| So temperatures not rising then 11:08 - Jan 3 with 19336 views | CountyJim |
2010-2019 wasn't as warm as the previous decade
Rather rubbishes global warming theories then that its getting hotter [Post edited 3 Jan 2020 11:08]
|  | | |  |
| So temperatures not rising then on 22:39 - Jan 3 with 2598 views | NotLoyal |
| So temperatures not rising then on 12:34 - Jan 3 by controversial_jack |
Do you have any proof of this, maybe a link? |
It's never stopped you before, just go for it 😂 |  |
| |
| So temperatures not rising then on 22:44 - Jan 3 with 2592 views | Scotia |
| So temperatures not rising then on 22:25 - Jan 3 by A_Fans_Dad |
No warmists are the people that say scientists must be taken seriously, I used scientsists because they are the only ones that they will believe.
Except when any sceptics use scientists that goes out of the window, just like you.
Do you believe IPCC Scientists? |
I believe properly peer reviewed science, especially that published in respected journals. I'd guess these constitute the 95% that have proven climate change is a result of human activity. I don't care if they are from noaa, ipcc, the met Office or Cefn Hengoed school.
I'll be honest I think peer reviewed science has done us proud over the last 150 years.
I tell you what, you post a single properly peer reviewed paper from a respected journal that gives a credible alternative explanation for global warming and I'll give it serious consideration. |  | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 22:51 - Jan 3 with 2587 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| So temperatures not rising then on 22:44 - Jan 3 by Scotia |
I believe properly peer reviewed science, especially that published in respected journals. I'd guess these constitute the 95% that have proven climate change is a result of human activity. I don't care if they are from noaa, ipcc, the met Office or Cefn Hengoed school.
I'll be honest I think peer reviewed science has done us proud over the last 150 years.
I tell you what, you post a single properly peer reviewed paper from a respected journal that gives a credible alternative explanation for global warming and I'll give it serious consideration. |
What do you consider to be a respected journal? | | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 23:02 - Jan 3 with 2567 views | Scotia |
| So temperatures not rising then on 22:51 - Jan 3 by A_Fans_Dad |
What do you consider to be a respected journal? |
Brilliant.
What do you consider a respected journal? I'd say the journal of a recognised professional scientific body or perhaps a publication like nature.
I wouldn't consider a report on the BBC website that Delhi is a bit chilly today to be one of those. [Post edited 3 Jan 2020 23:13]
| | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 11:00 - Jan 4 with 2497 views | Catullus |
| So temperatures not rising then on 22:44 - Jan 3 by Scotia |
I believe properly peer reviewed science, especially that published in respected journals. I'd guess these constitute the 95% that have proven climate change is a result of human activity. I don't care if they are from noaa, ipcc, the met Office or Cefn Hengoed school.
I'll be honest I think peer reviewed science has done us proud over the last 150 years.
I tell you what, you post a single properly peer reviewed paper from a respected journal that gives a credible alternative explanation for global warming and I'll give it serious consideration. |
Believe what you will, just be very careful about it. After all, because 95% say something is right, it doesn't guarantee it's actually right. Question everything. Science, scientists get things wrong all the time and many things that have been accepted by the majority have turned out to be wrong.
https://www.mynewlab.com/blog/
That's a simplification of it but come 'De Revolutionibus' many people had their views challenged, it's been going on for centuries.
Humankind is not causing climate change any more than taking a leak in a river is the cause of the river. We are adding to the effect, maybe speeding some things up a bit. What humankind is doing is damaging the environment, destroying ecosystems with pollution, land clearance, mining and over use of raw materials. I'm sure there are other things too. That's what I believe.
Accepting without question is a mistake. | |
| |
| So temperatures not rising then on 14:37 - Jan 4 with 2463 views | Scotia |
| So temperatures not rising then on 11:00 - Jan 4 by Catullus |
Believe what you will, just be very careful about it. After all, because 95% say something is right, it doesn't guarantee it's actually right. Question everything. Science, scientists get things wrong all the time and many things that have been accepted by the majority have turned out to be wrong.
https://www.mynewlab.com/blog/
That's a simplification of it but come 'De Revolutionibus' many people had their views challenged, it's been going on for centuries.
