, the main aim of the trip was to work towards improving our understanding of how soil fertility will be affected by changes in temperature and rainfall, with a view to more sustainable and resilient agriculture producing greater quantities of food with fewer inputs and greater sequestration of atmospheric CO2. Does the end justify the means? Possibly not, I'm not particularly comfortable with the large amount of travel my job entails, and certainly see the grim irony in it.
Mike was using temp records to create an alarmist view point.
Not really, just the fact that things are actually changing it's not just all made up to make people feel bad about dicking round in inefficient cars.
The UK has a nice little moderate climate where people think 30c is a heatwave and a bit of wind is a natural disaster.
I'm in a place where a couple of degrees increase could be devastating, I see much more of the massive weather events hitting SE asia and the changing climate. I also think that a dependance on fossil fuels is one of the most idiotic ideas on the planet when there are viable alternatives, before everyone could afford 2 cars, the car was seen as an expensive and inefficient luxury much as solar etc. is seen now. Given the political issues associated with oil an the places where the last of it is, the mass destruction that coal causes (I've been to one of the biggest open cut coal mines in the world) and the pollution caused by burning the damm stuff - I'm in Jakarta at the moment, the air is unpleasant, the smog is hanging at times, the particulate in the air is for all to see. It's not a healthy place for people to live.
Graham you are trying to argue against science.
No I'm not - I'm arguing against the notion that science somehow prevents people from considering things in anything other than emotionless empirical terms.
By your argument scientists should never warn us about anything at all. They should just sit back and quietly measure it as it happens.
Our records now go back thousands of years and it is accepted and agreed data, they haven't been smashed at all.
Okay, it seems the heart of the confusion here is that you have a different definition of "records" than I do.
To me (and BoM) the phrase [i]"since records began"[/i] means the [i]"since the beginning of accurate temperature records from weather stations"[/i].
If I understand you correctly, you want to define "records" to include data from tree rings, ice cores, sediment layers and all that other good stuff?
That's fine. So I think we're back to what I said earlier then: [i]"you were just making the technical point that yes, it was Australia's hottest year since 1910 but obviously it has been hotter than that at various times before records began."[/i]?
If so then why couldn't you just say "Yes that was the point I was making"?? 😕
I'm in a place where a couple of degrees increase could be devastating,
Unless someone other than theocb who eloquently conflates fantasy with fact turns out to be correct 😉
Berkley (led by a bloke called Mueller) did a "show your workings thing" (lets use the technical term and call it a reanalysis) a few years ago....and went back and had a look at the raw datasets.
here's their analysis compared with UK MetOffice (Hadley) Noaa and NASA analysis
[img] 
[/img]
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings
I think any reasonable person can conclude from that that the current temperature increase is a real phenomena...although in itself it says nothing of the mechanism causing the current increase.
However since we've known from victorian times that bunging CO2 into the atmosphere will have a warming effect (Arrhenius)...someone who doesn't believe the current warming is caused by Co2 has 2 problems.
1 - they have to explain what other process is causing current recorded temperature increase (a bland "natural fluctuations" is dodging it - What natural fluctuations - and how does that fluctuation operate - remember we know loads about how solar fluxes/ocean currents/biosphere/volcanoes/rock weathering etc etc etc all affect planetary climate - so what is it that all the geologists, biologists, vulcanologists, oceanographers etc etc have missed?)
2 - Added to 1 - They also need to explain why the simplest "Occams Razor" explanation of co2 temperature forcing either isn't working - or alternatively what previously unknown negative forcing mechanism is exactly balancing it out.
noone is even close to having any sort of explanation to address either of these 2 points.
Pfffffffffffft. Alarmist.
noone is even close to having any sort of explanation to address either of these 2 points.
Which is why they never try, cherry pick the data and call everyone else alarmist, use headline grabbing statements then skirt the facts (see the David Icke thread)
Ok - not kept up through pages 2-6 - who's winning STW Ignoramus' or STW Scientists?
Depends on which data set you use.
