Forum | So temperatures not rising then by CountyJim

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread

Page:
< previous
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
next >

So temperatures not rising then 11:08 - Jan 3 with 19356 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 18:56 - Jan 8 with 1365 views

Scotia

So temperatures not rising then on 17:40 - Jan 8 by A_Fans_Dad

You still lied.
You do not have to generate heat to cause Climate Change, have you never heard of it getting colder, oh I forgot you only believe in global warming which is not the whole of climate change?
Of course they do not generate heat, but they do release long stored Solar Energy in to the atmosphere which warms it and the land.
Heat Transfer is different to heat generation, the heat capacity of the oceans is massive compared to the atmosphere which is not only less dense, with a lower specific heat it is also radiates directly to space.
Where do you think the energy of the El Nino comes from that can warm the world by a whole degree C for a year.
I pointed to the Scientific paper that lays it out.
Perhaps you would like to go and argue with those scientists instead of me and tell them it can't possibly happen.

CO2 also does not generate any heat so what is your expalantion for that?

[Post edited 8 Jan 2020 17:57]

Not a single point relevant to climate change. Brilliant.

I'd happily ask why he is concentrating on a statically minute sample. Basically, as yourself, 30 years out of probably around 10000.

The warming trend that is seen coincides with increasing levels of greenhouse gases. Just saying.

Co2 is a greenhouse gas, as are methane and nitrous oxide. That's why the cause warming. In nearly 9 pages you haven't provided a shred of evidence that they don't.

So temperatures not rising then on 19:33 - Jan 8 with 1343 views

A_Fans_Dad

So temperatures not rising then on 18:56 - Jan 8 by Scotia

How does CO2 cause warming?
How does it heat 70% of the world ie the Oceans?

The warming trend also coincides with increasing AMO, PDO and reduced cloud cover, which is 3 to your 1 miniscule gas.

You haven't provided a shred of evidence that GHGs do either.
They can't even prove it in a lab let alone in the atmosphere, it is a hypothesis that has shown no proof, only very very poor correlation.
As we know even with very good correlation, it does not prove causation.

Let me ask you this, if your magic molecules really control the climate why did they not maintain the temperature after the 1997/8 spike and the 2016 spike?
Why did they not keep in and increase the heat even more as they are supposed to do?
Why did they allow the temperature to immediately drop a half a degree?
Why did they allow an 18 year pause after the 1997/8 spike?
Why did they not prevent the cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s
How did they end the last Ice Age, or the LIA when there was no change in their ppms?

Funny how you never actually manage to answer any questions, just keep repeating the climate change mantra, they are GHGs.

So temperatures not rising then on 20:47 - Jan 8 with 1323 views

Catullus

You 2 know more about this than me but I read this and my first thought was, how do they know how much C02 was in the atmosphere 20 million years ago?

How do they measure it? Do they get some data and adjust it?

All this palaver only raises more questions.

	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 21:50 - Jan 8 with 1313 views

A_Fans_Dad

So temperatures not rising then on 20:47 - Jan 8 by Catullus
You 2 know more about this than me but I read this and my first thought was, how do they know how much C02 was in the atmosphere 20 million years ago? How do they measure it? Do they get some data and adjust it? All this palaver only raises more questions.

It is estimated from Ice core data from Greenland and Antarctica for quite a long period back.
But the other estimates for millions of years would be goelogical, based on plant growth, limestone deposits and marine deposits with carbon dating etc.
I am sure that scotia can tell you all about it.

But here is a summary.

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/vir

or wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

So temperatures not rising then on 22:32 - Jan 8 with 1296 views

Humpty

So temperatures not rising then on 20:47 - Jan 8 by Catullus
You 2 know more about this than me but I read this and my first thought was, how do they know how much C02 was in the atmosphere 20 million years ago? How do they measure it? Do they get some data and adjust it? All this palaver only raises more questions.

Nah. One of them knows more than you. The other thinks he does.

So temperatures not rising then on 22:52 - Jan 8 with 1284 views

A_Fans_Dad

So temperatures not rising then on 22:32 - Jan 8 by Humpty
Nah. One of them knows more than you. The other thinks he does.