Humankind is not causing climate change any more than taking a leak in a river is the cause of the river. We are adding to the effect, maybe speeding some things up a bit. What humankind is doing is damaging the environment, destroying ecosystems with pollution, land clearance, mining and over use of raw materials. I'm sure there are other things too. That's what I believe.
Accepting without question is a mistake. |
I do question everything, that's what science is and more importantly that's how the peer review process works. Even to get a paper published it is reviewed numerous times by people far more qualified than me. Once it is published it is open to challenge by the wider scientific community, especially the experts who read the specific journals.
That's the difference between scientific journals and some of the links put on here. The one you link for instance claiming highlights scientists mistakes doesn't do that at all it just highlights common misconceptions. The science dehind them is correct.
"adding to the effect" and "speeding things up a bit" is absolutely humanity causing climate change. Of course it would change anyway but we are massively interfering with the process. | | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 15:03 - Jan 4 with 2450 views | Catullus |
| So temperatures not rising then on 14:37 - Jan 4 by Scotia |
I do question everything, that's what science is and more importantly that's how the peer review process works. Even to get a paper published it is reviewed numerous times by people far more qualified than me. Once it is published it is open to challenge by the wider scientific community, especially the experts who read the specific journals.
That's the difference between scientific journals and some of the links put on here. The one you link for instance claiming highlights scientists mistakes doesn't do that at all it just highlights common misconceptions. The science dehind them is correct.
"adding to the effect" and "speeding things up a bit" is absolutely humanity causing climate change. Of course it would change anyway but we are massively interfering with the process. |
Adding to the effect, as I said, is no more causing it than taking a leak in a river causes the river.
There's evidence we see these days that is tainted because scientists want funding and sometimes that funding is given for a reason that isn't all good. It's a lot like politics, in politics you can influence a governments policy, money can buy anything. It's like that with science, if you want a certain result you'll be able to find a scientist who'll provide the answers you want.
I stuck "De Revolutionibus" in because it's a book that was banned by the EC church in 1616 until around the mid 1800's, it challenged many scientists because it pushed the theory of heliocentricity as opposed to Geocentric beliefs that most scientists back then supported. Back then Copernicus was in the 5%.
Science changes as the decades fly by, what we think is right today will be totally rewritten in 100 years time. In the days of the "Plague" it was thought you could protect yourself by wearing a posy of sweet smelling flowers, because most people agree on something, it doesn't mean it's right. If you already lean towards a certain belief, a new theory backing that up will get your support. | |
| |
| So temperatures not rising then on 15:04 - Jan 4 with 2448 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| So temperatures not rising then on 11:00 - Jan 4 by Catullus |
Believe what you will, just be very careful about it. After all, because 95% say something is right, it doesn't guarantee it's actually right. Question everything. Science, scientists get things wrong all the time and many things that have been accepted by the majority have turned out to be wrong.
https://www.mynewlab.com/blog/
That's a simplification of it but come 'De Revolutionibus' many people had their views challenged, it's been going on for centuries.
Humankind is not causing climate change any more than taking a leak in a river is the cause of the river. We are adding to the effect, maybe speeding some things up a bit. What humankind is doing is damaging the environment, destroying ecosystems with pollution, land clearance, mining and over use of raw materials. I'm sure there are other things too. That's what I believe.
Accepting without question is a mistake. |
Yes, you are correct about believing something to be true.
For instance we have this "I believe properly peer reviewed science, especially that published in respected journals."
Who is to say what is "proper peer review"?
Has he ever read the Climategate emails?
Peer Review has been discredited especially in the Medical Sciences, you only have to google peer review failure to bring up many articles highlighting the problems with it. The largest of which is the inability to reproduce the same results & conclusions as the paper. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| So temperatures not rising then on 15:33 - Jan 4 with 2438 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| So temperatures not rising then on 23:02 - Jan 3 by Scotia |
Brilliant.
What do you consider a respected journal? I'd say the journal of a recognised professional scientific body or perhaps a publication like nature.
I wouldn't consider a report on the BBC website that Delhi is a bit chilly today to be one of those. [Post edited 3 Jan 2020 23:13]
|
Ok, how about 2 peer reviewed papers on the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect that show that the as well as natural warming from exiting the little ice age there is also the UHI that markedly reduces any possible CO2 effects?
https://journals.ametsoc.org/d
https://search.proquest.com/op
So you would expect to find the declaration of new record temperature to be in a peer reviewed paper, you don't want much do you.
