The great global warming scam, worth a listen I think.

[Dave645]

Temperatures rise and fall over decades and centuries and always have. Perhaps you should have asked whether I believe in the accuracy of the predictions made by climate alarmists. The answer to that is, no I don't. They have a record of being way out and exaggerating figures through manipulation of historic data under the cloak of 'adjustments'.
There is of course a warming trend, or there was until about a decade ago. Against all the alarmist predictions it seems to have slowed to almost a stop since then, rather embarrassingly for some of the most outrageous predictions made a decade or more ago. I've no doubt that further 'adjustment' of the data will ensure a continuing and accelerating trend by the by.

Well this seems simple, you share the uncorrupted data now, and when they adjust it we will see it if your claim is true. Anyone with an agenda can say the other party is adjusting the data, the reality is data they record is shared world wide and is often posted directly onto the internet, so while you can make Spurious arguments that it’s adjusted the reality is that’s impossible to do with data thats freely available, I am sure someone would have original copy’s to show that it was.
So share the uncorrupted data your drawing your conclusions from, this needs to be a source that we can all verifi, to make sure your not adjusting the data. . . Do you see the problem, anyone can say the data is adjusted when the source is not transparent, so find a source that we can all find where you got it from not just an image but raw data. With a link to its source, when you post it here, it will be protected by your sharing it on here. then we can look back at it if they ever do adjust it later, like I said simple.
you can take screen shots of the original data as well as link it, so if the data in the original raw data report is adjusted then we will see the old in your screen shots, and new adjusted raw data in the linked report.
Problem solved unless you don’t believe any data you can find, then my suggestion would be do what @old-mcdonald does, record your own, you must trust that. . .
climate and weather are linked, while the global average temp is the excepted way to measure climate change that is just the temperatures around the world being recoded and totalled up recording the temperature that the weather brings daily on a global scale. The problem is the time of day these recordings are taken can adjust the results that’s why they like satellite data because it can record data over large areas and ground stations can have the temperatures recorded at Varying times so the data is less useful if I only recorded the temp at the middle of the night it would be different than if I recorded it in the middle of the day. . . They are both valid recordings but have different results.

 

[C.J]

What about Climate gate - the emails from the University of East Anglia.

There was a pause in warming between 1940 and 1980 leading to some experts predicting a new Ice age.

Then things started warming again and the alarmists were trying to explain the pause in warming because it didn't fit the rising CO2 graph.

The solution was to " apply Mike's neat trick to hide the decline."

 

[Storeman]

What about Climate gate - the emails from the University of East Anglia.

There was a pause in warming between 1940 and 1980 leading to some experts predicting a new Ice age.

Then things started warming again and the alarmists were trying to explain the pause in warming because it didn't fit the rising CO2 graph.

The solution was to " apply Mike's neat trick to hide the decline."

Good Point.
Made me laugh when the university investigated itself. And then announced they had done nothing wrong.
The head of the climate research unit left and went on to write several papers and books on why the data was manipulated (to get funding) and how he didn't see any warming activity when the data was used with no tweaking.

 

[Old McDonald]

View attachment 959589
Temperatures having been recovering for 300 years since the little age ,which was the coldest period in the last 10,000 years.

I agree with you that temperatures are rising.

Temperatures rise and fall over decades and centuries and always have. Perhaps you should have asked whether I believe in the accuracy of the predictions made by climate alarmists. The answer to that is, no I don't. They have a record of being way out and exaggerating figures through manipulation of historic data under the cloak of 'adjustments'.
There is of course a warming trend, or there was until about a decade ago. Against all the alarmist predictions it seems to have slowed to almost a stop since then, rather embarrassingly for some of the most outrageous predictions made a decade or more ago. I've no doubt that further 'adjustment' of the data will ensure a continuing and accelerating trend by the by.

I am not disputing past long term fluctuations in temperature.

Why would I ask your opinion on the accuracy of fortune tellers? You know from my posts that I have consistently said nobody can tell the future, so why do you post as if I have condoned these soothsayers?

Why do you also post that “a warming trend” ceased a decade ago when you cannot provide me with one single temperature recording station to evidence your statement? I have noticed over the few years I have been a member that you act like a politician and sidestep direct questions. Here is what I asked you at #2436: “find me a single weather station anywhere in the world that shows a decrease, or even no increase, in recorded temperatures (not anybody guessing the future) “. Note I drew attention to not wanting information from people who predict the future.