You are right, scotia knows F all about Climate Change.
He is also a liar and a bullshitter.
He actually had the cheek to complain that a study was only based over 30 years, exactly the same period that warmists use to justify why CO2 is the only thing that could have caused late 20th century warming from the 1970s.
Anybody can keep repeating the Warmist mantra of GHGs.
He may have a Phd and a Masters, but just like he said you just can't trust what people say because they have credentials.

-2

So temperatures not rising then on 23:22 - Jan 8 with 1278 views

Humpty

So temperatures not rising then on 22:52 - Jan 8 by A_Fans_Dad

What is your background Dad? What science do you specialize in? What is your highest educational achievement?

So temperatures not rising then on 08:23 - Jan 9 with 1232 views

A_Fans_Dad

So temperatures not rising then on 23:22 - Jan 8 by Humpty
What is your background Dad? What science do you specialize in? What is your highest educational achievement?

My qualifications are totally immaterial, I am quoting Scientists, you know the sort of people that scoitia believes even though the ones that he believes in have been caught lying and cheating and changing the data.
You all think it is a conspiracy theory, but the evidence is there if you care to look.

-1

So temperatures not rising then on 08:47 - Jan 9 with 1230 views

Scotia

So temperatures not rising then on 08:23 - Jan 9 by A_Fans_Dad
My qualifications are totally immaterial, I am quoting Scientists, you know the sort of people that scoitia believes even though the ones that he believes in have been caught lying and cheating and changing the data. You all think it is a conspiracy theory, but the evidence is there if you care to look.

Mr Watts!

Plus I'd say a basic scientific education would at least give you the basics such as understanding scientific principoles and the evolution of the Earth.

[Post edited 9 Jan 2020 10:31]

So temperatures not rising then on 08:52 - Jan 9 with 1228 views

Scotia

So temperatures not rising then on 22:52 - Jan 8 by A_Fans_Dad

Ocean oscillations which you are trying to link to climate change have been happening since the oceans were formed as at present, 10000 years ago after the last ice age.

Humans have only been emititng greenhouse gases in large quantities since the industrial revolution and there is a time lag to their impact. The industrial revolution was 200 years ago.

So temperatures not rising then on 10:28 - Jan 9 with 1208 views

Scotia

Ok rather than copy your entire post twice and run on to page 12, let me break it down:-

How does CO2 cause warming?

I'll include Ch4 and N20 as once again you haven't. They absorb heat as they are made of at least three loosely bound atoms (to form a molecule) which vibrate when they absorb heat. Holding on to the heat radiation for a while and subsequently releasing it. Usually being absorbed by another greenhouse gas atom. A - level chemistry stuff that.

How does it heat 70% of the world ie the Oceans?

That heat mostly comes from the sun as I'm sure you know, but the grenhouse effect is stopping some heat radiating out to space. So whilst some heat from greenhouse gases enter the ocean it's mainly an indirect effect.

The warming trend also coincides with increasing AMO, PDO and reduced cloud cover, which is 3 to your 1 miniscule gas.

Oscillations have been happening since there have been oceans, and those mentioned in one form or the other since the oceans opened during the cretaceous in the example of the AMO. 65 million years ago, but lets' go with 10000 since the last ice age. The correlation is only seen within the last 50 years, so no the trend does not coincide.

Regardless of quantity or amount of impact ananthropogenic effect is an anthropogenic effect. As this is a football forum, can you be a little bit offside? Ask VAR.

You haven't provided a shred of evidence that GHGs do either.
They can't even prove it in a lab let alone in the atmosphere, it is a hypothesis that has shown no proof, only very very poor correlation.
As we know even with very good correlation, it does not prove causation.

I don't think I have to as you are the one disagreeing without evidence to back it up, but anyway
.
Well it was a theory originally proposed in the mid 1800's and has been developed since in both laboratory and climatic condiditons. There is masses of empirical evidence to support this. It has stood the test of time, others have tried their best to disprove it but nothing has been succesful - I would have thought that big industry have tried their best to disprove it most recently and propably thrown piles of cash at it. But still nothing. Despite what you say there is a very strong correlation, it is too clear to ignore.

For what it's worth here is a potted history - just to play the link game:-

https://www.sciencedirect.com/

Of course the natural greenhouse effect makes this planet habitable - GHG's are GHG's no matter where they come from.

