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

[banjo]

This is the 60 year yoshimuro cycle and the correct temps over the last 20 years, not modelled!

 

[Old McDonald]

How do you know they are paid large sums of money? Or have i missed something.I think temperatures may be rising but very slightly,and not as much as some people say.I dont record temps here,so have no proof.I can only talk about my little patch of Northumberland,but can remember most years from when i was a small boy,from1968 or so.Mostly the weather extremes that stick in the memory.I think it has not changed much here in the last 50 years.Obviously this may be very different world wide.CO2ppm levels are higher,they can be measured.I do not know if this leads to increased temps worldwide.I would draw your attention to where the weather stations are.The vast majority are in North America or northern Europe.Only about 8 are in Antarctica.I resent people turning climate change into a "religion",and where people are branded "deniers" much the same as religious heretics in the middle ages.I have lived through too many "scares",most of which have turned out to be nonsense,like BSE beef and hundreds of thousands people going to get CJD etc.

@linga answered you question at #755.

You "think temperatures are rising but very slightly". All you are being asked to believe is about one degree in about 100 years. You cannot get much less "very slightly" than one one-hundredth of a degree a year on average.

The positioning of weather stations and the number in any given area does not affect the global result. As it happens (and if you had read the links I gave at #696) the USA barely had any rise in the 20th Century and indeed some areas actually showed a decline. This was possibly due to the fact that parts of the North Atlantic temperatures also did not rise and might have kept the temperatures down along its eastern seaboard. From memory I think it was part of some of the south eastern states that showed a slight decline.

I do not know who makes climate change a "religion" as you put it. Nobody has posted more on this thread than banjo with his numerous hours of videos. Is he making a religion out of it? I think not, but you may. For several years the expressions warmist/alarmists have been applied to those who accept temperatures are rising, and deniers to those who do not. Try changing that if you wish, but I think you will meet with little success.

 

[Old McDonald]

This is the 60 year yoshimuro cycle and the correct temps over the last 20 years, not modelled!

Not modelled? It was posted on 14 January 2017 and he includes a low 2017 global temperature right at the beginning! He uses the Woodfortrees site to then give his 0.1º rise from 1997 to 2017. Anyone can access this really useful site and take the temperatures from 1997 to 2016, which is the latest we have. This then gives a rise from 0.08º to above 0.26º - almost a 0.2º increase. That is the "accepted by most" figure of about 0.1º per decade.

Audio waveform - Raw data - Charity Tip Jar

This is exactly the same data he used. Try it for yourself. I have not put the background yearly info in, just asked the site to give me a linear trend.

Then at about 6.30mins he produces Yoshimura's 1978 paper regarding his claimed 55 years' cycle. Note not 60, but 55. This goes on for about 2 mins and he purposes to show accurate temperatures over 2000 years to demonstrate that this 60 year cycle does exist. Now, assuming that it is possible to know with accuracy what the temperatures have been on a yearly basis for the last 2000 years, and of course it is not. If the information had been available then there would be a different number of cycles if it was a 55 years or 60 years cycle. No modelling indeed!

At 8.30 he produces a chart and shows that the supposed 60 years cycle will continue beyond the year 2100. "Nothing is going to change these cycles no matter what we do - CO2 or whatever else" says he. More modelling.

Then at 15.03 he comes on to sea levels. Remember the claim about sea levels rising at a constant rate for the last three centuries? Take a look at the graph b), to the left of the one where he uses the arrow, graph c). It shows very little rise until the end of the 19th century. Graph c) shows in more detail the rapid rise (despite the slowdown in the rate of the rises part way through) during the 20th century.

A really good video to show that temperatures are still rising at about one one-hundredth of a degree a year (on average, but possibly accelerating) and despite being towards the bottom end of the mythical 55 or 60 years' cycle. Also that sea level rises are accelerating over the last century compared to the previous two centuries.

 

[Cowmangav]

i'm a bit shamefaced to realise how little I knew about this subject until very recently. Also how far some people are prepared to go on little bits of shaky evidence quoted selectively, and also to believe in mass conspiracies .
You cannot go on what " feels right" to you. For example it would appear that the satellite data is less reliable than surface readings , due to the short lifespan of many satellites and orbital shifts etc. Despite what you might gather from trawling the internet , opinion is converging rather than diverging on the degree of warming being exhibited.
It's shocking to see the substantial reductions in carbon emissions from EU28 , compared to the USA continuing to grow, and with Trump in charge , breenging through the environmental regulations already, one might almost despair.