You qualify this claim of cessation by saying it has “slowed to almost a stop”, which means that the “warming trend” has not ceased. You cannot have it both ways. What is “almost a stop”? You know from earlier posts in the thread that the general consensus appears to be a global rise of about 0.1ºC per decade since accurate thermometers have been available. Is that “almost a stop”?

 

[Dave645]

What about Climate gate - the emails from the University of East Anglia.

There was a pause in warming between 1940 and 1980 leading to some experts predicting a new Ice age.

Then things started warming again and the alarmists were trying to explain the pause in warming because it didn't fit the rising CO2 graph.

The solution was to " apply Mike's neat trick to hide the decline."

Lots of neat tricks have been used in the fudge that gets used to slow down the exceptance that climate change is real,
So fudge is not new, I am also sure that it will not be the only fudge that’s been used incorrectly to prove a point from my side of the opinion on this topic, but it’s not like the trend is not clear, over the last 30 years, it’s clear storms are getting worse and more frequent, these are all side effects of the planets warming even without measured warming.

finding one group of people with questionable motives to doctor data doesn’t explain what’s visible with our own eyes away as fud.
What gets me is the lack of any other explanation, for what we are experiencing, if anyone could come up with a good explanation with a scientifically explainable case, other than C02 for what we can see with our eyes, I would be more than glad as would all the governments of the world. It takes the pressure right off them to be seen to do the right thing.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ceans-equivalent-to-an-atomic-bomb-per-second

I always like a gauge for the size of an effect, while this is random it’s also a nice twist.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/26/atlantic-currents-climate-oceans-next-century

this second link could be why the uk has seen colder than the average weather.

weather has cause and effect, so while weather is weather it’s also linked to other aspects of our climate, and systems that drive it. So while melt water from our polar ice caps is not raising sea levels very fast because the main of it is floating sea ice to start with, it does have effects.

the amount of energy needed to raise ocean temps we have seen has to have come from somewhere, so if it’s not C02 raising the amount of stored energy (by slowing its escape slowing more time for our planet to convert it to stored heat), that’s the same as, multiple nuclear bombs per seconds worth of energy to increase its temperature what is the cause, and why the ramp up from 1.5 bombs a second to 3-4 over time? That’s a lot of extra energy just to heat our oceans. . .

 

[Mouser]

Lots of neat tricks have been used in the fudge that gets used to slow down the exceptance that climate change is real,
So fudge is not new, I am also sure that it will not be the only fudge that’s been used incorrectly to prove a point from my side of the opinion on this topic, but it’s not like the trend is not clear, over the last 30 years, it’s clear storms are getting worse and more frequent, these are all side effects of the planets warming even without measured warming.

finding one group of people with questionable motives to doctor data doesn’t explain what’s visible with our own eyes away as fud.
What gets me is the lack of any other explanation, for what we are experiencing, if anyone could come up with a good explanation with a scientifically explainable case, other than C02 for what we can see with our eyes, I would be more than glad as would all the governments of the world. It takes the pressure right off them to be seen to do the right thing.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ceans-equivalent-to-an-atomic-bomb-per-second

I always like a gauge for the size of an effect, while this is random it’s also a nice twist.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/26/atlantic-currents-climate-oceans-next-century

this second link could be why the uk has seen colder than the average weather.

weather has cause and effect, so while weather is weather it’s also linked to other aspects of our climate, and systems that drive it. So while melt water from our polar ice caps is not raising sea levels very fast because the main of it is floating sea ice to start with, it does have effects.

the amount of energy needed to raise ocean temps we have seen has to have come from somewhere, so if it’s not C02 raising the amount of stored energy (by slowing its escape slowing more time for our planet to convert it to stored heat), that’s the same as, multiple nuclear bombs per seconds worth of energy to increase its temperature what is the cause, and why the ramp up from 1.5 bombs a second to 3-4 over time? That’s a lot of extra energy just to heat our oceans. . .

Is there more freakish weather though? Or do we just hear about it more? Genuine question, I would say all weather events worldwide are being sensationalised whereas 15 years ago they weren't even reported.
It's now over 40years since GHG and climate change 'started' to be a thing and plenty of fossil fuels burnt for 50 years before that. Not seeing much drastic change to be fair.