None of the Reports put out by NOAA or GISS on Global Temperatures are peer reviewed, so I assume that you do not believe them either? | | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 17:12 - Jan 4 with 2416 views | Scotia |
| So temperatures not rising then on 15:33 - Jan 4 by A_Fans_Dad |
Ok, how about 2 peer reviewed papers on the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect that show that the as well as natural warming from exiting the little ice age there is also the UHI that markedly reduces any possible CO2 effects?
https://journals.ametsoc.org/d
https://search.proquest.com/op
So you would expect to find the declaration of new record temperature to be in a peer reviewed paper, you don't want much do you.
None of the Reports put out by NOAA or GISS on Global Temperatures are peer reviewed, so I assume that you do not believe them either? |
There is no link between urban heat Islands and Global climate change and those papers don't claim there is.
I fundamentally don't think you understand peer review.of course academics will disagree, that is peer review. Medical science is a very different area where detailed experiments are undertaken daily.
For temperature records to be in a peer reviewed paper would need that paper to be written, peer reviewed and published. The full 2019 records have only been available 4 days, give them a chance. However those temperatures will be recorded on properly calibrated and installed equipment. Over the course of the next 18 months I'd expect them to be included in a scientific paper | | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 17:14 - Jan 4 with 2413 views | exiledclaseboy |
| So temperatures not rising then on 17:12 - Jan 4 by Scotia |
There is no link between urban heat Islands and Global climate change and those papers don't claim there is.
I fundamentally don't think you understand peer review.of course academics will disagree, that is peer review. Medical science is a very different area where detailed experiments are undertaken daily.
For temperature records to be in a peer reviewed paper would need that paper to be written, peer reviewed and published. The full 2019 records have only been available 4 days, give them a chance. However those temperatures will be recorded on properly calibrated and installed equipment. Over the course of the next 18 months I'd expect them to be included in a scientific paper |
You could write multiple volumes on things Fan’s Dad doesn’t understand. He’ll probably have a wacky link “disproving” it though. |  |
| |
| So temperatures not rising then on 17:28 - Jan 4 with 2400 views | londonlisa2001 |
| So temperatures not rising then on 17:14 - Jan 4 by exiledclaseboy |
You could write multiple volumes on things Fan’s Dad doesn’t understand. He’ll probably have a wacky link “disproving” it though. |
If Trump said next week that he’d changed his mind and now believed we were causing climate change and something had to be done about it fans dad would be wandering around Swansea draped in a ‘I love Greta’ t-shirt before you could say ‘carbon dioxide’.
 | | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 17:34 - Jan 4 with 2393 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| So temperatures not rising then on 17:12 - Jan 4 by Scotia |
There is no link between urban heat Islands and Global climate change and those papers don't claim there is.
I fundamentally don't think you understand peer review.of course academics will disagree, that is peer review. Medical science is a very different area where detailed experiments are undertaken daily.
For temperature records to be in a peer reviewed paper would need that paper to be written, peer reviewed and published. The full 2019 records have only been available 4 days, give them a chance. However those temperatures will be recorded on properly calibrated and installed equipment. Over the course of the next 18 months I'd expect them to be included in a scientific paper |
"However those temperatures will be recorded on properly calibrated and installed equipment."
Now I know you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.
I assume you have never heard of the Anthony Watts SurfaceStation.org project?
They looked at the weather stations in the USA, who have moer than anyone else and found then very wanting in terms of installation and calibration due to siting issues that do not meet NASA's own standards.
I assume that you also haven't heard about the Weather station checking project currently going on in Australia showing the same thing.
Or the Audit conducted on the UK HADCRUT data also showing the same.
They aren't in a peer reviewed paper, but that mean that the findings are not real. [Post edited 4 Jan 2020 17:38]
| | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 18:24 - Jan 4 with 2368 views | Scotia |
| So temperatures not rising then on 17:34 - Jan 4 by A_Fans_Dad |
"However those temperatures will be recorded on properly calibrated and installed equipment."
Now I know you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.
I assume you have never heard of the Anthony Watts SurfaceStation.org project?
They looked at the weather stations in the USA, who have moer than anyone else and found then very wanting in terms of installation and calibration due to siting issues that do not meet NASA's own standards.
I assume that you also haven't heard about the Weather station checking project currently going on in Australia showing the same thing.
Or the Audit conducted on the UK HADCRUT data also showing the same.
They aren't in a peer reviewed paper, but that mean that the findings are not real. [Post edited 4 Jan 2020 17:38]
|
I've actually accompanied the Met Office during weather station audits. Have you?
These are conducted by fully qualified meteorologists, mainly Physics graduates, who come from the Met Office in Exeter every four years. If sites aren't to standard they are discounted or deregistered.
Anthony Watts is a TV presenter with no formal training.
Edit. I've just looked in to the surface stations project, you do know the sites in question weren't actually visited by consistent members of the project or Anthony Watts don't you? [Post edited 4 Jan 2020 18:54]
| | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 18:56 - Jan 4 with 2343 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| So temperatures not rising then on 18:24 - Jan 4 by Scotia |
I've actually accompanied the Met Office during weather station audits. Have you?
These are conducted by fully qualified meteorologists, mainly Physics graduates, who come from the Met Office in Exeter every four years. If sites aren't to standard they are discounted or deregistered.
Anthony Watts is a TV presenter with no formal training.
Edit. I've just looked in to the surface stations project, you do know the sites in question weren't actually visited by consistent members of the project or Anthony Watts don't you? [Post edited 4 Jan 2020 18:54]
|
You may have done as you say, but if you think that UK Weather stations are all OK or discounted you are delusional.
I did not mention UK weather stations, I was talking about major errors in HADCRUT data.
But as you bring it up the last Record high temperature declared by the Met Office was at a weather station which has had building built too close to it.
Anthony Watts was not a "TV Presenter" he was a tv meteorologist and his photographic evidence speaks for itself, as does that of those in Australia looking at BOM weather stations.
Just so you you know NOAA agree with him.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20
Add to that the pristine weather stations in the USRCRN network show slight cooling since they started recording in 2006.
You can bury your head in the sand, I know longer care what you think even if you have PhD in Geology or whatever. | | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 19:02 - Jan 4 with 2338 views | londonlisa2001 |
| So temperatures not rising then on 18:24 - Jan 4 by Scotia |
I've actually accompanied the Met Office during weather station audits. Have you?
These are conducted by fully qualified meteorologists, mainly Physics graduates, who come from the Met Office in Exeter every four years. If sites aren't to standard they are discounted or deregistered.
Anthony Watts is a TV presenter with no formal training.
Edit. I've just looked in to the surface stations project, you do know the sites in question weren't actually visited by consistent members of the project or Anthony Watts don't you? [Post edited 4 Jan 2020 18:54]
|
Your name isn’t Peter is it? | | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 19:06 - Jan 4 with 2330 views | exiledclaseboy |
| So temperatures not rising then on 19:02 - Jan 4 by londonlisa2001 |
Your name isn’t Peter is it? |
Stalker alert. 😱 | |
| |
| So temperatures not rising then on 19:11 - Jan 4 with 2323 views | londonlisa2001 |
| So temperatures not rising then on 19:06 - Jan 4 by exiledclaseboy |
Stalker alert. 😱 |
Lol.
I was in college with a bloke called Pete (from Swansea) who was a geographer and went to work for the Met Office. Just wondering if that was scotia. | | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 19:17 - Jan 4 with 2315 views | dickythorpe |
| So temperatures not rising then on 19:11 - Jan 4 by londonlisa2001 |
Lol.
I was in college with a bloke called Pete (from Swansea) who was a geographer and went to work for the Met Office. Just wondering if that was scotia. |
Well tonight Lisa, you haven't seen him for 30 years...... |  | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 19:21 - Jan 4 with 2314 views | londonlisa2001 |
| So temperatures not rising then on 19:17 - Jan 4 by dickythorpe |
Well tonight Lisa, you haven't seen him for 30 years...... |
It’s a bit longer than 30 - which is depressing beyond belief. | | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 19:27 - Jan 4 with 2307 views | dickythorpe |
| So temperatures not rising then on 19:21 - Jan 4 by londonlisa2001 |
It’s a bit longer than 30 - which is depressing beyond belief. |
It's life Lisa it flies by when you are busy /in a routine etc etc. | | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 19:59 - Jan 4 with 2280 views | Scotia |
| So temperatures not rising then on 18:56 - Jan 4 by A_Fans_Dad |
You may have done as you say, but if you think that UK Weather stations are all OK or discounted you are delusional.