This is even supported by Pavel Belolipetsky (recognise him) who says in his paper "We do not question the existence of the greenhouse effect"

Let me ask you this, if your magic molecules really control the climate why did they not maintain the temperature after the 1997/8 spike and the 2016 spike?
Why did they not keep in and increase the heat even more as they are supposed to do?
Why did they allow the temperature to immediately drop a half a degree?
Why did they allow an 18 year pause after the 1997/8 spike?
Why did they not prevent the cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s
How did they end the last Ice Age, or the LIA when there was no change in their ppms?

This is all basically one question isn't it, with a relatively simple answer. There are many factors influencing climate and climate change to draw conclusions over such a short period. Yet throughout all these events you mention the trend is the same, an upward temprature anomaly. Conclusions cannot be drawn on the short term patterns you mention above, even 30 years is too small a sample.

I would suggest more temporary climate influencing activity such as sun spot activity, volcanic activity and yes even El Nino providing a temporary effect on those you mention. This will continue to happen in the future but again the anomaly will be the same.

So temperatures not rising then on 11:00 - Jan 9 with 1194 views

Catullus

Just like the Brexit thread, this has turned into groundhog day, going around in circles. Maybe it's just time to agree to disagree.

Of course you could also trying to see if there is any common ground, is there any of this you agree on?

	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 11:16 - Jan 9 with 1188 views

Scotia

So temperatures not rising then on 11:00 - Jan 9 by Catullus
Just like the Brexit thread, this has turned into groundhog day, going around in circles. Maybe it's just time to agree to disagree. Of course you could also trying to see if there is any common ground, is there any of this you agree on?

I agree. It can only go around in circles because the evidence is overwhelming and as you say in 9 pages we are no further forward.

So temperatures not rising then on 12:57 - Jan 9 with 1167 views

londonlisa2001

So temperatures not rising then on 11:00 - Jan 9 by Catullus
Just like the Brexit thread, this has turned into groundhog day, going around in circles. Maybe it's just time to agree to disagree. Of course you could also trying to see if there is any common ground, is there any of this you agree on?

You’re falling into the trap that is becoming increasingly common on social media and unfortunately traditional media as well, of assuming that if there are two sides to an argument, both have equal merit.

As with Brexit, that’s simply not true, however much people want to believe it is.

So temperatures not rising then on 20:54 - Jan 9 with 1105 views

A_Fans_Dad

So temperatures not rising then on 10:28 - Jan 9 by Scotia

Do you know what really aggravates me is when warmers like you automatically assume that Sceptics do not know of the Science, do not know of the history of the Science and do not understand the Science.
That link you posted was very revealing, I like Callendar, he tried to bring some more modern science to the subject.
It is a pity that according to current climate scientists he was wrong.
According to current Climate Scientists there is no 0.3C increase in the temperature between 1880 & 1930, look for yourself.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl
Who to believe, Callendar with his 147 picked stations or current scientists with their "adjusted data"?
Of course nobody uses Land only temperatures anymore.

In fact according to current data while CO2 was rising the temperature was dropping very slightly between 1882 and 1930s.

However you can also see that there was about a 0.7C increase between 1880 & 1940 or 1910 & 1940 which I will talk about later.

Then we have this "Callendar suggested that about half of the warming from 1880—1935 was due to changes in CO2".
What, he suggested, guessed, not measured in any way, no actual data?
Just like today then, because nobody can say how much of any of the warming over last 100 years is GHG induced and how much is natural coming out of the LIA.

But we also have Callendar agreeing with sceptics that CO2 was not a problem "Like Arrhenius, Callendar did not foresee the potential detrimental impacts of climate warming. Rather, he emphasised the societal benefits that might accrue from increasing temperature: crop production would be enhanced, especially at northerly latitudes, and the return of another deadly ice age would be delayed indefinitely"

Because he didn't account for feedbacks. What feedbacks, where is there one shred of emperical data of positive feedbacks, yet another assumption?

That article has absolutely no reference to ECS or the other eCS or TCS which basically Callendar was talking about.
Note ECS can never happen in a Chaotic System.

Which brings us to that rise in temperature between around 1910 and 1940, 0.7C in 30 years. 0.23C/Decade.
Whereas according to current scientists the 1880 -1930 50 year period the trend was 0C/Decade
The increase in CO2, according to current thinking was pretty constant between 1880 & 1940, it increased about 23ppm or about 0.4ppm/year.
https://sealevel.info/co2.html

During this period the Sun's energy (taken from Solar Cycles) was not very high, especially compared to the Solar maximum in the 50s and the highs of the 80s & 90s.