 

[Dave645]

Is there more freakish weather though? Or do we just hear about it more? Genuine question, I would say all weather events worldwide are being sensationalised whereas 15 years ago they weren't even reported.
It's now over 40years since GHG and climate change 'started' to be a thing and plenty of fossil fuels burnt for 50 years before that. Not seeing much drastic change to be fair.

It’s hard to draw an accurate conclusion, because as you say reporting on media influences perception.
I know hurricanes are a reflection of ocean temps so Are other storms but how do you gauge that
the things I have read in a number of places over the years point to an increase in the rate of storms that are extra strong so 1:200 years events are now 1:100 etc so while the numbers may not go up there strength or chances to be a bad one have.
A bad hurricane can miss land fall in a populated area so it’s effects are judged as small but that doesn’t mean it was not a bad storm. The statistics of a bad storms risk of making land fall has increased. We in the uk they tend to get the spin offs from those storms after they come our way.
But as you said perceptions are influenced by the media so finding a way to judge it is hard, because not all bad storms hit land and make large amounts of damage. What I haven’t found is weather reporting that lists the number and strength of events over time in a way that shows a trend that is backed up with data rather than scientific reports that draw conclusions that are not simple to verify. So it comes down to do-you believe the reports that storms are getting Statistically more likely to be stronger events, or not.

 

[Mouser]

It’s hard to draw an accurate conclusion, because as you say reporting on media influences perception.
I know hurricanes are a reflection of ocean temps so Are other storms but how do you gauge that
the things I have read in a number of places over the years point to an increase in the rate of storms that are extra strong so 1:200 years events are now 1:100 etc so while the numbers may not go up there strength or chances to be a bad one have.
A bad hurricane can miss land fall in a populated area so it’s effects are judged as small but that doesn’t mean it was not a bad storm. The statistics of a bad storms risk of making land fall has increased. We in the uk they tend to get the spin offs from those storms after they come our way.
But as you said perceptions are influenced by the media so finding a way to judge it is hard, because not all bad storms hit land and make large amounts of damage. What I haven’t found is weather reporting that lists the number and strength of events over time in a way that shows a trend that is backed up with data rather than scientific reports that draw conclusions that are not simple to verify. So it comes down to do-you believe the reports that storms are getting Statistically more likely to be stronger events, or not.

Very hard to believe anything these days without doing your own research. Like your link about how many Hiroshima bombs of energy goes into the sea! WTF? How is that relevant? To put it in context, the sun sends us approximately 8000 Hiroshima bombs every second. Sensational!

 

[C.J]

The alarmists tell us forest fires are getting worse.

But it was much worse in the 1930's

 

[Cowabunga]

Lots of neat tricks have been used in the fudge that gets used to slow down the exceptance that climate change is real,
So fudge is not new, I am also sure that it will not be the only fudge that’s been used incorrectly to prove a point from my side of the opinion on this topic, but it’s not like the trend is not clear, over the last 30 years, it’s clear storms are getting worse and more frequent, these are all side effects of the planets warming even without measured warming.

finding one group of people with questionable motives to doctor data doesn’t explain what’s visible with our own eyes away as fud.
What gets me is the lack of any other explanation, for what we are experiencing, if anyone could come up with a good explanation with a scientifically explainable case, other than C02 for what we can see with our eyes, I would be more than glad as would all the governments of the world. It takes the pressure right off them to be seen to do the right thing.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ceans-equivalent-to-an-atomic-bomb-per-second

I always like a gauge for the size of an effect, while this is random it’s also a nice twist.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/26/atlantic-currents-climate-oceans-next-century

this second link could be why the uk has seen colder than the average weather.

weather has cause and effect, so while weather is weather it’s also linked to other aspects of our climate, and systems that drive it. So while melt water from our polar ice caps is not raising sea levels very fast because the main of it is floating sea ice to start with, it does have effects.

the amount of energy needed to raise ocean temps we have seen has to have come from somewhere, so if it’s not C02 raising the amount of stored energy (by slowing its escape slowing more time for our planet to convert it to stored heat), that’s the same as, multiple nuclear bombs per seconds worth of energy to increase its temperature what is the cause, and why the ramp up from 1.5 bombs a second to 3-4 over time? That’s a lot of extra energy just to heat our oceans. . .

