Fake News - Global Warming Consensus

[Darc Knight]

Some sobering research from NASA:

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

 

[Smurf1976]

One thing I've noticed, which those with more knowledge could perhaps explain, is that we seem to be getting quite a few periods of sustained high temperatures covering pretty much the entire continent but failing to reach the capital cities on the coast.

Now I get it about cities being on the coast and the cooling effect of the oceans but nobody could say this summer has been extreme thus far in the cities, none have come close to breaking records for high temperatures meanwhile it's 49 degrees at Port Augusta today and similarly hot across a vast area inland.

It seems that we're setting new all time highs anywhere inland but not even getting close to past highs on the coast. We're in the midst of a major heatwave at the national level but right now, at 5pm AEST, Adelaide and Canberra are the only two capitals over 30 degrees.

As someone who's well aware of the effect on energy supply and consumption, overall it could be said that we're not seeing extreme heat where most people actually live. Thus far this season hasn't come anywhere near previous records, it's a long way short. Meanwhile it's seriously hot inland.

 

[sptrawler]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...0711&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

"Antarctica contains enough ice to raise global sea levels by 57 meters if it ever all melted, a process that would require far higher temperatures than now and thousands of years."

Also the Earhts core is 6,000deg C, I hope that stays where it is.

 

[rederob]

More controversy brewing over that inconvenient hiatus:

Your linked article was nearly 4 years old, not scientific, and the issue has been well and truly put to bed since.

 

[explod]

One thing I've noticed, which those with more knowledge could perhaps explain, is that we seem to be getting quite a few periods of sustained high temperatures covering pretty much the entire continent but failing to reach the capital cities on the coast.

Now I get it about cities being on the coast and the cooling effect of the oceans but nobody could say this summer has been extreme thus far in the cities, none have come close to breaking records for high temperatures meanwhile it's 49 degrees at Port Augusta today and similarly hot across a vast area inland.

It seems that we're setting new all time highs anywhere inland but not even getting close to past highs on the coast. We're in the midst of a major heatwave at the national level but right now, at 5pm AEST, Adelaide and Canberra are the only two capitals over 30 degrees.

As someone who's well aware of the effect on energy supply and consumption, overall it could be said that we're not seeing extreme heat where most people actually live. Thus far this season hasn't come anywhere near previous records, it's a long way short. Meanwhile it's seriously hot inland.

The average rise in overall temperature is stated at about 1.5 degrees. The ocean expanse is so great that it holds things near to average. I live at Warrnambool on the southern coast, my Sister lives at Bendigo and the last month has been about 10 deg above me here. Having lived near the southern coast most of my later life I note my tomatoes live through winter. At Bendigo they froze up. So in my view there will not be a lot of noticeable variations as most of the populations live near coastal areas and so till things deteriorate a lot further. At the poles in the past the ice sheets hundreds of feet thick were frozen solid and at the bottoms down to 60 celsius below. This is what has changed dramatically and now causing the unsettled swirling effects. Last year at this time, mid winter there were measurements of zero, (up 40 to 60 celsius above average). Frightening in my view.

The other is cloud, much of which in nature comes from the trees. So clear the trees and less rain of course but also less average cloud cover to reduce sun penetration. Of course there are so many variables that all sides of the debate can find many pathways to suit their own desires and have learned that arguing is unproductive.

And on thread titles to round up the loose stock, I very much agree that there should only be one thread on "Climate Change" and called just that and perhaps to fully satisfy all another called "Global Warming".

 

[rederob]

One thing I've noticed, which those with more knowledge could perhaps explain, is that we seem to be getting quite a few periods of sustained high temperatures covering pretty much the entire continent but failing to reach the capital cities on the coast.

Smurf, I have not payed attention to the synoptic charts but the main culprit could be prevailing winds, or lack of them.
It may be that capital cities are just a bit lucky at the moment, catching winds off the ocean in the middle of the day, rather than vice versa.
We in Brisbane have been happy with our lot, suffering only in the low 30s, albeit with pretty high humidity.

 

[cynic]

Your linked article was nearly 4 years old, not scientific, and the issue has been well and truly put to bed since.

My understanding is that the reported findings from an investigation into the matter, although dated July 2018, were only very recently released.

Given that there were a number of significant findings, some of which reflected poorly on the integrity of NOAA's operational policies and/or adherence to same, I would surmise that it may be just a wee bit early to be trotting out the bedtime stories!

Since, you clearly consider yourself informed, would you care to share your opinion upon the appropriateness (or lack thereof) of employment of 90% confidence intervals in the analysis/evaluation of climate data!!!

 

[Darc Knight]

From NASA:

How climate is changing
Global climate change has already had observable effects on the environment. Glaciers have shrunk, ice on rivers and lakes is breaking up earlier, plant and animal ranges have shifted and trees are flowering sooner.

Effects that scientists had predicted in the past would result from global climate change are now occurring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves.
Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come, largely due to greenhouse gases produced by human activities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which includes more than 1,300 scientists from the United States and other countries, forecasts a temperature rise of 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.

According to the IPCC, the extent of climate change effects on individual regions will vary over time and with the ability of different societal and environmental systems to mitigate or adapt to change.

The IPCC predicts that increases in global mean temperature of less than 1.8 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit (1 to 3 degrees Celsius) above 1990 levels will produce beneficial impacts in some regions and harmful ones in others. Net annual costs will increase over time as global temperatures increase.

