Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Paris Climate Summit


Recommended Posts

I notice a couple things in this graph

http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html

There is evidence of 60 year cycles as is what i expect to see, so i expect to see a leveling off or trend down going forward next 30 years.

The data points are more concentrated around the median since around the 1950's indicating more accurate data measurements as technology improve. How well does the data today obtained with precise measurements equate with data obtained with a guy riding on horseback with a mercury thermometer and measuring probably 1/100 of the locations we measure at now. What i am wondering is the methodology, when showing 150 years of data is the same instrument and same measurement location used to ensure direct comparison with previous data.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 383
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There is evidence of 60 year cycles as is what i expect to see, so i expect to see a leveling off or trend down going forward next 30 years.

Yes. That is primarily the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.

How well does the data today obtained with precise measurements equate with data obtained with a guy riding on horseback with a mercury thermometer and measuring probably 1/100 of the locations we measure at now.

See graph 3: http://berkeleyearth.org/berkeley-earth-temperature-update/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link, i will read it today - something i have been curious about.

I look at the PDO actually, it has a more significant impact here is Sask (i think) than the Atlantic but i would say there are times when the two sync up to have a greater impact on weather around me and i suspect that is the case the last few years but havent looked that deep into it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I look at the PDO actually, it has a more significant impact here is Sask (i think) than the Atlantic but i would say there are times when the two sync up to have a greater impact on weather around me and i suspect that is the case the last few years but havent looked that deep into it.

From various regressions I have done, the effect of PDO is tiny compared to ENSO or AMO. AMO causes global temperature fluctuations of +/-0.1-0.2 C, ENSO causes fluctuations of like +/- 0.1 C. PDO is like +/- 0.04 C.

Edit: Not sure which is more significant when it comes to Saskatchewan.

Edited by -1=e^ipi
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the massive Canadian dog and pony show that is beginnig its hurtle towards the Paris dog and pony show climate conference travelling in a solar powered windship, or are they taking one of those carbon bleating government A320 aircraft?

And with the advanced technology available, wouldn't it be prudent to save our planet and do all those meetings and speechifying by low carbon low cost Skype?

Link to post
Share on other sites

And with the advanced technology available, wouldn't it be prudent to save our planet and do all those meetings and speechifying by low carbon low cost Skype?

There's only so much you can do without using fossil fuels. Nobody realistically thinks we can go to zero soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the massive Canadian dog and pony show that is beginnig its hurtle towards the Paris dog and pony show climate conference travelling in a solar powered windship, or are they taking one of those carbon bleating government A320 aircraft?

And with the advanced technology available, wouldn't it be prudent to save our planet and do all those meetings and speechifying by low carbon low cost Skype?

first thing I thought of..

Putin suddenly appearing and taking up the entire screen, thus freaking out everyone assembled.

Honestly though, this sort of international agreement(ing) is best done in person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

first thing I thought of..

Putin suddenly appearing and taking up the entire screen, thus freaking out everyone assembled.

Honestly though, this sort of international agreement(ing) is best done in person.

I think meetings like this, and also meetings like the G8 / G20 could happen online. In the case of these climate change conferences it might even be a net positive. French restaurants, hotels and prostitutes would lose out for sure, but whatever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think meetings like this, and also meetings like the G8 / G20 could happen online. In the case of these climate change conferences it might even be a net positive. French restaurants, hotels and prostitutes would lose out for sure, but whatever.

There's a lot to be said about the importance of physical meetings. Surely G8/G20 meetings rank "up there" when it comes to having an in person meeting.

A lot of communication happens at the non verbal level.

Edited by angrypenguin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Putin suddenly appearing and taking up the entire screen, thus freaking out everyone assembled.

Speaking of Putin: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2015/10/29/world/europe/29reuters-climatechange-summit-russia-media.html?_r=1

"warmer temperatures would mean Russians spend less on fur coats while agricultural specialists say our grain production will increase, and thank God for that"

Link to post
Share on other sites

And also that is not answer to my question, which about how you define 'too hot'.

Zoologists and botanists around the planet have been observing that animal and plant ranges are moving towards cooler climes as was predicted by climate science. They seem to have a really good handle on what's too hot.

Now MIT environmental engineers are predicting that humans will likewise soon be seeking to migrate away from the heat. Maybe you should go put your question to zoologists, botanists and MIT.

