Climate Change thread

[ads36]

1 hour ago, trastrick said:

According to NASA/NOAA's satellite data, the warming anomaly over the 43 year period is 0.08 degrees (less than one tenth of a degree)

no.

 

that's the number for one data point only - February this year. You can't talk climate, and pick out 1 single data point to make a judgement.

 

(and the value of 0.08° isn't taken with respect to a reference established at the start of that period - which you are claiming - just look at the graph, zero on the Y axis isn't at the start of the 43 year period)

 

if we're talking climate, and change, we need to average some years. So let's compare the last 5 years, with the first 5 years, and we get a value of around 0.4-0.5°C

 

we even need to talk about filters, what do you think; 1, 2, or 2.5 sigma?

Edited March 9, 2023 by ads36

[Guest]

1 hour ago, ads36 said:

no.

 

that's the number for one data point only - February this year. You can't talk climate, and pick out 1 single data point to make a judgement.

 

(and the value of 0.08° isn't taken with respect to a reference established at the start of that period - which you are claiming - just look at the graph, zero on the Y axis isn't at the start of the 43 year period)

 

if we're talking climate, and change, we need to average some years. So let's compare the last 5 years, with the first 5 years, and we get a value of around 0.4-0.5°C

 

we even need to talk about filters, what do you think; 1, 2, or 2.5 sigma?

I cannot believe that you are still arguing about a set of figures like this.

To make it pretty simple, if it's cold enough, we keep the Polar Ice Caps and we should be ok.

If it's too warm, which it is, and the Ice Caps melt,  which they are,  a lot of land disappears under water and we are in trouble,

Whatever the figures you argue about,  It's already happening and everybody can see it is.

Has the water got to be up to your neck before you understand?

 

 

 

 

[Annie Bynnol]

1 hour ago, trastrick said:

Not wanting to follow your rabbit hole invitation to discuss the definition of words like "Ice ages", Warm Ages, or the current requirements of University Entrance standards, I'll leave those meandering issues aside.

Scientists now have the technology and tools (satellites) at their disposal to observe, collect, and report data over decades, as "climate" is defined (as opposed to weather). It's a relatively recent development and much more reliable than the "terrestrial" instrument methods, that go back to 1850 on most global warming charts.

Those old "terrestrial"temperatures records were derived, from a combination of land thermometers, ancient tidal gauges, ice core samples, tree ring data, and even steamship water intakes. long before people had reached the North and South Poles, and a good portion of the Third World. So there was obviously a lot of proxy manual guesswork to infill the missing areas.

But now we have the best data ever available. Satellites have been observing the Earth for 43 years now.

According to NASA/NOAA's satellite data, the warming anomaly over the 43 year period is 0.08 degrees (less than one tenth of a degree)

The debate is (or more accurately SHOULD be) about whether this current warming is "catastrophic", or manageable, without "fundamentally" changing our way of life and global economies, and spending $trillions by countries that are already incurring unsustainable National Debts in an attempt to impose a certain arbitrary temperature some 50 to 100 years from now. A government fiat, that's a bit of a stretch for any thinking person.

These predictions are, and will be subject to many opinions, as usual couched in  left/right viewpoints, and the debate is not settled, nor is "the science".

( I don't think the latest climate goddess Greta, would pass your own standards of interview for qualification to comprehend the entire scientific and economic issues encompassed in this debate  )

     I have a deal of trouble dealing with the misuse of data by the 'environmentalists' with whom I have very little sympathy. The weaknesses in their usually 'single' issue arguments is their failure to understand the effectiveness, impact and ramification in dealing with a dynamic system. One report, one data set, one interpretation sets off the 'environmentalists' and a media frenzy ensues where scientists are chased up and edited to provide a good story.

    I have a deal of trouble dealing with the misuse of data by the 'deniers' who do not seem to understand that extremely accurate data on sea currents, sea temperature, lower atmosphere weather data has been collected and published regularly for nearly 300 years, much of which satellite can only indirectly measure. Cook, Humboldt, Bellingshausen, HMS Challenger, the NE and NW Passage expeditions, the Fram etc. all involved surveys using extremely accurate instruments 

    Attempting to pursue a Left v. Right agenda is not only simplistic but is not accurate and a creation of the 'Right'. The Greens attract support in most UK elections from a certain demography which does overlap with the centre and left young, but when they 'grow up' they are just as likely to become Liberals or Conservatives as they are Labour. The 'younger' elements do like to get involved in 'direct action', but this has little to do with left wing politics, but is a useful to the Right.

