|
|
Post by flamingGalah on May 6, 2019 17:25:38 GMT -5
More than likely an error. AWS's can give erroneous readings from time to time or there can be a problem with the data link, no technology is infallible. It will no doubt be picked up at some point with quality control. Except, they haven't even bothered to correct it; they had simply extracted the 25.1° C figure from Albany Airport prior to the polar front striking, i.e. the 18th of April. Nothing fixed yet, and probably never: www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/201904/html/IDCJDW6001.201904.shtmlInstead of the coldest maximum being 10.4° C as it should've been (accordingly to observations), it is now 14.5° C, with much higher averages than it should yield. They didn't even bother to re-adjust that figure with something even the slightest bit more believable, because they know themselves that they won't be punished for it—it goes along nicely with what they ultimately seek to prove; an act of convenience, alongside their abuse of power and position. Quality control can take months, they have lots of data to go through, everything that is uploaded is automated raw data. The station looks like it has suffered outage problems & using the nearest stations temperature readings is again likely an automated thing. If they were deliberately bumping up the temperature figures do you not think they would have done it ever so more discreetly than adding on 15C? It is quite obviously just an error that has yet to be picked up by quality control. |
|
|
|
Post by urania93 on May 7, 2019 1:18:43 GMT -5
Hmm, I guess no one has a response to my question on page 4. Do you mean this one? I was taught in grade school that the scientific method involves testing the hypothesis with a control. Is there an alternate earth with no humans that I'm not aware of? Curious how you can treat it as a proven fact otherwise. No idea of where you took the idea from, but the use of a reference control generally is not a necessary requirement. The scientific method follow a scheme like:  The introduction of a control could be part of the experimental design and, when possible, is definitively better to use them. Anyway, in this kind of schemes the definition of experiment is intentionally left as vague as possible in order to include all the scientific fields. In some cases, more than on true experiments scientists rely on the observation of what happens or what they can find in nature. Basically, the only true requirement is that the experiment/observation makes sense on the base of the previous scientific knowledge. Generally speaking, to introduce a control is usually possible in lab conditions, but only a part of science happens in the labs. By introducing it as a requirement, you would exclude completely the possibility to make experiments and observations in the most of natural sciences, astrophysics and so on. Also, a quite large part of science works on a purely theoretical level, and more than on practical experiments relies on demonstrations and simulated models. By introducing the presence of a control reference in the experiment as a necessary requirement, you would also put in doubt a ton of well established theories such as gravitational theory, evolution theory, tectonic plates theory, the big bang theory and so on. |
|
|
|
Post by Wildcat on May 7, 2019 11:48:49 GMT -5
By introducing the presence of a control reference in the experiment as a necessary requirement, you would also put in doubt a ton of well established theories such as gravitational theory, evolution theory, tectonic plates theory, the big bang theory and so on. Which is why they’re theories, no? Another principle that comes to mind is correlation ≠ causation |
|
|
|
Post by urania93 on May 7, 2019 11:56:19 GMT -5
By introducing the presence of a control reference in the experiment as a necessary requirement, you would also put in doubt a ton of well established theories such as gravitational theory, evolution theory, tectonic plates theory, the big bang theory and so on. Which is why they’re theories, no? Another principle that comes to mind is correlation ≠ causation In sciences theory = theoretical framework putting together the results of several experiments and observation, and are basically considered as the best explanation available at the moment about a certain phenomenon [1]what you mean in scientific language is defined as hypothesis. About correlation and causation you are absolutely right instead. |
|
|
|
Post by nei on May 7, 2019 12:21:22 GMT -5
Which is why they’re theories, no? I don't get this question. They're theories becaause they have testable predictions that can explain observations we see. In the case of physics theory, they're often mathematically derived from principles but theory doesn't require math. correlation with an expalantion for a mecanism can be a good hint of causation. as xkcd says "Correlation doesn’t imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing ‘look over there’." xkcd2.com/552/ |
|
|
|
Post by Wildcat on May 7, 2019 13:43:42 GMT -5
correlation with an expalantion for a mecanism can be a good hint of causation. as xkcd says "Correlation doesn’t imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing ‘look over there’." xkcd2.com/552/Not if there’s evidence to the contrary. |
|
|
|
Post by Hiromant on May 9, 2019 6:00:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by knot on May 9, 2019 6:51:50 GMT -5