 

[Old McDonald]

For example it would appear that the satellite data is less reliable than surface readings , due to the short lifespan of many satellites and orbital shifts etc.

Satellite readings are extremely accurate. The clickable links might not work, and you might need to do an internet search to find out more, but here are some extracts from personal correspondence:-

On the accuracy of methodology:
* GOES/Meteosat measure infrared satellite temperature readings. Taken of the whole Earth every 15 minutes, these have a longitudinal resolution of ~1km.
* Terra/Aqua measure surface temperatures via infrared spectroscopy. These are taken of the whole Earth, every 12 hours, with variable resolution, but cover >90% of the Earth <500m. They have enough spectral coverage to differentiate between snow and cloud cover, and determine vegetation cover. Daily subsets of this data can be found here.

* Topex uses military-grade GPS and ground tracking to measure sea surface heights to better than 4cm/2". Also capable of measuring ocean waves. Independent monitoring via tide gauges for mutual accuracy.

* AIRS measures mid-altitude (18000' a.s.l.) temperature, water vapour and carbon dioxide** levels. Sea surface temperature and airborne carbon dioxide levels at sea are also measured in situ via a network of buoys. This data can be used to cross-check and verify the satellite measurements (the network can be viewed here, though the website does not always pick up the data).
(** This link contains a video showing global CO2 circulation)

and

The satellite temperature measurements are measured using an array of broadband infrared bolometers (like pyrometers, but which only measure flux in a short range of colour, e.g. red, green, blue). This array crudely resembles the CCD imagers found in modern digital cameras. They are typically digitised to 10- or 12-bits, with a noise level of a few analogue-digital units, giving a relative accuracy *per pixel* of <~0.5%. The noise reliably follows a Poissonian distribution and can thus be averaged over large areas (many square miles) and long times (days or weeks) to produce temperatures accurate to several milliKelvin.

Of course, this doesn't provide absolute accuracy, however this is only important when comparing two datasets, e.g. two different satellite measurements. For this, satellites are calibrated with respect to each other and with respect to ground and seaborne temperature sensors.

In a brief search, I have been unable to find reliable data for the particular infrared receivers that are used on these satellites, but I imagine they are very similar to those used on the spacecraft I use for astronomical research. These can give an accuracy of 0.01% or better when required.

and

There is a veritable cornucopia of accurate satellite data from the last 30 years which can give you not only the surface temperature of Lake Titicaca, but the snow cover in the Himalayas and even the size of Antarctic penguin colonies.

........................................

Note particularly the words I have bolded. How much more accurate do you want?

I know my source for the above communications. I know he is not being paid by anyone to produce information for or against global warming. He is paid to do other research, but needs a knowledge of the earth's climate. The same can be said for many other astrophysicists. None of them will ever be paid to research the climate, because that is not what their research entails, but they do need to know what is happening.

 

[Cowmangav]

These are useful for background.The guy making them is a professional journalist , of long experience.

 

[Old McDonald]

@Cowmangav, Good videos. Have another look at the Monckton video that banjo put up at #742 - bearing in mind you already know his tactics, misunderstandings and failure to correctly quote sources.

Another thing (this comes through more in the second video) watch close ups of him - see how much white shows below the iris of his eyes.

It is said, and is probably just a myth, that someone with this condition has one or more of the following tendencies; hysteria; is mad; untrustworthy; manipulative; power crazy; unreasonably high sexual desires (sometimes violent with it); criminality. I looked it up once upon a time and there was quite a list of other undesirable faults.

Another theory is that these people will die an unnatural early death. Sufferers allegedly included Abe Lincoln, John Kennedy, Princess Dianna and John Lennon. I have seen a longer list somewhere. I think Marty Feldman had, but it was some disease he contracted rather than being natural.

As I said probably just a myth, but think of the people you have known personally with this trait. Anything odd about them? I can only recall one and he was a bit nutty but nothing more as far as I know. Any posters care to tell us they are one of those with such eyes and refute the myth?

 

[Osca]

Scraping the barrel a bit here, aren't we?

Anyone here got a monobrow? (and thus a predisposition to violence). Or eyes that are too close together? (Sure sign of untrustworthiness). Or a liking for purple shirts? (Sexually depravity). Or a broken life line on their right palm? (DOOMED I tell 'e, DOOMED!).

And I was thinking you were a logical thinker. (But hey, if I had seen your handwriting or known your star sign, perhaps I would have known better).