     Adapting is something humans do well and the solutions are individual, social, commercial, technological and political. Pointless attacks on teenagers really does not benefit anybody.

[ads36]

41 minutes ago, Organgrinder said:

Has the water got to be up to your neck before you understand?

in case further clarity - on my part - is required.

 

A) the measurements that we have, suggest the climate is warming at around 1°C per century (if not faster).

 

B - following on) this is very bad.

[trastrick]

3 hours ago, ads36 said:

no.

 

that's the number for one data point only - February this year. You can't talk climate, and pick out 1 single data point to make a judgement.

 

(and the value of 0.08° isn't taken with respect to a reference established at the start of that period - which you are claiming - just look at the graph, zero on the Y axis isn't at the start of the 43 year period)

 

if we're talking climate, and change, we need to average some years. So let's compare the last 5 years, with the first 5 years, and we get a value of around 0.4-0.5°C

 

we even need to talk about filters, what do you think; 1, 2, or 2.5 sigma?

You can talk about what you want, but NOAA/NASA temperature data has never been presented in empirical terms (i.e., the actual Earth's average temperature for each month of the 44 year satellite record).

 

They are only given as "anomalies", here:

 

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

 

for reasons explained here:

 

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/global-temperature-anomalies#:~:text=Anomalies more accurately describe climate,accurate calculations of temperature trends.

 

For years I've been seeking a simple list of the actual empirical satellite derived average temperatures, but without success. A simple progression, say, as in Month 1  10 degrees, Month 2 -10.01 degrees, Month 3 - 10,02 degrees...........all the way up to today.  This would tell us the actual averaged temperature at the beginning of the series, the current average temperature, and for each month in between.

 

This data must exist, in order to calculate the "anomalies".

 

But they are happy with their present reporting, as it allows the explanations in terms of the "third lowest (highest) temperature on record (this century) or 8 of the 10 warmest years have occurred in the last decade etcetera! 

 

So  they can tell us what the actual hourly temperature is for every city, including yours, but won't tell us what the Earth's actual temperature is for each month,

 

(A doctor takes the baby's temperature and explains to the the worried mother, well Mrs Blog, it is the third highest reading this week, tied with the reading last Sunday.)

 

Yeah, but how high is it actually? 

 

 

[El Cid]

Green and multicoloured parrots now live in the UK, is that a sign of climate change?

[Mr Bloke]

6 minutes ago, El Cid said:

Green and multicoloured parrots now live in the UK, is that a sign of climate change?

Hmmm...

I suspect it's more to do with the mating habits of that nuisance at Padders Bar!

This one here

🦜

to avoid any confusion!

[Padders]

55 minutes ago, Mr Bloke said:

Hmmm...

I suspect it's more to do with the mating habits of that nuisance at Padders Bar!

This one here

🦜

to avoid any confusion!

Hardly Flappers fault Mr. Bloke,

Although I must confess he does occasionally like a common shag..

[Padders]

10 minutes ago, Padders said:

Hardly Flappers fault Mr. Bloke,

Although I must confess he does occasionally like a common shag..

Well that one seems to have been wasted on Mr. Bloke...

A Shag is a common seabird, or better known as a Cormorant..

[Longcol]

8 hours ago, trastrick said:

So  they can tell us what the actual hourly temperature is for every city, including yours, but won't tell us what the Earth's actual temperature is for each month,

And how would you expect them to calculate that? Built up areas only cover about 1% of the earths surface - don't forget the polar ice caps, the oceans, the deserts, the rain forests, the tundra etc.

 

Like Organgrinder posted - 

 

https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/topic/461380-climate-change-thread/page/102/?tab=comments#comment-8641050

 

the melting of the polar ice caps (and most glaciers, permafrost etc) is plain to see.

4 minutes ago, Padders said:

A Shag is a common seabird, or better known as a Cormorant..

Nope.

 

https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/wildlife-guides/bird-a-z/cormorants-and-shags/