It is taken as gospel that storms are more frequent and worse. But are they? I’ve not actually seen this locally, nationally or internationally. Storms have always occurred and damage caused from time to time and I have not seen any records being broken recently or indeed regularly in either ferocity or frequency. Only on a very local level do people find unusually adverse events it seems to me, as has always been the case.

Just because something is repeated by so many people so often, it becomes accepted as true. Doesn’t mean that it is true though.

 

[Cowabunga]

The alarmists tell us forest fires are getting worse.
View attachment 959828
But it was much worse in the 1930's
View attachment 959829

Indeed. The recent increase in area burnt may well be due to less preventative ground maintenance and more outdoor leisure activity in those regions than from natural causes. There have been several large fires, bigger and more than expected for the time of year, in the UK during April. An April that has seen the lowest average UK temperature since the 1960’s if not long before that.

 

[Dave645]

Very hard to believe anything these days without doing your own research. Like your link about how many Hiroshima bombs of energy goes into the sea! WTF? How is that relevant? To put it in context, the sun sends us approximately 8000 Hiroshima bombs every second. Sensational!

Lol your right but for context it makes a point extra energy is needed to push ocean temps up but only a small fraction of the suns energy that reaches earth, which is what scientist have been saying is what C02 is doing, it’s stopping the escape of a small amount of energy every day, 0.0266% of that 8000 H B every second, is all it take to go from global temps are stable to we see temps rising just those extra 3 per second. . . So when experiments show that Co2 helps converts our suns energy into heat in oceans and land masses it adds up. It may only be 0.0266% extra but that’s all it takes when 8000 H Bomb are misting every second from space. . .
but I am sure others have an equally scientific explanation. For what we can all see with our own eyes.

 

[Mouser]

Lol your right but for context it makes a point extra energy is needed to push ocean temps up but only a small fraction of the suns energy that reaches earth, which is what scientist have been saying is what C02 is doing, it’s stopping the escape of a small amount of energy every day, 0.0266% of that 8000 H B every second, is all it take to go from global temps are stable to we see temps rising just those extra 3 per second. . . So when experiments show that Co2 helps converts our suns energy into heat in oceans and land masses it adds up. It may only be 0.0266% extra but that’s all it takes when 8000 H Bomb are misting every second from space. . .
but I am sure others have an equally scientific explanation. For what we can all see with our own eyes.

Who knows? Maybe we're drifting 0.02% closer to the sun. Over 90million miles I doubt it can be measured any more accurately than the guessing game of man-made climate change. Let's not forget most of predictions from the 80s and 90s based on science were just plain wrong

 

[Cowabunga]

Who knows? Maybe we're drifting 0.02% closer to the sun. Over 90million miles I doubt it can be measured any more accurately than the guessing game of man-made climate change. Let's not forget most of predictions from the 80s and 90s based on science were just plain wrong

More lately they have never been 'wrong'. Just inappropriately adjusted.

 

[Dave645]

Indeed. The recent increase in area burnt may well be due to less preventative ground maintenance and more outdoor leisure activity in those regions than from natural causes. There have been several large fires, bigger and more than expected for the time of year, in the UK during April. An April that has seen the lowest average UK temperature since the 1960’s if not long before that.

I agree uk has been cold, and if that’s climate changed reversed over night then great, it’s pushed back the ticking clock of the long term trend, but why has it done what it’s done. . . Everything has an explanation

has something being allowing more energy escape our atmosphere, or has the sun dipped, has cloud cover changed, if the drop is global then it has to have a cause, you don’t lose that amount of energy so fast without a reason.
if we truly have seen a global drop back to 1960’s levels then the shear amount of enegy we have lost is staggering. And we will be in an ice age in the next few years if it keeps up. We would defiantly need to know why that was happening, if it was. . .

It looks to me as if all the heat just moved and flushed colder air down, but that’s just me I am not a scientist.
these things are better seen on year averages rather than any one month, and taken globally. If we see a global dip for the year then they need to find the reason for it, if we can.

 

[Dave645]

Who knows? Maybe we're drifting 0.02% closer to the sun. Over 90million miles I doubt it can be measured any more accurately than the guessing game of man-made climate change. Let's not forget most of predictions from the 80s and 90s based on science were just plain wrong

Actually we measure the suns radiance, and it’s variation just look it up. And we know distances far more accurately that 90million miles, they send probes on multi year flight plans that if missing buy 10 miles would be a bad result never mind 90 million. They set intercept trajectories that take sling shots around planets and moons to hit targets after years with minimal corrections.

