Forum | So temperatures not rising then by CountyJim

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread

So temperatures not rising then 11:08 - Jan 3 with 19343 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 19:43 - Jan 5 with 1378 views

A_Fans_Dad

So temperatures not rising then on 19:36 - Jan 5 by londonlisa2001
Do you know something fansdad, you are genuinely off your trolley in so many ways, but you are one of the most enjoyable posters on this site and I have no doubt that if I met you I would find you very good company. That’s not meant to sound patronising or sarcastic by the way - I mean it. You’re mad but massively entertaining.

What is of my trolley about sceptic scientists, don't you believe they exist?

So temperatures not rising then on 19:58 - Jan 5 with 1361 views

Flashberryjack

So temperatures not rising then on 19:43 - Jan 5 by A_Fans_Dad
What is of my trolley about sceptic scientists, don't you believe they exist?

Temperature rises = climate change

Temperature falls = climate change

Flooding = climate change

Drought = climate change

If it's not due to climate change, blame Brexit.

	Hello
Poll:	Should the Senedd be Abolished

So temperatures not rising then on 20:01 - Jan 5 with 1358 views

A_Fans_Dad

So temperatures not rising then on 19:58 - Jan 5 by Flashberryjack
Temperature rises = climate change Temperature falls = climate change Flooding = climate change Drought = climate change If it's not due to climate change, blame Brexit.

You are of course correct, any long term change in climate is climate change.
It is not quite the same thing as Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global warming created by adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
That is the one where we all going to die soon.

[Post edited 5 Jan 2020 20:02]

So temperatures not rising then on 13:06 - Jan 6 with 1288 views

A_Fans_Dad

So temperatures not rising then on 13:16 - Jan 5 by Scotia

I'm naturally very sceptical and challenge everything. I am a scientist. Just take a look at my views on the Swansea bay lagoon in other threads.

When I first started studying Geology in the 90's I was taught by Prof DQ Bowen, a fellow of the Royal Society, and at the time the only Climate change sceptic I had come across (he wasn't a denier, but sceptical as to the cause) . I listened to him for a while - but over the coming years and in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence I realised he was wrong.

I'm not saying I know more about climate than him, far from it, but I was new to the subject and could formulate my own opinion.

There is now even more of that evidence and Prof Bowen is long since retired if he is still with us. If he was still in academia I would have thought he would have changed his mind.

As I said previously you post a link to a peer reviewed paper published in a respected journal that demonstrates evidence that climate change is not caused by humans and I'll consider that too.

I don't just think the planet is warming due to Co2, but also methane and nitrous oxide. There may also be a natural warming too but we are accelerating it.

With regard to the decade beginning in 2000, I'd expect it to be broadly similar as it is far too small a time frame to look at. Asking a question like that demonstraes that no matter what you think you don't understand the basics of the subject

Edit. I just checked and Prof Bowen now describes himself as a "student of climate change" even the great academics appear to have been convinced.

[Post edited 5 Jan 2020 13:28]

You asked for some papers that question the hypothesis of CO2 induced Climate Change.
Her are a few

https://rtobin.phy.tufts.edu/W

https://www.allphyscon.ch/word

http://pen.ius.edu.ba/index.ph
Which has a link to the pdf file.

Just a small selection, there are 100s of them out there but these were easy to find where others may not be.
Whether you read them or agree with their finding is up to you.

So temperatures not rising then on 13:28 - Jan 6 with 1268 views

A_Fans_Dad

Some people pointed out that Australia may not be quite as hot as the mass media was suggesting, well they were right.
https://electroverse.net/25-lo

So temperatures not rising then on 13:44 - Jan 6 with 1262 views

JACKMANANDBOY

So temperatures not rising then on 13:06 - Jan 6 by A_Fans_Dad

We have to stop messing up the planet, the CO2 debate needs to happen and at the same time we need to get to grips with a whole range of issues including the reduction in biodiversity which is clearly linked to deforestation and agricultural methods and the use of plastic and other non biodegradable substances.