I've missed a couple of pages but there's one thing that never seems to get mentioned. Solar, wind etc. is all super-duper and I can easily imagine more electric cars on the roads but that's not going to power international flights & container ships, and we rely MASSIVELY on that for getting the stuff we want into the country, and exporting stuff that other people want. How's that going to work ?
I'm assuming nuclear reactors in planes would be a bit of a hard sell on the safety front...
and take the silly smoking analogy with you old chap.
A rather interesting way to admit you have no rational reply nor counter to the point I made with the analogy. Then again it is possible it went over your head...bless.
and take the silly smoking analogy with you old chap.
What will happen if he and Jivehoney ever disagree ....shudders
I shall leave the others to "debate" with you.
I'm assuming nuclear reactors in planes would be a bit of a hard sell on the safety front...
Don't be so sure:
😯
So reducing what we can and making efficient what we can't, not a hard concept, there seems to be a belief that it has to be all or nothing and that if we can't invent the entire star trek technology overnight it's not worth trying.
I'm assuming nuclear reactors in planes would be
what I was promised in many of the annuals I was given as a kid in the 60's 👿 Along with free energy and a 3 day week.
Redesining cities to discourage short trips by fossil fuel burning transport is such an obvious thing to do.....
3 day week is true for many......zero hrs contracts etc
I've missed a couple of pages but there's one thing that never seems to get mentioned. Solar, wind etc. is all super-duper and I can easily imagine more electric cars on the roads but that's not going to power international flights & container ships, and we rely MASSIVELY on that for getting the stuff we want into the country, and exporting stuff that other people want. How's that going to work ?
Reduce consumption first and foremost, Reuse what you can, Recycle what you can't.
I've missed a couple of pages but there's one thing that never seems to get mentioned. Solar, wind etc. is all super-duper and I can easily imagine more electric cars on the roads but that's not going to power international flights & container ships, and we rely MASSIVELY on that for getting the stuff we want into the country, and exporting stuff that other people want. How's that going to work ?
That's another reason to push to get away from carbon for electricity generation tbh- it's a total waste of a finite resource. Even if you don't believe in global warming, everyone knows fossil fuels will run down and eventually run out.
OK.. so what we're seeing here is a 'my graph is better than your graph' debate, which if I understand correctly, is a debate that has been rumbling on around the world for decades, a debate that the greatest scientific minds of our lifetime are not getting anywhere with..
So how the blinking nora are a handful of cantankerous, barely educated pseudo scientists on a cycling forum gonna fair any better..!?
They're not gonna fair any better.. end of
So can I ask a more (im)pertinent question?
What are the positive effects of rejecting wind and solar energy likely to be..?
Zokes. The IPCC include scientific agreed data from ice cores to study climate change. The data set Mike used was cherry picked (imo) to create alarm when the facts do not need razzing up. I thought Mike was making an alarmist point within the context of his original post while mocking a denier. Perhaps that wasn't his intention. Temp records haven't been smashed in my opinion as we have data that has been researched and agreed upon since the data set began.
I agree climate change is real and happening which is the consensus or scientific fact as we might call it. Not sure I said otherwise!
Thanks for the honest answer on your travel. Yes it does seem very ironic given your passion on the subject but I also understand that sometimes sacrifices need to be made for the bigger picture so you have to make your own judgements. Just ease up a bit on the 'don't you know what's happening' attitude if you continue to pollute the earth way more than those you are talking too. It is people like you who are polluting the earth excessively not people like me.
Graham. I didn't say researchers shouldn't report back their findings, to decipher a 'good' or 'bad' scenario many many consequences of our actions need to be considered. Yes perhaps we have different versions of records. I used the broad and varied information within the IPCC rather than cherry picking bits. The reason I didn't say yes to your question was because it wasn't a yes as it appears we have different versions of 'records'. You also mentioned alarmist guff about 'warmer before the continents had drifted' (or something like that) which threw me.
250 year studies still need to be put with the information from 500000 years ago to create a fair balanced view of things otherwise people who don't take any interest will see different alarmist views. Always show the whole picture!
The data set Mike used was cherry picked (imo) to create alarm when the facts do not need razzing up.
