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

banjo

Member
Location
Back of beyond
Until you actually pull the original data then create a mean temprature yourself, all you are doing is taking someone else's word for it.
Now there are official data sources, and the data in your link.
Screen-Shot-2016-12-08-at-6.44.09-AM.png

When this data is presented in other graphs it's presented as a mean temp for the year, this is percentage of days over 95F (35c)
So it's not a mean temprature, all it says is there were more hot days, but it excludes cold night and cold days, it has zero to do with mean temperatures.
If it had 100 hotter than average days but had a 100 cooler than average, by similar margins in the same year they cancel each other out in the mean temprature readings it's the only way to track small changes in temperatures over time with any accuracy. An Individual days temperatures, is just noise until it's turned into a mean temperature.

If you want to prove that period had a hot mean temprature you need to find a graph showing it, that you think is untampered.
Or go pull the data yourself. Me I trust the official sources.

Just go onto the Steve Goddard link I put up earlier and you can click on any graph you want, just find sea level changes fir instance, click on that and all the graphs related to that show up, I cannot do anymore, it's all there if you look, or the hockey stick fraud, click on that it will show you what he had. It's very good and I hope it helps.
 

banjo

Member
Location
Back of beyond
Until you actually pull the original data then create a mean temprature yourself, all you are doing is taking someone else's word for it.
Now there are official data sources, and the data in your link.
Screen-Shot-2016-12-08-at-6.44.09-AM.png

When this data is presented in other graphs it's presented as a mean temp for the year, this is percentage of days over 95F (35c)
So it's not a mean temprature, all it says is there were more hot days, but it excludes cold night and cold days, it has zero to do with mean temperatures.
If it had 100 hotter than average days but had a 100 cooler than average, by similar margins in the same year they cancel each other out in the mean temprature readings it's the only way to track small changes in temperatures over time with any accuracy. An Individual days temperatures, is just noise until it's turned into a mean temperature.

If you want to prove that period had a hot mean temprature you need to find a graph showing it, that you think is untampered.
Or go pull the data yourself. Me I trust the official sources.

Look at 1930s though compared to today !
 

banjo

Member
Location
Back of beyond
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_North_American_cold_wave

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_North_American_heat_wave

This is why it only has an average mean temperature.
Record cold spells followed by record highs, they just cancel each other out in the yearly mean temperature, no conspiracy needed, just people willing to believe bad data at face value.

Are you looking at the same graph, the 1930s trend is way higher even if you do what you say!
It does make me laugh though, your trying to make a case for it being hotter from a few years data now that will be dismissed and your trying to dismiss my 1930s data but that was for a decade not a couple of years!
 
Actually I was wrong about the extremes of that year being averaged out. The graph showed highs, not annual averages - so the heatwave appears to have been removed, dumbed down or artificially dwarfed by modern temperatures, despite that year being a record breaker.

The extremes of that year are averaged out in any graph showing the mean for the year. Read Dave645's post immediately above for an explanation. Edit:It is not immediately above, it is at the bottom of the previous page.

There is no removal, dumbing down, dwarfing, hiding or anything else. What do you mean it was a record breaker? For individual high and low temperatures in the USA, it was in a few places, but not right across all states. The hjeatwave that affected some states did not affect others, similarly the extreme cold did not affect every where either - a wee bit like the past few days weather across Europe. We had a max of 15º yesterday. I have been in rolled up sleeves all winter so far.
 
Last edited:

Dave645

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
N Lincs
I think you know where I stand on this, I looked at the page you suggested.
It's a laugh, their bashing of the data gistemp charts and how and why is all available, there is no Back room stuff going on.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/

They actually do things to correct data for one of your comments made to me historic data has been effected by changes in the enviorement surrounding the data collection point.
Now if you don't think that's fair, then I cannot help you.

history_loti_ann.png

This chart plots all the changes that have made over the years, it's all open to view, I don't see a big conspiracy do you?

Globle mean takes into account data from hundreds of sources, your sources take data out of context, instead of showing mean temps that show how many hot days, or old news paper clippings. I would not have the time to debunk a pro scammer. Just read the comments on the articals, they often have comments that do that anyway.
I will ask you this.

Why do you believe the govermants want to trick the public?

Because they would have to want to.

