Climate Change thread

[trastrick]

15 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

  

•   Item one(the Graph above) that you provided shows a slow global rise in near surface air temperature.
•   Item two(the database) that you linked to shows a wide variation in the global rise in near surface air temperature.
•   Item three(the summary) that you linked to describes global trends and the extremes in regional rises in near surface air temperature.

     Your Source says that "Global climate trend since Dec. 1 1978: +0.13 C per decade". ('decade' refers to any 10 years as it describes the gradient of the graph and in this case describes a unit of time). These are Global air temperatures and as previously explained, Antarctica and the surrounding sea and air currents prevent its warming thus reducing the Global average rise.

     Now look at the graph you provided and the rises and falls- these are associated with the periodic El Niño/La Niña warm and cold sea currents which affect the air temperature above them as they spread North- the give a cyclical appearance to the graph but the trend is upward, selecting dates is therefore is in accurate and you must rely on the gradient of the graph which is since Dec. 1 1978: +0.13 C per decade, decade means any ten years.

     Now look at the Database you provided and the columns that refer to:

NH   Land Ocean  

       This is of course of course referring to the average air temperatures taken every 13 months since 1978 over Land and Ocean in the Northern Hemisphere. This data is seasonal but shows a more marked upward trend.

       Now look at the text in the summary provided and it describes in more detail the September/October/November 2022 situation which does mention some 'cold' and 'hot' extremes.

       You really do need to read the summaries that go with the data you select and you imagine fit your beliefs-which clearly do not.

.

       

 

     

 

       

Lol

 

My beliefs are in the empirical recorded and observed scientific data.

 

I leave the  "imagining", "interpretations", 50 year "predictions", and current MSM  "narratives" to politicians and folks like you!

 

I'm looking for scientific evidence that the observed data  "IS", not "could be",  "catastrophic" and "The Greatest Threat to Human Kind", so we can all prepare for the end of times, in our own way! 

 

Edited February 3, 2023 by trastrick

[trastrick]

1 hour ago, ads36 said:

amazingly, we don't have data for 2023 yet

See "January, 2023" in the data above.

 

I've no more time to waste with you! 

 

[ads36]

20 minutes ago, trastrick said:

See "January, 2023" in the data above.

 

I've no more time to waste with you! 

i'd be delighted to see *your* calculations...

 

and of course, showing that the inclusion of a single data point (among 240) makes all the difference.

 

(i did consider the pros and cons of rolling averages vs a simple 2sigma gaussian filter - but sometimes it's best to just keep it simple)

Edited February 3, 2023 by ads36

[Annie Bynnol]

51 minutes ago, trastrick said:

Lol

My beliefs are in the empirical recorded and observed scientific data.

I leave the "interpretations", 50 year "predictions", and current MSM  "narratives" to politicians and folks like you!

I'm looking for scientific evidence that the observed data  "IS", not "could be",  "catastrophic" and "The Greatest Threat to Human Kind", so we can all prepare for the end of times, in our own way! 

    In attempting to establish your views you expose the weakness of your understanding. I am still not sure why you think the databases you select establish your view when even a cursory glance shows upward trends nearly everywhere. You ignore the written summaries provided with the databases yet quite happily present their graphical interpretations.

    The 'interpretations' I have given are actually those of the scientists who provided you with the visuals you use but ignore their written summaries. I have no need  to be instructed by the MSM, politicians or Greta, as often their views are as way off the mark as yours. A far more reasonable and pragmatic view to the issue is reflected by proper climate scientists like the Canadian Professor Corinne Le Quéré who would agree with you that the visions of a catastrophic outcome are fantasy yet understands that specific action does need to be taken. 

      

[trastrick]

27 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

 " In attempting to establish your views you expose the weakness of your understanding. I am still not sure why you think the databases you select establish your view......"

In the interests of furthering the discussion, can you briefly encapsulate what you "believe" my my "views " to be?

 

I'm happy to  discuss them, if they are really my "beliefs".

Edited February 3, 2023 by trastrick

[Chekhov]

1 hour ago, Annie Bynnol said:

    In attempting to establish your views you expose the weakness of your understanding. I am still not sure why you think the databases you select establish your view when even a cursory glance shows upward trends nearly everywhere. You ignore the written summaries provided with the databases yet quite happily present their graphical interpretations.

    The 'interpretations' I have given are actually those of the scientists who provided you with the visuals you use but ignore their written summaries. I have no need  to be instructed by the MSM, politicians or Greta, as often their views are as way off the mark as yours. A far more reasonable and pragmatic view to the issue is reflected by proper climate scientists like the Canadian Professor Corinne Le Quéré who would agree with you that the visions of a catastrophic outcome are fantasy yet understands that specific action does need to be taken. 

      

As I keep saying whether the temperature really is rising is NOT the only issue.

Just as important :

 

1 - Can we actually do anything about is (esp a China and India etc etc have no intention of playing ball) ?

 

2 - How much will it cost us to do anything about it and is that proportionate to the possible effects (particularly for us in this country) ?

 

3 - Do the British population want to spend Trillions (possibly unsuccessfully) trying to reduce climate change, or Billions (mainly on flood defence) mitigating its effects here ?

Edited February 3, 2023 by Chekhov

[Anna B]

16 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

As I keep saying whether the temperature really is rising is NOT the only issue.

Just as important :

 

1 - Can we actually do anything about is (esp a China and India etc etc have no intention of playing ball) ?

 

2 - How much will it cost us to do anything about it and is that proportionate to the possible effects (particularly for us in this country) ?

 

3 - Do the British population want to spend Trillions (possibly unsuccessfully) trying to reduce climate change, or Billions (mainly on flood defence) mitigating its effects here ?

Good post.

People need to think very carefully about these questions as we are about to bankrupt ourselves, with all its attendant problems.

 

Edited February 3, 2023 by Anna B

[El Cid]

3 hours ago, Anna B said:

Good post.

People need to think very carefully about these questions as we are about to bankrupt ourselves, with all its attendant problems.

We are poorer than we were a decade ago, but I thought that was because of Brexit, COVID and the war 🤣

 

Personally, I am getting richer as I get older, certainly not going bankrupt.

[Annie Bynnol]

6 hours ago, trastrick said:

In the interests of furthering the discussion, can you briefly encapsulate what you "believe" my my "views " to be?

I'm happy to  discuss them, if they are really my "beliefs".

 

Some of your statements on this thread.

• "The great unwashed still believe the nonsense coming out of the MSM and their "experts" in their war against fossil fuels, under the guise of climate change."
• "Greta is... one of the leaders of the movement to save the planet. (Along with Al Gore, and that hot young ex-bartender in the U.S., that's pushing for the $100,000,000,000,000.00 Green New Deal) and may be on the Committee to oversee the giant wealth transfer required."
• "I support the notion that Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming is an international financial scam, a giant wealth transfer scheme."

[El Cid]

40 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

 

Some of your statements on this thread.

• "The great unwashed still believe the nonsense coming out of the MSM and their "experts" in their war against fossil fuels, under the guise of climate change."
• "Greta is... one of the leaders of the movement to save the planet. (Along with Al Gore, and that hot young ex-bartender in the U.S., that's pushing for the $100,000,000,000,000.00 Green New Deal) and may be on the Committee to oversee the giant wealth transfer required."
• "I support the notion that Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming is an international financial scam, a giant wealth transfer scheme."

I don't understand the logic of not believing in experts, but instead believing what the see in their media bubble.