You asked 2 questions,
"is there any real evidence for the said change?
The more important question would be, does it matter?"
and I answered.
As for your assumption on what is false, it needs some upgrading.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
What impresses me most about this thread is that everyone who has contributed has done so in a respectable manner.........
I was in the beginning (quite a few years ago now) in support of the AGW movement. I am a trained metrologist (science of measurement) and before retirement was authorised by the Australian Defence Force to calibrate insertion and non-contact temperature measuring equipment so I look at this from a purely measurement standpoint.
What changed my mind was.
IPCC 1st report listed the temperature anomaly as 0.3°C increase with an uncertainty of 0.5°C. The ISO GUM which is the international standard for the Guide to Uncertainty in Measurement recommends a TUR (test uncertainty ratio) of 10:1. Imagine if you sent your Fluke DMM for calibration and it was returned with the reported value of 3.00volts with an uncertainty of 5.00volts I would not the bill and send the DMM to another cal lab.
The IPPC subsequent reports never listed uncertainty, you have to ask WHY. Uncertainty is very important value in measurement, without it the measurement is meaningless.
Science is not the process of consensus. Science is questioning everything, and the IPCC's statements that the CONSENSUS that 95% of scientists are in support - GW is anthropogenic - is not science.
I was in the beginning (quite a few years ago now) in support of the AGW movement. I am a trained metrologist (science of measurement) and before retirement was authorised by the Australian Defence Force to calibrate insertion and non-contact temperature measuring equipment so I look at this from a purely measurement standpoint.
What changed my mind was.
IPCC 1st report listed the temperature anomaly as 0.3°C increase with an uncertainty of 0.5°C. The ISO GUM which is the international standard for the Guide to Uncertainty in Measurement recommends a TUR (test uncertainty ratio) of 10:1. Imagine if you sent your Fluke DMM for calibration and it was returned with the reported value of 3.00volts with an uncertainty of 5.00volts I would not the bill and send the DMM to another cal lab.
The IPPC subsequent reports never listed uncertainty, you have to ask WHY. Uncertainty is very important value in measurement, without it the measurement is meaningless.
Science is not the process of consensus. Science is questioning everything, and the IPCC's statements that the CONSENSUS that 95% of scientists are in support - GW is anthropogenic - is not science.
Simulations can give reasonable level of accuracy, but require an accurate model in order to do so. They also need enough data points.
This is the issue with the climate models. Too many inaccurate assumptions and too coarse a data set to provide an accurate forecast.
Mod hat off.
The biggest of which is families with too many children. That fuels the need. Those families are thinking only of their future, not the planet. I believe our real problem is population control. I would hate to think we are going to end what we have here because horniness and lack of contraception and family planning continue to get in the way.
I think we should fire it all up there. We could be like Saturn only better. Not just skinny little rings but protective 'clouds' of space waste. It would not only protect us from those pesky asteroids and such, it would also shield us a bit from that nasty sun so we could not have to worry about planet warming and our bad habits.I thought the idea was to protect the earth with space garbage.
The biggest of which is families with too many children. That fuels the need. Those families are thinking only of their future, not the planet. I believe our real problem is population control. I would hate to think we are going to end what we have here because horniness and lack of contraception and family planning continue to get in the way.
Last edited:
I have attached graphs of 2 BOM weather stations in Australia one is on the coast and the other inland (not far from the desert. The data is mean monthly MAXIMUM temperature.
This is actual surface temperature not anomaly data, I know it is only 2 stations but even so if the earth was warming then this should show an increase.
This is actual surface temperature not anomaly data, I know it is only 2 stations but even so if the earth was warming then this should show an increase.
Attachments
The Chinese made that planning , and the free world criticized him until exhaustion
So they had to march back.
Here is an example of how anomaly data can skew the results. There are NO corrections made to these data.
The 2 graphs posted here are of the same data set for the Cape Otway station. The first graph is the raw temperature data from the station, the second graph is the anomaly data from a long term average.
Oh my god we have global warming (tongue in cheek emoji). This I hope demonstrates my point that the data sets for anomaly measurements can be manipulated to present a picture that does not represent reality.
The 2 graphs posted here are of the same data set for the Cape Otway station. The first graph is the raw temperature data from the station, the second graph is the anomaly data from a long term average.
Oh my god we have global warming (tongue in cheek emoji). This I hope demonstrates my point that the data sets for anomaly measurements can be manipulated to present a picture that does not represent reality.
Attachments
Some of the more genuinely environmentally conscious younger vegans recognise this fact and are planning not to reproduce
I’m finding it hard to believe it’s the same data when the x-axis don’t even align.
Separately, I see the same data sets plotted by both sides with totally different graphs shapes - moving averages, windowed averages and all sorts of other analysis approaches by both sides to score points.
However, data is data I think it would be hard to claim global temperatures are not on the up (glacial loss, Arctic/Antarctic ice cover loss etc).
Even commentary from 10 years ago is littered with ‘well where the warming’. 10 years later, were on the up again.
You keep picking 1 or 2 specific data sets to bolster your ‘there’s no global warming’ and that’s quite specious IMV.
The extinction asteroid thing has been going for at least 30 years aided and abetted by numerous PBS and Natgeo documentaries (ok, I’ll admit it: I watched everyone that came across my path with morbid fascination).
It’s not if, but when - but when could be tomorrow or it could be in a million years.
Exactly and this is why there is so much conjecture in the scientific community.
The data sets were exactly the same just using them differently showed how data can be manipulated.
Yes I do keep picking 1 or 2 because they are close to where I live and have over 50 years of recorded data. My point is if the Earth is warming then should not ALL weather stations show SOME upward trend in temperature? Cape Otway shows a decrease over 150 years.
You keep saying I only used 2 station measurements but said nothing about my post detailing the IPCC 1st report listing temperature anomaly rise as 0.3°C with and uncertainty of 0.5°C.
It is a bit easier to prepare for a relatively slow warming, but really difficult for a rather quick in manifesting cold 50 years of grand solar minimum or glaciation due to failure of thermohaline circulation. I imagine real bad death toll from freezing, isolation and failure of food production on the north hemisphere. Fortunately I live in the tropics, the freezing part will not arrive.
Antarctic ice is not receding, do the research...
Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum | NASA
What I saw was the consensus of 97% but what they didn't disclose is the overall number. It turned out to be 97% of one third of scientists surveyed who had that consensus which means it's 32.3% of the scientists surveyed. Yeah, it was a number game and how to shape the public's perception.
Year 2014 ! Many things have happened since then in this area, you should investigate too
Then where are the peer reviewed papers that refute this, according to you, not existing consensus?
I looked, but I couldn't find them.
Cal, You hit the nail on the head!! Population is the Elephant in the room.All the data facts and figures will Do jack to fix the issue.Peoples Greed their need to produce offspring and unwillingness to change their eating habits will be the human races undoing.
Heres a fact which changed Me from consuming red meat,It takes 60 litres of water to produce 100 grams of red meat let alone all the other factors you need to take into account in rearing livestock.
Enough of the Doom and Gloom Now Let's get back to building more Amps!!
Steve.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.