I liked this because it reminds people it isn't nessaraly hot everywhere all the time, weather moves temperatures around.


And these temprature rises sound small so are pushed aside as natural, but they are very fast for the time scales involved, I agree they are not as fast as first predicted, but data shows the trend is solid and the trend is against natural trends.
As the website says we are entering a time of reduction in solar activity so we should expect a levelling off at least while, we are in reduced solar flux, let's hope we do!
I for one would be glad, because it's bad news for us if we don't.
 
Last edited:

Paddington

Member
Location
Soggy Shropshire
July 2013 - Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but have been relatively flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013. This has prompted speculation that human induced global warming is no longer happening, or at least will be much smaller than predicted. Others maintain that this is a temporary pause and that temperatures will again rise at rates seen previously.
Source UK Met Office
Can't remember this report getting much airtime on the Beeb.
 
He goes on to say co2 can be a good thing and it can help plant life, if other conditions are in balance, but seemed to skip over any possible negative aspects of co2, so for me his personal oppionion on co2 on all aspects other than its benafits to plant growth, is not fully clear.
Why he would not be clear on that, or avoided making an opinion, is to be only guessed at.

The interviewer either made a very good job of keeping Dyson on the pre-planned narrow path, or (cynical me) any negativity was edited out. The last thing the interviewer wanted, because it is contrary to his agenda, was for Dyson to repeat:

"One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."

I am rather surprised that Dyson does not find the effects of global warming (and the inevitable rising sea levels) on some 700,000,000 people a problem. He did state at one time that timeous construction of levy banks around cities such as New Orleans could alleviate a lot of the problems. We all know that is not going to happen.
 
Yes. This, as I just wrote, was where I got it wrong. The graphs that puzzled me were not showing means but maximums. So nothng should have been averaged out.

I am not quite following you on this because I have not seen the graphs, but if it was one showing mean maximums, then it would be a mean "of the maximums" for that timeframe rather than a mean of max+min. You could take the extreme lows of the 1935/36 US winter and make a mean of the mins if you wished, and no doubt it has been done because womeone wanted to know. That mean would also average out the extreme lows.

Would you care to share the graphs to which you are referring?
 
July 2013 - Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but have been relatively flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013.

That, unfortunately is, and will contiinue to be, lost on so many people who construe it to mean that temperatures have not continued to rise rather than they have risen at a considerably slower rate. The spike of the late 1990s (immediately before "15 years to 2013") increased the rate of rise over the previous few years so that the slowing down after that shows quite flat on a graph, especially when the graph is made to enhance the relative flatness.
 

linga

Member
Location
Ceredigion
The interviewer either made a very good job of keeping Dyson on the pre-planned narrow path, or (cynical me) any negativity was edited out. The last thing the interviewer wanted, because it is contrary to his agenda, was for Dyson to repeat:

"One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."

I am rather surprised that Dyson does not find the effects of global warming (and the inevitable rising sea levels) on some 700,000,000 people a problem. He did state at one time that timeous construction of levy banks around cities such as New Orleans could alleviate a lot of the problems. We all know that is not going to happen.

I am sure he has also said that he knows little about climate science.
His references to climate modeling are interesting and he chooses his words carefully ( or is edited) and if he is saying that models are not perfect he would find little disagreement, however all current climate models do not hindcast anything like accurately without including the CO2 levels in the past and if they work backwards they stand a good chance of working forwards.
Banjo makes the classic error of confusing climate and weather and so assumes climate cannot be predicted. Dyson subtly implanted the climate /weather confusion in that video.
Well it can with a fair degree of certainty and a good analogy is that of tides.
We know when high tides will occur and how high they will be but we do not know when or how high each wave will be.
I am pretty sure also that some current research is showing that the current CO2 levels are starting to cause a negative impact on the environment.
I have not been back to read all the posts in this thread and I can guess which arguments have been trotted out again but it seems you now arguing about temperatures in parts of North America. What has that got to do with global temperature?
 
I have not been back to read all the posts in this thread and I can guess which arguments have been trotted out again but it seems you now arguing about temperatures in parts of North America. What has that got to do with global temperature?