 

[Cowabunga]

I agree uk has been cold, and if that’s climate changed reversed over night then great, it’s pushed back the ticking clock of the long term trend, but why has it done what it’s done. . . Everything has an explanation

has something being allowing more energy escape our atmosphere, or has the sun dipped, has cloud cover changed, if the drop is global then it has to have a cause, you don’t lose that amount of energy so fast without a reason.
if we truly have seen a global drop back to 1960’s levels then the shear amount of enegy we have lost is staggering. And we will be in an ice age in the next few years if it keeps up. We would defiantly need to know why that was happening, if it was. . .

View attachment 959834
It looks to me as if all the heat just moved and flushed colder air down, but that’s just me I am not a scientist.
these things are better seen on year averages rather than any one month, and taken globally. If we see a global dip for the year then they need to find the reason for it, if we can.

I'm making no claim that the unusually cold April means diddly squat any more than if it had been warmer than average.

 

[Dave645]

More lately they have never been 'wrong'. Just inappropriately adjusted.

Lol ok, anyone can be wrong, me, you, anyone, it’s not like the data or graphs have never been fudged to show climate change was not happening now has it.
I still don’t know why, you and others are worried if it’s true or not, if it’s true we have a problem that we need to fix if it’s not what’s the problem with being Cautious? What’s the problem cleaning up the air in cities by banning ICE cars using the suns energy directly with solar, and using weather energy to indirectly take the suns energy with wind.
All, these do is make fossil fuels last longer, get cheaper and have lesser effect on air pollution.
Cleaning up industry is also needed we cannot keep doing what we do indefinably, at some point oil will get so difficult and expensive to extract that it will be a luxury only the rich can afford, over EV’s that anyone with a solar panel can run.
One system defends monopolies the other breaks them, renewables break companies monopolies over the public like nothing else, the electric grids were very happy sitting on their 100% Monopoly of the system, renewable energy blocked that, was that good for the public and common man or not.
You can live off grid with an EV and a good renewables system. That’s sticking it to the governments like there is no tomorrow. How do they tax you?

we could go back to good old coal and oil, but why, they are more expensive? They pollute and constantly need replacing as we use them. So even without climate change diving the changes now, the world will change, because money drives change run your factory from a coal fired power station at 20p/kwh average over solar which can be a few pence per kwh which business will survive?
Putting any argument over climate change aside, most changes make Financial sense now. Not all, but some things are driven by people with other motives, that are not climate change they just grab on the them to drive there agenda.
I would say that 50% of the momentum over meat eating being given a negative agenda is nothing to do with climate change, it’s destruction of rain forests and personal agenders that use climate change to lever there agenda up in the public perception.

animal production for food and our consumption of fish are required to feed our population if some people are blind to these realities then more fool them. But they also use climate change as a lever to push a broken agenda.

 

[Dave645]

I'm making no claim that the unusually cold April means diddly squat any more than if it had been warmer than average.

Using that logic is fine if we didn’t have a long running trend to see, fudged numbers or not.

i personally have-no skin in the game I am a farmer, so Ilive and die on the weather, I often find an indervidual has a reason for there opinion, so I will ask, what is the government/governments of the world doing about climate change that you don’t like?

Then ask is this a long term pain or short?
Has this change any long term benefits even if it’s painful now?

do you believe coal and oil will last forever?

if not what would you suggest we do about it? Remembering it will take many decades to fully transition away from them?

My position is based on logic and available data, climate change is happening the data is clear, the longer you stretch it the more clear the trend, we know the long term results, even if, we don’t know the speed with which it will happen, what would you do differently so you would feel less negatively towards our opinion it’s man made and is going to be bad long term so the quicker we do, do something the less bad the future will be, and for a longer time.
We gamble that we want to avoid the worst of the possible outcomes, others seem to feel that’s a fools errand.
That more of the same is fine, until we hit some wall that tells us different.
I know I don’t run my business like that I do my best to avoid the big problems like service my machines, make plans, look for better ways to do things that cost less and are cheaper to run. Why would you not do the same with the planets resources and climate?
It’s like doing a straw for muck swop over buying fert, that’s wind and solar over coal fired every day. Fert you buy in like coal, over solar and wind that just arrives from some small investment or exchange.

nice Chatting to you.

 

[banjo]

Simple primary school science !