Yet the temperature increased at the same rate as the late 20th century warming which is suposed to be all CO2 induced because the CO2 increased 100ppm in 60 years, ie 1.7ppm/year.
So we can totally ignore that Solar maximum and the highs of the 80s & 90s because CO2 increased at a higher rate.
But at the same time we as the CO2 was increasing at 1.7ppm/year we had a drop in temperature from the 1940 to the 1970 of 0.7C.

So at CO2 increasing at 0.4ppm/year we can have no increase or a 0.7C increase and at 1.7ppm we can have a decrease of 0.7C or an increase of 0.7C.
You said "Despite what you say there is a very strong correlation, it is too clear to ignore"
https://climate.nasa.gov/clima
So on that chart can you point to where the CO2 went up to create the Roman warm period or the the Medievel warm period when the Vikings inhabited Greenland, which we know was as warm if not warmer than now, well at least we used to before history got re-written.
So what is the TCR & TCS for increasing CO2 a lot of modern estimates are 0 to 0.5C.
You say that a 30 year period is not enough and yet that is exactly the period that Climate Scentist say represents "Climate" and not weather and of course you are prepared to accept Callendar's 50 year period even though it doesn't appear to show what he thought.

Because that is the big question that Sceptics ask how can there be no correlation between CO2 increases & temperature.
That is why they look for other explanations.

Now good old scotia tried to lecture me on GHG Gas Molecules, something that I have known for years, in fact I would bet that I know a lot more about the physics of the so called GHG warming than he does.
Let's start with thise gem of his "Holding on to the heat radiation for a while and subsequently releasing it".
Well any idea how long your "while" is scotia? I will enligthen you, it is about 1 second to release a photon.
The problem is that the time to a collision with all those Nitrogen & Oxygen molecules is about 10 ÂµSeconds ie very very few CO2 molecules has time to emit a photon.
They lose their energy, (it is not heat by the way) by collision with other gas molecules.
Then we have this "Usually being absorbed by another greenhouse gas atom", which of course hardly ever happens and it is a Molecule and not an atom.
So if that is A level Chemistry it is wrong.

We also have this "So whilst some heat from greenhouse gases enter the ocean it's mainly an indirect effect"
Which has 2 problems there is no "heat" in GHGs, only energy and what is this "indirect effect"?
You must be talking about the fact that CO2 is supposed to slow down the release of energy to space and thus keep the Oceans warmer. The problem here is that it is a very small amount compared to H2O in the atmosphere. Everybody knows the difference in temperature at night when it is cloudy.
This is also obvious when you compare the di-urnal temperature change of dry Deserts which can show a loss of 50C overnight.

We can agree to disagree, like I have sais thanks for the input.

So temperatures not rising then on 21:03 - Jan 9 with 1097 views

Catullus

So temperatures not rising then on 12:57 - Jan 9 by londonlisa2001
You’re falling into the trap that is becoming increasingly common on social media and unfortunately traditional media as well, of assuming that if there are two sides to an argument, both have equal merit. As with Brexit, that’s simply not true, however much people want to believe it is.

No I'm not, really I'm not. They are just going around in circles. One side does have more merit in my opinion, we are definitely expeiencing climate change and humankind is definitely adding to the effect.

I guess at some point we will know who is definitely right, about climate change AND brexit. In the meantime I shall continue with my usual course of action, hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

PS https://www.scitecheuropa.eu/r
When they discover things like this, doesn't it throw off other historical data? Or at least affect assumptions and adjustments they have made about and to data.

[Post edited 9 Jan 2020 21:18]

	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........

-1

So temperatures not rising then on 21:29 - Jan 9 with 1087 views

londonlisa2001

So temperatures not rising then on 21:03 - Jan 9 by Catullus

[Post edited 9 Jan 2020 21:18]

Ok.

Your post made it sound as though you were.

I agree that neither will change their minds though - Scotia because he’s a scientist, and fansdad because he’s not.

As for the link, I can’t be bothered to enter into the discussion. I believe the vast majority of scientists know what they are talking about. And even if they’re wrong, we’ll end up in a better world anyway. So no down side. The way we abuse the planet and all living things that are not us is a disgrace.