"Taken as a whole," the IPCC states, "the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time."
https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

 

[explod]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...0711&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

"Antarctica contains enough ice to raise global sea levels by 57 meters if it ever all melted, a process that would require far higher temperatures than now and thousands of years."

Not too sure about that Joles"

"
"Antarctica is melting away," Rignot told CNN, "not just in a couple of places."
The research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that the rate of that ice loss has not been consistent, with ice disappearing faster in each successive decade. Ice loss in Antarctica has increased from 40 gigatons (a gigaton is one billion tons) per year from 1979-90 all the way up to 252 gigatons per year from 2009-17, a 6-fold increase.
And that melt-rate has been accelerating in the most recent decades, up 280% in the second half of the nearly 40 years compared to the first half, Rignot and his colleagues calculated."

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/14/world/climate-change-antarctica-ice-melt-twin-studies/index.html

And of late blocks the size of Tasmania have begun to break away.

 

[sptrawler]

From NASA:

At last, something from America, you don't bag.

 

[Darc Knight]

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

 

[Darc Knight]

At last, something from America, you don't bag.

On the contrary, don't think I''ve ever "bagged" any U.S. person on here except for Trump. The other day I was highlighting their new stealth sub, quoting Vince Lombardi etc.
But then again your tendency to twist facts and figures was pointed out in the property thread by a few people recently.

 

[rederob]

My understanding is that the reported findings from an investigation into the matter, although dated July 2018, were only very recently released.

Nothing in your contribution was science.
Do you actually know what science is?

 

[rederob]

Joules, earlier this week, you posted an interesting video which indicated, amongst several things, that some research had been done whereby solar emissions and CO2 concentrations, had somehow been aligned, to demonstrate a correlation with global temperature variations.

I would be most interested to know more about the mechanism via which two quantities (solar radiance, CO2 gas), with distinctly different Units of Measure, were combined and reconciled into a single unit of measure.

Go back to the video - around 12.45 in - and pause it to see the science papers which are referenced. One of those is "Geocarb III: A revised model of atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic time", R. Berner and Z. Kothavala, American Journal of Science, Feb 2001.
Your idea about how "distinctly different Units of Measure, were combined and reconciled into a single unit of measure" is astonishing. Do you have even a basic understanding of climate science, as you record to date is of gross ignorance.

 

[cynic]

Nothing in your contribution was science.
Do you actually know what science is?

Why do you ask?

Seriously, would me knowing what science is, make so much as a single iota of difference to you?
If so, how so?

Anyhow, now might be an opportune moment, for you to consider acceding to my earlier invitation! Namely, to furnish your definition of science!

P.S. Throughout this recent dialogue, it seems that someone may have neglected to give due consideration to the title of this thread when formulating responses.

 

[Darc Knight]

Why do you ask?

Seriously, would me knowing what science is, make so much as a single iota of difference to you?
If so, how so?

Anyhow, now might be an opportune moment, for you to consider acceding to my earlier invitation! Namely, to furnish your definition of science!

P.S. Throughout this recent dialogue, it seems that someone may have neglected to give due consideration to the title of this thread when formulating responses.

Wow. You ask him for his definition of Science, then criticize him for asking you for yours.
You love this keyboard warrior stuff don't you!

 

[cynic]

Wow. You ask him for his definition of Science, then criticize him for asking you for yours.
You love this keyboard warrior stuff don't you!

Where did you get the impression that I had been asked to provide my definition of science? Can you point out any posts to this thread where such has occurred?

 

[Darc Knight]

Where did you get the impression that I had been asked to provide my definition of science? Can you point out any posts to this thread where such has occurred?

Splitting hairs now are we. To quote your post: "would me knowing what science is, make so much as a single iota of difference to you?", in response to his post 393.

You love asking questions (trolling) but providing no substance.

It's a poor excuse for a Human who takes pleasure in taunting others. It's a poor excuse for a Man who does it from behind a keyboard. But that's you!

 

[rederob]

Where did you get the impression that I had been asked to provide my definition of science? Can you point out any posts to this thread where such has occurred?

Your posts in this thread show a gross ignorance of science.
Irrespective of the thread title, nothing prevents anyone from presenting a position which is actually based on science. However, that concept eludes you.
However, while consensus is not science per se, to propose the consensus is fictitious ("fake") would require evidence showing that the scientific claims made by the multitude of climate scientists who publish on climate matters, are deficient. Exactly where is that evidence?
I realise some here suggest just one thread for "climate change". But the specific focus of this one requires that those who support the title can show that the scientists have simply gotten it wrong. So here we are at page 20 and there is nothing of merit from the deniers of climate science.

 

[cynic]

Splitting hairs now are we. To quote your post: "would me knowing what science is, make so much as a single iota of difference to you?", in response to his post 393.

You love asking questions (trolling) but providing no substance.

It's a poor excuse for a Human who takes pleasure in taunting others. It's a poor excuse for a Man who does it from behind a keyboard. But that's you!

To quote post 393,"Do you actually know what science is?"

That was clearly a question to which either a yes, or a no, response could amply suffice, and as such did not appear to be seeking my definition of the word science.

In pointing this out, I wish to emphasize that I am not seeking to insult you, and I respectfully ask that you accord me the same courtesy.