ad-homs lol when you can't argue anymore. No wonder this thread deserves to go to the SRP board.
You questioned the guardian source without clicking the links which are non-guardian sources.
Earth Sciences Today is hot
- Thread starter Kildonan
- Start date
- Tagged users None
ad-homs lol when you can't argue anymore. No wonder this thread deserves to go to the SRP board.
You questioned the guardian source without clicking the links which are non-guardian sources.
- Apr 2, 2012
- 8,315
- 9,641
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Green Bay Packers, Manchester UTD
- Banned
- #102
I did not even talk about the Guardian links, I talked about something I saw on the site hosting the pages linked by the Guardian.
Your spin is palpable.
How did I not click on the links when i clearly went to the site referenced?
Here are the measured trends from balloon data analyzed by the Hadley Centre in the U.K. We do see a local maximum near the characteristic emission level (of about 0.1C/decade, but the trend at the surface is larger (about 0.13C/ decade) rather than smaller. The correct theory tells us that no more than about a third of the surface warming can be greenhouse warming.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-11/documents/global_warming_what_is_it_all_about.pdf
NASA states
According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.
World Of Change
climate change, global climate change, global warming, natural hazards, Earth, environment, remote sensing, atmosphere, land processes, oceans, volcanoes, land cover, Earth science data, NASA, environmental processes, Blue Marble, global maps
both are ballpark figures with 10 percent error margin.
So i am still waiting for a peer reviewed paper from Spencer then.
- Apr 2, 2012
- 8,315
- 9,641
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Green Bay Packers, Manchester UTD
- Banned
- #105
I am still waiting on you to address what you believe are valid concerns against what you are purporting.
If you think there are none, you are not doing science.
I addressed it, the latest graphs show (spencers) the earth is warming at 0.13C/Decade and spencer himself said he believes it's cause of human activity.
He tries to argue against it (strangely) for a reason despite claiming he believes otherwise.
- Apr 2, 2012
- 8,315
- 9,641
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Green Bay Packers, Manchester UTD
- Banned
- #107
Read carefully instead of jumping into your spin mode.
I asked what YOU believe are valid concerns.
Cooking the graphs, data/quote mining. I have produced evidence here showing how Spencer fudges the graphs.
- Apr 2, 2012
- 8,315
- 9,641
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Green Bay Packers, Manchester UTD
- Banned
- #109
Again, if you oppose Spencer, then how can you also claim it is a valid concern against the claim of global warming/change/crisis?
You do not seem to get the point of the question.
Cause the natural forces are measurable. . They added up to a cooling effect of 1C the last 5000 years and have been flat or slightly cooling since 1850. What remains is the human effect.
http://www.globalwarmingindex.org/AWI/AWI_AR5_large.html
- Apr 2, 2012
- 8,315
- 9,641
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Green Bay Packers, Manchester UTD
- Banned
- #111
This is like trying to get a kleptomaniac to admit they were doing something they should not.
Which part of the anthropogenic effect are you skeptical of?
So you got nothing to say about the graph? i am arguing against spencers fudging of the graph. You have gone off on a tangent. Have you even read Spencers blog? i am talking about Spencer not about AGW specifically.
please go have a read, then i will answer your questions.
- Apr 2, 2012
- 8,315
- 9,641
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Green Bay Packers, Manchester UTD
- Banned
- #113
Again, it is not a difficult question. It has absolutely nothing to do with Spencer, but with your ability to analyse the data.
Where are you skeptical of the human effect on warming?
You can post links to graphs you do not question until we are all blue in the face.
I am not skeptical of the human effect on global warming. I am arguing for it, not against it.
- Apr 2, 2012
- 8,315
- 9,641
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Green Bay Packers, Manchester UTD
- Banned
- #115
So you are a fanatic?
No, i look at the evidence, everyone who disagrees with you is a fanatic is it? are you religious?
- Apr 2, 2012
- 8,315
- 9,641
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Green Bay Packers, Manchester UTD
- Banned
- #117
Nice spin. Of course you angle towards the big bad alt-right.
You look at the evidence, but you dont question any of it?
What shall i question? i read various sources outside of IPCC. Why don't you try to prove through scientific research how natural forces are causing global warming?If you can show that natural forcings can explain the UAH warming of 0.5C since 1979, a Nobel. prize beckons.
The climate has a net gain of 10^22 Jls/year, mostly due to AGW.
Us humans generate 10^15 Joules/year of waste heat.
Our contribution to global warming through the greenhouse effect is detectable.
- Apr 2, 2012
- 8,315
- 9,641
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Green Bay Packers, Manchester UTD
- Banned
- #119
So everything you have seen is 100% accurate, is it?
Nothing ever is 100 percent accurate. That's why there is an error rate in it. Science doesn't "prove" anything, it has theories. You are having a go at me but you got nothing to say about the subject. Well carry on then.
- Apr 2, 2012
- 8,315
- 9,641
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Green Bay Packers, Manchester UTD
- Banned
- #121
We have a prime case of a repeater here.
Says nothing is accurate to avoid the inevitable conclusion, yet cannot find a single point to question.
Although you think his reputation is sound, I think it is apparent that is not the case. As a supporter of creationism, Spencer is manifestly a liar, and statements he makes about climate change, when his overriding faith is that "We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence—are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history." suggest that the data will always be shoehorned into the preordained conclusion.
To me this makes him a non-scientist. It doesn’t matter how many PhDs he has managed to attain.
Even his claim that work on his PhD led him to question evolution is bizarre - his PhD was on waves in the Atlantic.
Having said that, his work in the more narrow field of satellite climate data has been useful. The satellites do not directly measure the temperature of the air, or the surface of the Earth. Instead they measure microwave radiation and infer the temperature from that. Inferring means apply calculations. In the case of satellites over decades of measurement, the calculations also need to take into account degradation of orbits and changes of sensitivity in the measuring devices. This took a while to calibrate well.
Spencer and Christy’s UAH satellite data, along with the RSS satellite data should be looked at alongside the many other (about 50 in total) datasets available. These include weather balloons which measure the temperature directly, and measurements of upper atmosphere and oceanic temperatures, and indirect measurements of sea levels.
If one dataset doesn’t fit the others, it would be crazy to throw out all the others for the single anomalous dataset. Best to look at why there is a difference and adjust as necessary.
That is a mostly fair response. I favour satellite datasets, and UAH in particular, because a) they are untainted by homogenisation techniques and b) they are truly global in their capture of data, unlike terrestrial measurements which are located in population centres and therefore not spread uniformly.
Funnily enough, the IPCC considered Solar Radiation Management in their 2014 report. p105 of 167 of the PDF version.
The verdict:
“SRM is untested, and is not included in any of the mitigation scenarios, but, if realisable, could to some degree offset global temperature rise and some of its effects. It could possibly provide rapid cooling in comparison to CO2 mitigation.
If it were deployed, SRM would entail numerous uncertainties, side effects, risks and shortcomings.
SRM technologies raise questions about costs, risks, governance and ethical implications of development and deploy- ment. There are special challenges emerging for international institutions and mechanisms that could coordinate research and possibly restrain testing and deployment.”
Potentially, I agree with you. The biggest problems with satellite data is that it only goes back to 1979, while regular weather balloon measurements go back to 1958, and satellite temperatures must have calculations applied to them (ie they are potentially affected by techniques - homogenising or otherwise) unlike weather balloons where the temperature is measured directly.