It arose in an earlier post (which obviously you have not read) when banjo was using the extreme temperatures recorded in 1936 as an indicator that temperatures were higher in the 1930s than at present. The occasional post has continued those temperatures into part of the discussion.
 

banjo

Member
Location
Back of beyond
If some think freemon dyson knows nothing about climate change they are deluded, he's forgotten more than most will ever learn about the subject, he's a genius for Christ sake!
 

linga

Member
Location
Ceredigion
If some think freemon dyson knows nothing about climate change they are deluded, he's forgotten more than most will ever learn about the subject, he's a genius for Christ sake!


Guess who this quote is from

"[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."[65]

He may well be a genius but he is not a climate scientist. My accountant is well qualified but when my cows are sick I call my vet !
He may have a point about intolerance to criticism but I would say that most scientists, climate or otherwise are sanguine about constructive criticism, however when criticism makes use of half truths and misrepresentations of facts together with abuse, it is perhaps understandable some are frustrated
 

Dave645

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
N Lincs
If some think freemon dyson knows nothing about climate change they are deluded, he's forgotten more than most will ever learn about the subject, he's a genius for Christ sake!
He is maybe a genius, as may you be but, it doesn't make them right all the time.
All I get from this video is he wants more funding, because he thinks that he can balance the problems we are making with genetic modifications of plants so they grow more roots....

That tells me he can see the problems that are coming, our way.
The problem with his logic is it's only a small % of co2 that gets locked up in soil, at best 10% of what a plant consumed, even if he could get that to 50% the ground would be so full of plant roots waiting to decompose, I believe it would be non farmable. Because to bump the trapped co2 by 500% to 50% overall, you have to bump the amount of plant roots by that same amount. So we have 5x the plant roots to deal with.

The bit at the start, with sea level rise, and if we converted all the co2 in the atmosphere now into top soil they balance out.....ER all the co2 in the air now equals one years worth of sea rises......so we do the imposable, and if we do it will offset sea rises for the year, if you think current measures to control co2 are expensive, his to fix them are, nearly imposable. With any amount of money, he seems to be on a fishing mission and his catch is funding for his research field.
He wants money to research for ways to increase plant root growth, so we can lock co2 up via genetically engineered crops. Er.....ok.

They say genius is not far from madness, he may be a case in point.
 
I think Dyson has two major problems. As you say, he does not take into account the practicalities of farming and the need for food production - he is another who wants to "re-wild" and he has, so far as I can ascertain, never considered the plight of hundreds of millions of people from the inevitable sea rises that will occur from the present increasing temperatures and higher CO2 levels.

I doubt he is seeking funding for himself, but he is one of these who wants to be remembered in perpetuity by having things called after him - Dyson's this that and the other, in a similar way to Newton, Einstein and others. I believe he has already succeeded, but obviously wants more.
 
Gents having just reviewed Freeman's Dysons entry on Wikipedia.
I like the man and his questioning heretical, "jumping about all over the place" mind, thereby establishing similarities and connections across disciplines.
And thinking outside the box.
Anything he says or states about our understanding of, and the attempted modelling of, the mechanisms of climate change, is much more likely to be correct than incorrect.
Simply due to the vast breadth & scope of his knowledge, a proper Polymath, and thus, by his own admission, a non Nobel Prize winner.
Unlike the "absolutly unchallangable", bow down and worship at our feet, attitudes and statements from the very narrow minded, totally focussed, climate change/IPCC crowd.
cheers
Marcus
 

linga

Member
Location
Ceredigion
Gents having just reviewed Freeman's Dysons entry on Wikipedia.
I like the man and his questioning heretical, "jumping about all over the place" mind, thereby establishing similarities and connections across disciplines.
And thinking outside the box.
Anything he says or states about our understanding of, and the attempted modelling of, the mechanisms of climate change, is much more likely to be correct than incorrect.
Simply due to the vast breadth & scope of his knowledge, a proper Polymath, and thus, by his own admission, a non Nobel Prize winner.
Unlike the "absolutly unchallangable", bow down and worship at our feet, attitudes and statements from the very narrow minded, totally focussed, climate change/IPCC crowd.
cheers
Marcus

Nothing wrong with "thinking outside the box" but if your thinking uses the wrong information and false data its hardly likely to be correct.
I would hazard a guess (plus a bit of secondhand knowledge of these people) that if the facts and data suggested the world was not warming they would be very happy to change their mind.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 79 42.0%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 66 35.1%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 16.0%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 7 3.7%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,292
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top