The only reason this eye thing could have an impact on someone's character or life expectation is if it were a side effect of a medical condition. But you rule that out, in excusing Marty Feldman. So what exactly do you think is the mechanism here?

 

[Cowmangav]

@Cowmangav, Good videos. Have another look at the Monckton video that banjo put up at #742 - bearing in mind you already know his tactics, misunderstandings and failure to correctly quote sources.

Another thing (this comes through more in the second video) watch close ups of him - see how much white shows below the iris of his eyes.

It is said, and is probably just a myth, that someone with this condition has one or more of the following tendencies; hysteria; is mad; untrustworthy; manipulative; power crazy; unreasonably high sexual desires (sometimes violent with it); criminality. I looked it up once upon a time and there was quite a list of other undesirable faults.

Another theory is that these people will die an unnatural early death. Sufferers allegedly included Abe Lincoln, John Kennedy, Princess Dianna and John Lennon. I have seen a longer list somewhere. I think Marty Feldman had, but it was some disease he contracted rather than being natural.

As I said probably just a myth, but think of the people you have known personally with this trait. Anything odd about them? I can only recall one and he was a bit nutty but nothing more as far as I know. Any posters care to tell us they are one of those with such eyes and refute the myth?

Lord Monckton seems to me to rather desperately want to take a contrary view, come what may. I don't know what would lead to this, but factual criticism of him , seems like water off a duck's back.

 

[Old McDonald]

So what exactly do you think is the mechanism here?

I twice posted that it was probably just a myth. So, for the third time, it is probably just a myth.

It was something I remembered when I saw the videos Cowmangav posted. I thought this myth might add a wee bit of entertainment for some of the more witty posters like @bovrill - see his post #750 for an example. Or @Henarar. He often has something amusing to say about such things.

You once told me you came on here for pleasure as well as learning, so why not accept what I said is probably just a myth as something frivolous, instead of accusing me of scraping the barrel.

I know from previous posts that you do not like what I post, and I can live with that. I never attempt to be popular.

 

[Henarar]

It was something I remembered when I saw the videos Cowmangav posted. I thought this myth might add a wee bit of entertainment for some of the more witty posters like @bovrill - see his post #750 for an example. Or @Henarar. He often has something amusing to say about such things.

I have not been following this thread for some time Old Mac but I couldn't fit in 2006 little offering @farmerclare seems pleased about that

 

[banjo]

The whole global warming scam is falling and the rats are leave the sinking ship for fear of what will happen

 

[Gong Farmer]

I watch all of David's vids on Yooch. He's good at scouring all the data and presents very good arguments.

 

[Old McDonald]

The whole global warming scam is falling and the rats are leave the sinking ship for fear of what will happen

You will never learn to read these things properly will you? These fraudsters (the people in the links you give) rely on all the gullible folks like you to accept what they say.

Sceptics (and I use the word advisedly) of their publicity seeking scams look a bit more closely into their videos and what they say. Review just 11 seconds of the video between 52 secs and 1.03.

Look at the three temperature charts. They are three different charts, not replications of the same information. The usual scammers trick of trying to persuade you that you are looking at the same information when you are not.

The first is in Fahrenheit. Now I assume we all know that water boils at 212ºF. That is only 100º Centigrade. You have to agree that is a big difference in the numbers. Somewhere in the 1940s it gives a max reading of about 0.8ºF above that for 1880. Note this chart starts at zero for 1880 and shows the change from that starting point.

The second chart is the first deception. It is supposedly given to confirm the figures of the first chart. This second chart is only for the northern hemisphere so it is presenting information for only half the area of the first chart. It does not show the change in temperature from 1880 to 1970 as the first chart did, but the deviation from the mean temperature of the years 1881 to 1975. The important thing therefore is that 1880 is not the starting point of zero, but a negative number below the mean. It is in Centigrade, and you will note that it shows a spike at about 1937 or 1938 - not the 1940s.

The third chart is again global, and shows entirely different information to that shown in the previous two charts. An enormous deception, and one which obviously deludes a vast number of people.

This chart shows the anomaly (or change) from the mean of the whole of the 20th century - the years 1901 to 2000. This mean is, of course, higher than the mean for the northern hemisphere shown in the second chart, so warmer years are not so high above the mean as they are in the second chart.

What is significant, and most importantly truthful about this chart is that it clearly shows the reduced temperatures around 1910 and the increased temperatures in the 1940s. No fudging, no hiding of anything, the 1940s were warmer than most of the last century until we reached the 1980s. The last 20 and 25 years of the century did not appear on the other charts.