Spectacular 2007 documentary— The Great Global Warming Swindle: This documentary focuses chiefly on the scientist's angle, not "some conspiracist talking head", mind you.  |
|
|
|
Post by urania93 on May 9, 2019 8:48:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by nei on May 9, 2019 15:53:07 GMT -5
You've frequently on this thread ignored technical links (esp from urania93) and posted rather non-scientific sources. that's not what your link says, and you either are being misleading on purpose or too lazy to check what you post. Source for the tweet goes to here. Under a paywall but the abstract is readable agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2018PA003376First, the title should alert you it's not talking about a time that's 7°C warmer than now but a colder time Southward displacement of the North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre circulation system during North Atlantic cold spellsfrom the abstract: During times of deglacial Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) perturbations, the tropical Atlantic experienced considerable warming at subsurface levelsit's referring to below the surface warming in only the tropical Atlantic. Second paragraph, it mentions an increase in downwelling due to increased winds warms the ocean below. |
|
|
|
Post by knot on May 9, 2019 16:55:27 GMT -5
That critique is not "convincing" in the slightest, actually. What I can see from that critique is petty misinformation regarding the ice-core samples accurately shown in the documentary, attempting to smear the notion altogether; Co2, indeed, rises after the temperature has risen—with not a very sound correlation, might I add. Doesn't seem to debunk the sunspot activity correlation, nor Pier Corbyn's far more accurate forecasting in comparison to the Met Office. The only section I find convincing is the misrepresentation of Carl Wunsch, which I do condemn. And the section of that critique which signals red flags immediately, is once it attempts to smear the credibility and/or reputation of the unpaid, IPCC-opposing professionals; Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Roy Spencer, Paul Reiter, Nir Shaviv, and Syun-Ichi Akasofu—the lattermost of whom had debunked the "melting Arctic" codswallop. Common ad-hominem attack from the warmist side: "if the scientists don't agree with the IPCC and Settled Science™, then they aren't scientists at all...and they are also funded by oil companies! (even when there's naught evidence to suggest oil company funding in the slightest)." |
|
|
|
Post by 🖕🏿Mörön🖕🏿 on May 9, 2019 18:31:04 GMT -5
Well, I guess some people have difficulty seeing the bigger picture and motivations for the outright demonisation of CO2, which is more political and economic than scientific, unfortunately. Not trying to offend anyone but it's my thought and the obvious driver behind all the hoopla. If there was little money at stake then they wouldn't give a shit.
The media calls CO2 dirty. It's the new coal baby! (coal is actually dirty)
|
|
|
|
Post by nei on May 9, 2019 18:38:17 GMT -5
Well, I guess some people have difficulty seeing the bigger picture and motivations for the outright demonisation of CO 2, which is more political and economic than scientific, unfortunately. Not trying to offend anyone but it's my thought and the obvious driver behind all the hoopla. If there was little money at stake then they wouldn't give a shit. The media calls CO 2 dirty. It's the new coal baby! (coal is actually dirty) Because it's a greenhouse gas. Nothing more, nothing less. Not sure what the rest of point is here other than "I don't believe greenhouse gases are real so no one can sincercely care" |
|
|
|
Post by nei on May 9, 2019 18:49:49 GMT -5
T\ And the section of that critique which signals red flags immediately, is once it attempts to smear the credibility and/or reputation of the unpaid, IPCC-opposing professionals; Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Roy Spencer, Paul Reiter, Nir Shaviv, and Syun-Ichi Akasofu—the lattermost of whom had debunked the "melting Arctic" codswallop. Common ad-hominem attack from the warmist side: "if the scientists don't agree with the IPCC and Settled Science™, then they aren't scientists at all...and they are also funded by oil companies! (even when there's naught evidence to suggest oil company funding in the slightest)." I doubt they're unpaid; more likely they paid just as much as professionals who do believe climate change is real contributing to the IPCC. I haven't gone through in detail all of their argument, and it would take a large amount of time to go through rebutalls and counter-rebutalls. The scientific consensus isn't always correct, of course. But why assume that a few outlying voices have the correct answer ? If you're a non-expert, focusing on the few voices that give the answer you want to hear is not a way to find an accurate answer. |
|
|
|
Post by 🖕🏿Mörön🖕🏿 on May 9, 2019 21:32:42 GMT -5