So am I OK saying that since recorded temperature records began as opposed to interpretation and assessment of historic conditions we have broken the records of recorded (on a thermometer) temperatures.
Apologies for mocking a denier but it most if not all are using hollow arguments to defend an ideology rather than anything else, it's my right to burn all this stuff, it's not a problem it never will be.
250 year studies still need to be put with the information from 500000 years ago to create a fair balanced view of things otherwise people who don't take any interest will see different alarmist views. Always show the whole picture!
In the 500000 years of data is there a period where CO2 has been released into the atmosphere at the current rate?
Anyway as I've said before, even if it's all wrong and not happening, the benefit of moving to a non carbon economy before it all runs out far outweigh any reasons for sticking with it.
Yunki...your 1st paragraph is horsehit . I didn't read any further than that.
The PETM may provide some sort of analogue for CO2 release rates but it was a long time ago and the temporal resolution of carbon into the atmosphere is poor.
gwaelod - Member
Yunki...your 1st paragraph is horsehit . I didn't read any further than that.
awwww bless 😆
awwww bless
He's got a point though.
so they are getting somewhere with it?
whatever, it's still just a lame tactic to avoid addressing the point of my post -
What are the positive effects of rejecting wind and solar energy likely to be..?
What are the positive effects of rejecting wind and solar energy likely to be..?
The research points to a very quick reduction in co2 emissions from humans. 😯
The research points to a very quick reduction in co2 emissions from humans.
Point us to the research, then.
IPCC is where it's all at kit.
so they are getting somewhere with it?whatever, it's still just a lame tactic to avoid addressing the point of my post
Your post didn't make any points .. it just misrepresented the state of scientific understanding of the climate system....which you caveated with the phrase "which if I understand correctly". Clearly you don't.
What do you mean by positive - in a human geography context that's an entirely subjective statement. In a scientific physical context it's something that suggests higher magnitudes of something like rainfall/temperature/humidity.
Some people may see the opening of Arctic shipping routes and easier exploitation of arctic resources as positive. A world that is slower to embrace fossil fuel alternatives will see these "positives" sooner.
Physically...temperature and sea level are both quantities that will be "more positive"
For people who say "where's the research"..
Then I suggest you start with "Arrhenius 1896" then work forward (you can jump forward to IPCC WG1 and go through the references if you want to see where the current state of science is*.
Those of you who are genuinely interested in planetary climate systems (which is ****ing fascinating btw) and not merely regurgitating drivel from cut and paste sock puppet websites run by swivel eyed loons, then maybe have a look at the MOOC I linked to earlier - it starts next week https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/our-changing-climate
Physically...temperature and sea level are both quantities that will be "more positive"
So you are claiming that climate change due to human activity can therefore be seen as a "positive" achievement ? Are you a right-wing Republican politician ? That surely must be the silliest comment on this thread.
EDIT : Perhaps I misunderstood and you were being sarcastic ? Apologies if you were.
No - positive in the sense of the "magnitudes being larger"...as opposed to positive "being a good thing"
Science = Negative - less - Positive - more
Waffly arts bollocks = Negative - bad - Positive good
It wasn't clear from wassisinames post which context he meant....so I give "positive" examples of both.
btw although worth remembering that some shallow water species will see an increase in their environmental space as shelf seas gradually encroach onto land - for them...arguably...that's "positive"...although that needs to be seen in the context of other phsyical and ecosystem changes around them...many of which are likely to be "negative"
what I was promised in many of the annuals I was given as a kid in the 60's Along with free energy and a 3 day week.
Yahhh, except this time it's Lockheed Martins Skunkworks working on it.
That makes me excited.
I've missed a couple of pages but there's one thing that never seems to get mentioned. Solar, wind etc. is all super-duper and I can easily imagine more electric cars on the roads but that's not going to power international flights & container ships, and we rely MASSIVELY on that for getting the stuff we want into the country, and exporting stuff that other people want. How's that going to work ?
Sail and Nuclear powered boats and a transatlantic tunnel.