So temperatures not rising then on 21:36 - Jan 9 with 1079 views

Catullus

So temperatures not rising then on 21:29 - Jan 9 by londonlisa2001

I'd go one step further and say ALL living things because they way some people get treated is a disgrace too.
I'm not sure we'll end up in a better place because Humans are stupid, driven by greed with many believing that the world needs fixing but at the same time believing that fixing it is someone else's job.
Aren't the climate summits proof enough of that, hundreds of politicians and climate experts jet in for the debates causing how much pollution and at the same time running up huge bills in their luxury hotels which they just charge to their tax payers.

Maybe a valid question is to ask, is humanity worth saving? I wonder what the animals would say?

	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 22:02 - Jan 9 with 1072 views

Humpty

Now good old scotia tried to lecture me on GHG Gas Molecules, something that I have known for years, in fact I would bet that I know a lot more about the physics of the so called GHG warming than he does.

Once again, to what level are you educated?

It's the breathtaking arrogance that get's me with the likes of fan's dad.

-1

So temperatures not rising then on 22:35 - Jan 9 with 1056 views

A_Fans_Dad

So temperatures not rising then on 22:02 - Jan 9 by Humpty
Now good old scotia tried to lecture me on GHG Gas Molecules, something that I have known for years, in fact I would bet that I know a lot more about the physics of the so called GHG warming than he does. Once again, to what level are you educated? It's the breathtaking arrogance that get's me with the likes of fan's dad.

I just proved that I know more than the A level Physics he quoted, which is patently wrong.
Seeing as you keep insisting on knowing what my education is I will tell you.
As an apprentice with MOD I achieved an Ordinary National Certificate in Mechanical & Electrical Engineering with a year of Thermodynamics.
I completed the first year of HND but the second year was cancelled by the arrival of a new job, a new baby and a house move many miles away from the college.
I have an NCC certificate (6 months full time training) in Computer Database & Systems Design.
A City & Guilds in BASIC langauge computer programming.
Training in 8 Discipline Problem Solving with years of applied experience.
So compared to scotia I am barely on the ladder.
The difference is I have an enquiring mind and spent the last 12+ years investigating the Science.
The big problem is at 72 I am now forgetting a lot of what I learnt.

So temperatures not rising then on 23:04 - Jan 9 with 1040 views

Humpty

So temperatures not rising then on 22:35 - Jan 9 by A_Fans_Dad

Thanks. So some science then. Just not much actually relevant to the subject under discussion.

So temperatures not rising then on 23:26 - Jan 9 with 1029 views

A_Fans_Dad

So temperatures not rising then on 23:04 - Jan 9 by Humpty
Thanks. So some science then. Just not much actually relevant to the subject under discussion.

Just Thermodynamics.
But I can read, evaluate and problem solve.
The data I show isn't mine, the ideas aren't mine. They are sceptical scientists.
What does scotia know about radiative physics, has he done radiative heat transfer calculations like me?
Does he know the 2nd law of Thermodynamics?
He didn't seem to know that drought is not caused by heat.

Let me ask you if the Science is so settled, why do Climate Scientists need to lie, change data, try to prevent sceptical scientists from publishing papers, get them sacked, completely exaggerate the effects of warming?

So temperatures not rising then on 23:31 - Jan 9 with 1030 views

Humpty

So temperatures not rising then on 23:26 - Jan 9 by A_Fans_Dad

Because the UN is a communist organisation and is paying scientists you disagree with to lie?

So temperatures not rising then on 23:37 - Jan 9 with 1025 views

BrynCartwright

AFD is just mentally sick.

He needs to check himself into a clinic pronto.

He's obviously mentally unsound.

Scotia...please do not respond to him any more.

Poll:

Artificial Crowd Noise for Premier League and Champiionship Games is...

So temperatures not rising then on 09:21 - Jan 10 with 979 views

A_Fans_Dad

So temperatures not rising then on 23:37 - Jan 9 by BrynCartwright
AFD is just mentally sick. He needs to check himself into a clinic pronto. He's obviously mentally unsound. Scotia...please do not respond to him any more.

Me and millions of others, including thousands of Scientists.
Climate activists suggest they should be imprisoned, so much for free speach and scientific sceptisism.

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread

Page:
< previous
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
next >