Well, I guess some people have difficulty seeing the bigger picture and motivations for the outright demonisation of CO 2, which is more political and economic than scientific, unfortunately. Not trying to offend anyone but it's my thought and the obvious driver behind all the hoopla. If there was little money at stake then they wouldn't give a shit. The media calls CO 2 dirty. It's the new coal baby! (coal is actually dirty) Because it's a greenhouse gas. Nothing more, nothing less. Not sure what the rest of point is here other than "I don't believe greenhouse gases are real so no one can sincercely care" Nei, of course greenhouse gases are real. But the most prevalent AND the one with double the heat retention/warming power of CO 2 is water vapour, according to the demigods at NASA. They also say increased CO 2 increases water vapour which is interesting. But Massachusettsbro, greenhouse gases aren't inherently bad. With all undue respect, have you ever rejected the notion of AGW, or did you accept it as truth since the scientists and IPCC say it is true? At this juncture, I don't see much point in arguing, so I am just trying to understand y'all AGW-evangelicals thought processes. |
|
|
|
Post by nei on May 9, 2019 21:56:22 GMT -5
Because it's a greenhouse gas. Nothing more, nothing less. Not sure what the rest of point is here other than "I don't believe greenhouse gases are real so no one can sincercely care" Nei, of course greenhouse gases are real. But the most prevalent AND the one with double the heat retention/warming power of CO 2 is water vapour, according to the demigods at NASA. They also say increased CO 2 increases water vapour which is interesting. But Massachusettsbro, greenhouse gases aren't inherently bad. Except haven't you been arguing they aren't? Yes, I know that water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas; except water vapor concentration is a function of the earth's climate as well as affecting the earth's climate. If I remember correctly; a water vapor molecule has a mean lifetime in the atmosphere of a few months; carbon dioxide a century or a bit more; so the water vapor concentration can't really be changed long-term unless the earth's surface is changed. Hotter earth generally has more water vapor, but it's not quite that simple. Here's a great explantion: users.physics.ox.ac.uk/~pierrehumbert/papers/CaltechWater.pdfedit: this is actually a much better overall summary of water vapor as a greenhouse gas AJ1013 🖕🏿Mörön🖕🏿 urania93physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/PT.3.2009about 2/3rds of global warming forecast is from increased water vapor rather than directly from carbon dioxide "reject" is a weird term, I always viewed it as any other physical science; obviously anything that's a current scientific research has uncertainty, but the general idea seems as well-understood as any other branch of physical science. 10-15 years ago, I assumed AGW was true but didn't think it was that huge of a concern; mostly just didn't think much about it. Got more interested and read about it more in depth and found it very convincing. and lol, why would you say stuff like "Well, I guess some people have difficulty seeing the bigger picture and motivations" if not to create argument ?  |
|
|
|
Post by 🖕🏿Mörön🖕🏿 on May 10, 2019 0:04:56 GMT -5
Nei, of course greenhouse gases are real. But the most prevalent AND the one with double the heat retention/warming power of CO 2 is water vapour, according to the demigods at NASA. They also say increased CO 2 increases water vapour which is interesting. But Massachusettsbro, greenhouse gases aren't inherently bad. Yes, I know that water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas; except water vapor concentration is a function of the earth's climate as well as affecting the earth's climate. If I remember correctly; a water vapor molecule has a mean lifetime in the atmosphere of a few months; carbon dioxide a century or month; so the water vapor concentration can't really be changed long-term unless the earth's surface is changed. Hotter earth generally has more water vapor, but it's not quite that simple. Here's a great explantion: users.physics.ox.ac.uk/~pierrehumbert/papers/CaltechWater.pdfabout 2/3rds of global warming forecast is from increased water vapor rather than directly from carbon dioxide "reject" is a weird term, I always viewed it as any other physical science; obviously anything that's a current scientific research has uncertainty, but the general idea seems as well-understood as any other branch of physical science. 10-15 years ago, I assumed AGW was true but didn't think it was that huge of a concern; mostly just didn't think much about it. Got more interested and read about it more in depth and found it very convincing. and lol, why would you say stuff like "Well, I guess some people have difficulty seeing the bigger picture and motivations" if not to create argument ? I, Hiromant, Beercules, Adaminaby Strangler, nor Wildcat never said greenhouse gases don't exist. "carbon dioxide a century or month" - Can you explain? A century or a month doesn't make sense to me. Is it really that variable? Anyway, no hard feelings nei.  |
|
|
|
Post by AJ1013 on May 10, 2019 0:14:56 GMT -5
Well, I guess some people have difficulty seeing the bigger picture and motivations for the outright demonisation of CO 2, which is more political and economic than scientific, unfortunately. Not trying to offend anyone but it's my thought and the obvious driver behind all the hoopla. If there was little money at stake then they wouldn't give a shit. The media calls CO 2 dirty. It's the new coal baby! (coal is actually dirty) CO s is undeniably the main driver behind global warming. The hystaria is unwarrented however, I agree. Global Warming is disgustingly politicized. |
|
|
|
Post by knot on May 10, 2019 0:27:19 GMT -5