The video is yet another good example of how the planet is gradually warming, despite the narration.

 

[banjo]

You will never learn to read these things properly will you? These fraudsters (the people in the links you give) rely on all the gullible folks like you to accept what they say.

Sceptics (and I use the word advisedly) of their publicity seeking scams look a bit more closely into their videos and what they say. Review just 11 seconds of the video between 52 secs and 1.03.

Look at the three temperature charts. They are three different charts, not replications of the same information. The usual scammers trick of trying to persuade you that you are looking at the same information when you are not.

The first is in Fahrenheit. Now I assume we all know that water boils at 212ºF. That is only 100º Centigrade. You have to agree that is a big difference in the numbers. Somewhere in the 1940s it gives a max reading of about 0.8ºF above that for 1880. Note this chart starts at zero for 1880 and shows the change from that starting point.

The second chart is the first deception. It is supposedly given to confirm the figures of the first chart. This second chart is only for the northern hemisphere so it is presenting information for only half the area of the first chart. It does not show the change in temperature from 1880 to 1970 as the first chart did, but the deviation from the mean temperature of the years 1881 to 1975. The important thing therefore is that 1880 is not the starting point of zero, but a negative number below the mean. It is in Centigrade, and you will note that it shows a spike at about 1937 or 1938 - not the 1940s.

The third chart is again global, and shows entirely different information to that shown in the previous two charts. An enormous deception, and one which obviously deludes a vast number of people.

This chart shows the anomaly (or change) from the mean of the whole of the 20th century - the years 1901 to 2000. This mean is, of course, higher than the mean for the northern hemisphere shown in the second chart, so warmer years are not so high above the mean as they are in the second chart.

What is significant, and most importantly truthful about this chart is that it clearly shows the reduced temperatures around 1910 and the increased temperatures in the 1940s. No fudging, no hiding of anything, the 1940s were warmer than most of the last century until we reached the 1980s. The last 20 and 25 years of the century did not appear on the other charts.

The video is yet another good example of how the planet is gradually warming, despite the narration.

Truthful if you agree, bit selective considering the highest temp was back in the 1930s to 1940s not during the last decade, cos it hasn't reached as high as it did then since, get your coat cos the cooling is coming !

 

[Old McDonald]

It is not selective. The link you posted includes these three charts. I did not make them up. They clearly show different sets of information. You have the numbers, you have posted many videos all showing the actual temperatures, and these show that you are wrong.

Other posters have provided you with even more temperatures from the 1930s and 1940s to show that you are wrong.

You have been asked to find a recording station that shows you are correct and you cannot. There is a reasonable chance that there is one somewhere, although I am not going looking for it. What more does it take for you to accept that you are wrong?

Are you now switching your tack from it is already cooling to it will cool in the future? Either way when is this cooling coming - by a significant amount of course? Are you still saying we will be at the bottom of a cooling period in 2030?

You have already been shown that your 60 year cycle does not exist. You have ignored my post #763 showing that Yoshimuro's theory of a 55 years' cycle is not correct too - as demonstrated in the video at the top of the page when the presenter of that could not read his charts correctly either.

If it is 55 as Yoshimuro theorised then we would hit the bottom of the cycle in about 6 years. How far has the temperature dropped from the 1997 peak? Given that info we can easily calculate how much further it will drop if we assume a constant rate of fall. I agree that is modelling, but a simple model without needing to make any asumptions other than a constant decline.

As I posted at #746, after 10 years of swithering and trying to find the truth from all opinions, the numerous videos you have posted by supposed experts and well-informed amateurs, have all contained sufficient information to convince me that warming is indeed happening and that it is mainly, if not wholly, down to the burning of fossil fuels. I have repeatedly asked for a paper or temperature records that show otherwise and nobody has ever offered anything in response to my request.

Have you bought yourself a thermometer yet so that you can give us your own temperature records? I am prepared to tell you that with a week to go I am almost certain that the first quarter mean temperature for here will be below 2016. That appears not be unusual for other places too, so it is a cool start to the year. It will be above the 2015 first quarter and that ended up marginally warmer than 2016, so early days yet.

 

[Cowmangav]

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

October 2016 to Feb 2017 Arctic temperatures noted at 2.5 deg C above historical norms. Yeah, right. That sounds like cooling to me ......

 

[Cowmangav]

The much trumpeted increase in Antarctic ice may have reversed this year too.

 

[Cowmangav]

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally

 

[Cowmangav]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-temperature-rise-warming-reefs-a7648386.html