	Besian Idrizaj Forever a Jack
Poll:	Your World Cup Verdict

So temperatures not rising then on 13:47 - Jan 6 with 1261 views

controversial_jack

So temperatures not rising then on 13:28 - Jan 6 by A_Fans_Dad
Some people pointed out that Australia may not be quite as hot as the mass media was suggesting, well they were right. https://electroverse.net/25-lo

Yes, i thought it was bullshit

So temperatures not rising then on 14:25 - Jan 6 with 1255 views

Catullus

So temperatures not rising then on 13:47 - Jan 6 by controversial_jack
Yes, i thought it was bullshit

So some Aussie places are hitting near record highs while others are having record lows?

Spread across the year it wouldn't mean so very much, but in the same month?

Something is clearly not right somewhere.

In these days of fake news, exaggerations and self serving duplicity just who and what should we believe? Even sources we used to trust are no longer completely trustworthy, unless they are backing the versions of events that you believe in.

	Just my opinion, but WTF do I know anyway?
Poll:	Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread?
Blog:	In, Out, in, out........

So temperatures not rising then on 15:18 - Jan 6 with 1244 views

A_Fans_Dad

So temperatures not rising then on 14:25 - Jan 6 by Catullus

Australia, like the US & the old USSR are very large areas and can have massively different temps across the area. To get some idea for a quick check take a look at Nuschool Earth here
https://earth.nullschool.net/#

You can view temps pressure wind etc by clicking on the word Earth in the bottom left corner.
It is also great for following Hurricanes & Typhoons etc, the earth can also be zoomed right in.

So temperatures not rising then on 16:32 - Jan 6 with 1227 views

Scotia

So temperatures not rising then on 13:06 - Jan 6 by A_Fans_Dad

I've only managed to open the second paper.

I'm calling BS before I've even read the abstract and not because as I'm sure you'll say I'm entrenched in my views and don't want to consider other view points.

The paper was accepted less than two months after it was received. That is just not long enough for scrutiny.

So temperatures not rising then on 17:57 - Jan 6 with 1200 views

A_Fans_Dad

So temperatures not rising then on 16:32 - Jan 6 by Scotia
I've only managed to open the second paper. I'm calling BS before I've even read the abstract and not because as I'm sure you'll say I'm entrenched in my views and don't want to consider other view points. The paper was accepted less than two months after it was received. That is just not long enough for scrutiny.

OK, like I said you do what you want with them.

So temperatures not rising then on 18:08 - Jan 6 with 1194 views

A_Fans_Dad

So temperatures not rising then on 16:32 - Jan 6 by Scotia
I've only managed to open the second paper. I'm calling BS before I've even read the abstract and not because as I'm sure you'll say I'm entrenched in my views and don't want to consider other view points. The paper was accepted less than two months after it was received. That is just not long enough for scrutiny.

As an aside, you know that guy Anthony Watts who is "just a presenter", were you aware that he was Acknowledged for his contribution in the understanding of the US CO-OP network by none other than Menne etall in their 2009 paper.
Easy to dismiss these citezen scientists as making worthless contributions isn't it.
Good job NASA didn't agree.

So temperatures not rising then on 19:36 - Jan 6 with 1169 views

Catullus

So temperatures not rising then on 18:08 - Jan 6 by A_Fans_Dad
As an aside, you know that guy Anthony Watts who is "just a presenter", were you aware that he was Acknowledged for his contribution in the understanding of the US CO-OP network by none other than Menne etall in their 2009 paper. Easy to dismiss these citezen scientists as making worthless contributions isn't it. Good job NASA didn't agree.

Like I keep on repeating, it always comes down to what you are prepared to believe. Many people are very entrenched in their opinions and not prepared to even consider they are wrong.
Climate change, brexit, the Tories or Labour, very many people have their point of view and stick by it no matter what.

Is 2 months long enough for a proper peer review? It could be if the evidence provided is so compelling.

	Just my opinion, but WTF do I know anyway?
Poll:	Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread?
Blog:	In, Out, in, out........