Parts Of Persian Gulf Could Be Too Hot For Humans By Century's End

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think meetings like this, and also meetings like the G8 / G20 could happen online. In the case of these climate change conferences it might even be a net positive. French restaurants, hotels and prostitutes would lose out for sure, but whatever.

Wherever they meet these people should be together in the same place most of the time. A global 'parliament' should be working day in and day out together on this and other critical files, as a team. I'm quite certain their underlings can sweat the small stuff back home quite fine on their own.

Edited by eyeball
Link to post
Share on other sites

As it gets too hot for people to live there they should leave solar panels i their wake. How ironic would that be?

I am not a great believer in climate change because of man made use of fossil fuels. The problem in the world today is pollution, Chemicals in water, the prime source of pollution still goes unchecked. That is chemicals from industries like Dupont , Monsanto from mining companies , from pharmaceutical companies whose unused pills get flushed down the toilet and end up in drinking water, then follow that up with recyclables that take a hundred years to break down in landfill sites. Our oceans are full of garbage that food fish eat and the end up on our table. There has been NO significant climate for the last 18 years so the climate alarmists now use the term climate pause to scare people. The real reason country governments and places like the United Nations cry climate change so that these countries can impose on people, a new tax. Governments can add billions of dollars to the tax coffers by imposing Cap and Trade on societies of a "Across the board " CARBON TAX. Its happened in Europe already. Its coming here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate change - A liberal - progressive attempt to lead their dumbed down followers astray long enough to fleece the sheeple once again and proof positive that most liberal - progressive supporters in the ranks flunked all science classes from third grade up because they weren't based on statements like "I feel that...", "I think it would be best if..." and "That's not fair to...".

You can not 'feel' your way to a fact or correct conclusion, you must form a hypothesis, create a way to test it experimentally, perform the experiment versus some controlled situation that isolates that set of factors under test, gather data, analyze the data, see if it supports the hypothesis you had formed and, above all, you must NOT LIE ABOUT THE DATA! Then and only then can a hypothesis be judged to be factually based if the experiments are repeatable and not flawed or skewed in some way.

Why is climate change a big fat lie? We've had carbon based gases including carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and methane being generated daily on this planet since well before we learned to peel a banana according to their timeline and supposed history, so why didn't the super volcanoes and raging brush fires raise the temperature and make the dinosaurs and ALL OTHER LIFE go extinct long before we peeled that banana? 'Cause it's a big, fat, moneymaking, political LIE!

Actually, the "pause" idea came from people who were trying to claim that warming wasn't happening any more.

Only the farthest-fringe deniers claim that warming isn't even *happening* these days.

But, Mikey, unlike me, you allow ideology to dictate your thoughts.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot to be said about the importance of physical meetings. Surely G8/G20 meetings rank "up there" when it comes to having an in person meeting.

A lot of communication happens at the non verbal level.

It amazes me how easily grown ups are led astray. Only true devotees and worshippers of Gaia allowed to paris for the big getogether of the worlds tyrants,despots and dictators and no doupt Al Gore and Robert Kennedy Jr as well as the various hollywood eco-freaks(John Travolta,Larie David,Etc)and Prince Chucky and the usial groups of eco-freaks(Greenpeace,Sierra Club,EDF,Etc)coming in their leers and gulfstreams and chuafefed there in 7 MPG limos stay in some hotels use countless kilowatt hours of electricity and million of gallons of water(Drinking,Bathing Using the John)all to come up with more regulations and maybe another treaty

Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice a couple things in this graph

http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html

There is evidence of 60 year cycles as is what i expect to see, so i expect to see a leveling off or trend down going forward next 30 years.

The data points are more concentrated around the median since around the 1950's indicating more accurate data measurements as technology improve. How well does the data today obtained with precise measurements equate with data obtained with a guy riding on horseback with a mercury thermometer and measuring probably 1/100 of the locations we measure at now. What i am wondering is the methodology, when showing 150 years of data is the same instrument and same measurement location used to ensure direct comparison with previous data.

Anyone who claims to be objective and data-based needs to look at how the massive revision of sea surface temperatures that eliminated The Pause was done. They substituted the best data (buoys designed and calibrated to accurately take measurements of ocean condition) for poorer quality data (temps from ships for which there is no quality control). They also extended land based temps (known to be warmer) into the SST. The reasoning they gave was to make the data align with historic ship-based data. IMO opinion they should have graphed both sets (buoy and ship) as well as satellite and weather balloon data. From my reading, what you'd find is that the buoy data is very similar to the satellite and weather balloons....there is a pause in warming. Clearly the buoy data is the correct version so the justification for the massive revision is very weak.

How they changed the data is clear, why is not. Anyone truly objective and data-based should ask themselves: if the other side radically changed data (by using poorer quality data that increased the divergence with other data sets) to get rid of a politically inconvenient trend, would they accept it? It's one of those events that separates the science people from activists and political partisans.

* Conversely, climate researchers have had no qualms revising historic land temperatures downwards to increase the slope of the line of global warming. Odd that revisions only ever increase the warming.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of Putin: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2015/10/29/world/europe/29reuters-climatechange-summit-russia-media.html?_r=1

"warmer temperatures would mean Russians spend less on fur coats while agricultural specialists say our grain production will increase, and thank God for that"

well... isn't that special! The moderator/facilitator chose to leave your comment in... the one that most certainly presumes to leverage your favourite hobby-horse... i.e., increased global crop yields resulting from the "CO2 fertilization effect". As I said in my countering post that's been deleted/hidden, you've already spoken of this a few times earlier within this thread... and you do so continually in other recurring GW/AGW/CC related threads.

I gave a rationale to my post, one that indirectly aligns with an underlying supporting mechanism behind the Paris COP 21 meetings... behind all COP meetings; that is to say, I included direct countering evidence to your ongoing repeated claim of increased global crop yields... evidence directly from the latest IPCC AR5 report... from the latest USGCRP report. Evidence that, in part, supports and acts as a driver behind all UNFCCC COP meetings.

there is little direct posting alignment to this threads OP in this thread... each and every time I've posted directly to that theme, the posts simply get buried in an avalanche by those that would presume to simply question the science... and those that would take that challenge up (including me). So my post gets deleted/hidden... and this post I'm replying to is retained! Isn't that special...

and yes... I fully expect this post of mine will similarly get deleted/hidden... done so without explanation, per the norm here.

yup! Just look at the most recent posts left intact within this thread... isn't that special!

Edited by waldo
Link to post
Share on other sites

But, Mikey, unlike me, you allow ideology to dictate your thoughts.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

Ok - now that you have used NASA as a source, clear it up for me: are they "in on it" or not ? They have a lot of good information on climate change, so now that you are citing them you should check that out tool.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok - now that you have used NASA as a source, clear it up for me: are they "in on it" or not ? They have a lot of good information on climate change, so now that you are citing them you should check that out tool.

You seem to think humans driving climate change is a foregone conclusion. And anyone who disagrees with you is suspended. You make fun of those who are skeptics, yet you are never suspended. Like I said, you use yur "powers" to control the narrative. It's a bloody shame.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to think humans driving climate change is a foregone conclusion. And anyone who disagrees with you is suspended.

Not at all true. TimG is a fine example of a reasonable, knowledgeable and decorum-aware poster who has challenged and convinced me on the topic of Climate Change.

You make fun of those who are skeptics, yet you are never suspended.

Not making fun, just pointing out fringe views. I'm not hiding those views, as you say I am, I'm just pointing them out. I hide posts that break forum rules.

But... all of this is OT - please stay on topic. If you want to question the moderation of this thread, take it to the other thread where you're questioning the moderating thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all true. TimG is a fine example of a reasonable, knowledgeable and decorum-aware poster who has challenged and convinced me on the topic of Climate Change.

Not making fun, just pointing out fringe views. I'm not hiding those views, as you say I am, I'm just pointing them out. I hide posts that break forum rules.

But... all of this is OT - please stay on topic. If you want to question the moderation of this thread, take it to the other thread where you're questioning the moderating thanks.

If the Climate change lobby were sure of their case they would stop trying to bully and explain in plain English the exact mechanism, and how it functions. Some of us understand how theories are used even when not a proven truth.

This they seem reluctant to do preferring the snake oil bamboozlers methods. Deceivers the whole lot of them!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all true. TimG is a fine example of a reasonable, knowledgeable and decorum-aware poster who has challenged and convinced me on the topic of Climate Change.

I thought it was because you had no time to properly investigate his most egregious "never ending audit" against the much maligned St. Mann.... that he effectively brow-beat you into submission! I kid, I kid... yes, of course... "hide the decline this post"! :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Announcements




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...