CO s is undeniably the main driver behind global warming. The hystaria is unwarrented however, I agree. Global Warming is disgustingly politicized. Are you that brainwashed? The sun is plainly the foremost driver behind climate; sunspot-to-temperature correlations display this notion tremendously well, and likewise yields a far closer correlation than with Co2. |
|
|
|
Post by urania93 on May 10, 2019 1:23:47 GMT -5
That critique is not "convincing" in the slightest, actually. What I can see from that critique is petty misinformation regarding the ice-core samples accurately shown in the documentary, attempting to smear the notion altogether; Co2, indeed, rises after the temperature has risen—with not a very sound correlation, might I add. Doesn't seem to debunk the sunspot activity correlation, nor Pier Corbyn's far more accurate forecasting in comparison to the Met Office. The only section I find convincing is the misrepresentation of Carl Wunsch, which I do condemn. And the section of that critique which signals red flags immediately, is once it attempts to smear the credibility and/or reputation of the unpaid, IPCC-opposing professionals; Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Roy Spencer, Paul Reiter, Nir Shaviv, and Syun-Ichi Akasofu—the lattermost of whom had debunked the "melting Arctic" codswallop. Common ad-hominem attack from the warmist side: "if the scientists don't agree with the IPCC and Settled Science™, then they aren't scientists at all...and they are also funded by oil companies! (even when there's naught evidence to suggest oil company funding in the slightest)." At least they signed the paper with their names and cited all the sources they were referring to, unlike the documentary. In general, if I don't see a precise reference to a previous study I tend to not trust that source at all instead. In any case, critical reading is always fundamental. For example, to me the ice core comment makes a lot of sense instead. Chemically speaking, it is obvious that CO 2 (with capital O, or you are referring to a Cobalt dinuclear cluster) has to come from some kind of process which generates it by some sort of reaction (burning, decomposition organic matter, shift in the carbonates equilibrium in water...) or by mobilizing it from some resevoir where it was kept away from the atmosphere (for example, blocked by the ice in the permafrost). Back to the ice age, CO 2 didn't have many chance to be produced, so the driver behind the end of the most of ice ages was of astronomical origin probably (orbital changes, sun activity etc...). The following rise of CO 2 probably comes from the defrosting permafrost (probably together with CH 4) and from the shift in the equilibrium of carbonates of oceans (at rising temperatures the solubility of CO 2 in water decreases and it returns back to the atmosphere), just to name two quite evident phenomena. At this point, CO 2 was probably related to some positive feedback effect. Right now instead we have introduced a source of CO 2 which is quite unrelated to climate, the process behind it is completely different from the one you can see from ice core records. Even if in the past it was not the driving forse, in the absence of other strongest driving force it could become one now. It is also evident that CO 2 can't be the only possible responsible, the main reason why it is so hard to study this system is that it is related to a very large number of phenomena happening at the same time. The sun activity, for example, can surely be related to climatic fluctuations, and in some cases it can appear to be one of the major driving forces involved. Anyway, also for that you can find exceptions. For example, isn't the solar activity quite low at the moment? Apart from that, I also wanted to show what you actually see by passing some infrared light through simple air:  ^ The x axes is related to the wavelength, that unit is called wavenumber and the unity of measure is cm -1. On the y axes instead a quantity proportional to the detector counts is shown. The bell-shaped profile is given by the emission curse of the source (in this case, a lab lamp), in the case of the Earth emission it would be centred in the right half of the spectrum. Anyway, to IR the atmosphere is basically made of H 2O and CO 2, which block radiation at different energies. Water signals tend to be larger because of the larger separation among roto-vibrational peaks, while carbon dioxide peaks are so close to look like a continuum in this resolution. Anyway, the actual integrated area below those signals are more similar than how the first impression could suggest. In this case the optical path was of less than one meter, but still the percentage of blocked radiation is very high. Basically, any photon at one of those energies gets absorbed and re-emitted thousand of times before being released into the space. Also, the magnitude of each one of those signals is strongly related with the gas concentration. In any case, the absorption of this radiation also causes an heating of the air, this is extremely basic science. The hard part of the reasoning is to understand all the consequent feedback effects and evaluating the final effect on the temperature. Anyway, as a chemist, the part which makes me cautious the most is the fact that the concentration of permanent green house gasses keeps rising at increasing rate. Chemists like equilibrium conditions, so for us this will always be something to not overlook. |
|