So temperatures not rising then on 19:45 - Jan 6 with 1167 views

LeonWasGod

So temperatures not rising then on 16:32 - Jan 6 by Scotia
I've only managed to open the second paper. I'm calling BS before I've even read the abstract and not because as I'm sure you'll say I'm entrenched in my views and don't want to consider other view points. The paper was accepted less than two months after it was received. That is just not long enough for scrutiny.

Well the concluding sentence on the first paper is:

“Our results apply only to the interpretation of classroom-scale demonstrations; they do not call into question the effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases on the Earth’s climate or existing models of those phenomena”.

You don’t even need to know the science to realise this paper isn’t saying what is being claimed by the deniers; just be able to read.

So temperatures not rising then on 20:11 - Jan 6 with 1158 views

A_Fans_Dad

So temperatures not rising then on 19:45 - Jan 6 by LeonWasGod

No, it just disproves the so called science demonstrations that have been used for years to show how the anthropogenic greenhouse gases are supposed to work in the atmosphere.
But if that is not how they work, how do they work, but even though they can't demostrate how it works they still say it works.

Without that statement it probably would not even have been accepted for peer review, let alone publishing.

[Post edited 6 Jan 2020 22:56]

So temperatures not rising then on 06:52 - Jan 7 with 1124 views

Scotia

So temperatures not rising then on 19:36 - Jan 6 by Catullus

I believe the evidence. This is science.

So far the complete lack of sensible argument that AFD has produced is just making me more convinced. A paper accepted for publication in two months and one that clearly doesn't claim what he thinks it does hasn't really persuaded me.

Two months MAY just about be long enough for something with very simple science and regarding a completely non controversial topic. Something like this would need a minimum of double that.

I'd put money on this publication accepting fees to publish.

So temperatures not rising then on 07:15 - Jan 7 with 1117 views

Scotia

So temperatures not rising then on 20:11 - Jan 6 by A_Fans_Dad

[Post edited 6 Jan 2020 22:56]

I'd suggest that the atmospheric conditions are a little more complicated than those that can be produced in a lab. Perhaps that explains the last sentence rather than it just being included to satisfy warmists?

So temperatures not rising then on 09:07 - Jan 7 with 1099 views

Scotia

So temperatures not rising then on 18:08 - Jan 6 by A_Fans_Dad
As an aside, you know that guy Anthony Watts who is "just a presenter", were you aware that he was Acknowledged for his contribution in the understanding of the US CO-OP network by none other than Menne etall in their 2009 paper. Easy to dismiss these citezen scientists as making worthless contributions isn't it. Good job NASA didn't agree.

Anthony Watts is just a TV Presenter without a qualification to his name. This is a meterologist:-

https://www.9news.com.au/natio

A discussion about climate change between someone with a degree is Physics and meterology plus four years forecasting in the RAF v a former furniture salesman.

You can say I believe what I want, but if I was buying a sofa I'd ask for Mr Kelly's advice.

[Post edited 7 Jan 2020 9:10]

So temperatures not rising then on 10:25 - Jan 7 with 1073 views

A_Fans_Dad

So temperatures not rising then on 09:07 - Jan 7 by Scotia

[Post edited 7 Jan 2020 9:10]

You are showing total ignorance as did miss Tobin, who is in the UK, whereas all of the people on the ground in Australia have been and are saying that the severity of the fires, mostly set by arsonists, are caused by excessive fuel load.
There have been many commissions on this subject showing exactly the same thing.
So you in the UK and miss Tobin in the UK know better than all the Fire Experts in Australia, with historical data going back 100s of years.

OK.

It is now obvious that a higher education is a wonderful thing for producing closed minds.

ps want some info on the previous commissions just let this dumb guy know and I will point to a few.

So temperatures not rising then on 10:54 - Jan 7 with 1066 views

A_Fans_Dad

So temperatures not rising then on 07:15 - Jan 7 by Scotia
I'd suggest that the atmospheric conditions are a little more complicated than those that can be produced in a lab. Perhaps that explains the last sentence rather than it just being included to satisfy warmists?