I did not mention UK weather stations, I was talking about major errors in HADCRUT data.
But as you bring it up the last Record high temperature declared by the Met Office was at a weather station which has had building built too close to it.
Anthony Watts was not a "TV Presenter" he was a tv meteorologist and his photographic evidence speaks for itself, as does that of those in Australia looking at BOM weather stations.
Just so you you know NOAA agree with him.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20
Add to that the pristine weather stations in the USRCRN network show slight cooling since they started recording in 2006.
You can bury your head in the sand, I know longer care what you think even if you have PhD in Geology or whatever. |
So basically Mr Watts is the no more qualified to comment on climate than Ulrika Jonsson.
The vast majority of met stations around the world are very accurate, lives depend on them to be.
I'm not burying my head in anything other than peer reviewed science. | | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 20:00 - Jan 4 with 2278 views | Scotia |
| So temperatures not rising then on 19:11 - Jan 4 by londonlisa2001 |
Lol.
I was in college with a bloke called Pete (from Swansea) who was a geographer and went to work for the Met Office. Just wondering if that was scotia. |
Not me.
Ive never worked for them but some of the sites we used for flood modelling were met Office registered. | | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 21:06 - Jan 4 with 2260 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| So temperatures not rising then on 19:59 - Jan 4 by Scotia |
So basically Mr Watts is the no more qualified to comment on climate than Ulrika Jonsson.
The vast majority of met stations around the world are very accurate, lives depend on them to be.
I'm not burying my head in anything other than peer reviewed science. |
I see so only the "vast majority" are very accurate.
So in July 2019 you would expect the Met office to only declare a new high temperature record of 38.7C at a WMA class 1 site wouldn't you?
Except the Cambridge Botanical Garden site is no longer a class 1 site due to having it too close to bare earth, to close to the new Sainsbury Laboratory and also the Plant Growth Facility.
Why don't you google the site and see for yourself?
Then of course there was the Met office announcement of a new Scottish record 28th June 2018 which had to be rescinded when it was pointed out the weather station was in a Car Park.
Or how about the September 2016 temperature of 32.2C set at Heathrow Airport by a Weather station yards away from a Jumbo Jet taxi strip?
So there we have 3 so called records set at totally unsuitable stations for recording records.
Perhaps you would like to see a few photographs of those so called very accurate weather stations in the US or Australia? Or the French Record breaker last year situated on a tin roof?
No I thought not, head/sand/in/buried. | | | |
| So temperatures not rising then on 21:38 - Jan 4 with 2243 views | Scotia |
| So temperatures not rising then on 21:06 - Jan 4 by A_Fans_Dad |
I see so only the "vast majority" are very accurate.
So in July 2019 you would expect the Met office to only declare a new high temperature record of 38.7C at a WMA class 1 site wouldn't you?
Except the Cambridge Botanical Garden site is no longer a class 1 site due to having it too close to bare earth, to close to the new Sainsbury Laboratory and also the Plant Growth Facility.
Why don't you google the site and see for yourself?
Then of course there was the Met office announcement of a new Scottish record 28th June 2018 which had to be rescinded when it was pointed out the weather station was in a Car Park.
Or how about the September 2016 temperature of 32.2C set at Heathrow Airport by a Weather station yards away from a Jumbo Jet taxi strip?
So there we have 3 so called records set at totally unsuitable stations for recording records.
Perhaps you would like to see a few photographs of those so called very accurate weather stations in the US or Australia? Or the French Record breaker last year situated on a tin roof?
No I thought not, head/sand/in/buried. |
Well the Met Office regional manager didn't seem to have a problem with the Cambridge climat site or equipment when he audited the site shortly after the reading . That's good enough for me.
I'm pretty certain the Heathrow record has been verified too, I don't know about the Scottish one.
Perhaps Ulrika could tell us differently if someone sends her a photo of the sites?
Anyway these one off records individually don't mean a huge amount, they are just snapshots. To understand climate and any changes you have to look over decade's. [Post edited 4 Jan 2020 21:56]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.