It is quite iteresting that you found the need to add this comment.

Did you realise that the second paper, which you assumed I did not understand and thought I was wrong by suggesting it was detrimental to the theory of CAGW actually proved to be a problem after all?

However it has nothing to do with the atmosphere and everything to do with the basic Physics behind CO2 being the main driver of climate change.
If the basic hypothesis that CO2 holds more heat than air cannot be replicated using 100% CO2, compared to the 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere then there must be something wrong with the hypothesis.
As a scientist you know all about the Scientific and Experimental Methods

https://blogs.stjude.org/progr

So if the Lab version doesn't work under controlled conditions you still believe that it works in a chaotic system like the Earth's climate with hundreds of variables and H2O is the totally dominant Green House component.

So temperatures not rising then on 11:10 - Jan 7 with 1063 views

Scotia

So temperatures not rising then on 10:25 - Jan 7 by A_Fans_Dad

Laura Tobin is talking about the root cause not the on the ground conditions.

As I've said before as likely as it is that climate change is the root cause of these fires, it is too early to say conclusively.

So temperatures not rising then on 11:18 - Jan 7 with 1056 views

Scotia

So temperatures not rising then on 10:54 - Jan 7 by A_Fans_Dad

Empirical evidence proves Co2 is causing warming in the atmosphere. This paper was not meant to replicate that and acknowledges that it doesn't.

So temperatures not rising then on 11:24 - Jan 7 with 1056 views

Catullus

So temperatures not rising then on 06:52 - Jan 7 by Scotia

The 2 months wouldn't bother me as long as the science was good, if the science, the evidence is good then it bears further examination.

Lets face it though, scientists have been known to lie,

https://www.discovermagazine.c

	Just my opinion, but WTF do I know anyway?
Poll:	Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread?
Blog:	In, Out, in, out........

So temperatures not rising then on 12:05 - Jan 7 with 1047 views

A_Fans_Dad

So temperatures not rising then on 11:18 - Jan 7 by Scotia
Empirical evidence proves Co2 is causing warming in the atmosphere. This paper was not meant to replicate that and acknowledges that it doesn't.

For the sake of continung the discussion I will accept your statement that Emperical evidence proves CO2 causes warming in the Atmosphere, but there is also emperical evidence that CO2 cools the atmosphere.
But I would prefer it if you actually showed me that evidence.

So the height that CO2 is active (ie not completely overwhelmed by H2O is in the upper troposphere where the temperature is -50C.
Now I would like you to look at the Woodfortrees graph of Hadrut4 Global Temperatures.
here -
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl

They are a completely independent data service that will graph data from many sources.
You will note that up until the 1997/8 El Nino there was little in the way of increased temperature, then between 1997 and the 2016 El Nino there was also very little increase, that period was recognised as the "pause".
Since the 2016 spike the temperature has dropped 0.5C in 4 years.
Now the El Nino based steps are recognised by all Climate Scientists.

Can you explain how a warmer Upper Troposphere at -50C caused the El Ninos please?

Can you show me the peer reviewed science paper that explains it?

Now I would like you to look at this graph -
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl

Now compare the period between 1997/8 to 2015 with the Hadcrut 4 version.
Notice anything?

Now compare the to the Hadcrut 3 Unadjusted Global temperatures here
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl
and compare that to the other 2.
Notice anything?

So temperatures not rising then on 12:15 - Jan 7 with 1044 views

A_Fans_Dad

So temperatures not rising then on 11:10 - Jan 7 by Scotia
Laura Tobin is talking about the root cause not the on the ground conditions. As I've said before as likely as it is that climate change is the root cause of these fires, it is too early to say conclusively.

How did Climate Change cause the fires?
Was it climate change in 1800s, 1909, in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s etc etc.
Why don't you look at Wiki Bushfires and then explain why all those past fires were obviously not climate change, but these ones are?

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread