What Do We Think About Climate Change

And where do they stick the thermometer?

 

as I said there are multiple methods all used in conjunction to verify the others
on something this important
they homogenize a number of data sets

 

Be sure to place all the thermometers on the hottest piece of asphalt you can find, and decommission the ones in the Arctic Circle so the numbers will trend upward. Manipulated data is unreliable data and is therefore garbage, just like anything ever written by Al Gore.

 

sorry Hoyt that myth has been busted long ago

if you have some data to show that the efforts of thousands of scientist world wide in taking accurate measurements has somehow been subverted by this evil plot of which you speak
we would all love to see it

all data is to some degree manipulated
its the correlation between data sets that is used to confirm a level of confidence in it
so when twenty different studies come in and all show the same thing
it kinda precluded your whole argument

once again you have made a claim and provided not a shred of scientific evidence to back it up
let alone a series of published works in support of your position
which is exactly what the IPCC has done
time and time again

 

As usual, I disagree. It is still out there, and not a myth.

 

Well, we know you disagree. Do you have data is the question... Without data, you are solely basing your decision in your inability to comprehend things greater than yourself.
I hope you don't use NOAA charts or weather reports. You do know those reports are biased towards AGW right?

 

a myth is some story or legend not based on facts

do you have any facts with which to dispute the story or legend invented by the energy industries PR arm concerning this issue

if you do not then it falls within the definition of a myth

here is a graph of 4 measurement data sets from Yale university



as you can see they all roughly correspond

here is another one where four homogenized data sets are used and they all roughly correspond as well



I can do this all day long
over and over there is data to support the position that multiple data sets confirm the readings of other individual data sets

if the ground station data was really all that off it would show when compared to other data

it does not
therefor your argument does not hold water

 

Gee, sounds like a fair description of Realclimate.org (AKA The Rathole, surrealclimate.org) which was established to defend the scientifically indefensible papers of Team Hockey Stick.

Just where is Yamal anyway

Jimbo

 

Climate change

A coil of black plastic pipe on the roof,covering most of it, with clear plastic over it, gets incredibly hot in the sun. That hot water can be pumped into a hot water tank for overnight heat, far simpler and cheaper than some of the proposals. Anyone can do it cheaply , which I think is the key to making solar heat more affordable and available.

 

Here in Norway, I tried that on a sunny day (this winter), surface temp was approx 55-60°C, ambient was -5°C... So it works, need more sun than we have in this place though... But could drill a hole in the ground, deep, fill with dynamite, break the rock, so in a sunny day you could circulate hot water down to that area, and "store" the heat for colder, darker days.

 

Those panels get the water temperature up to ~450 degrees Fahrenheit. It creates steam, which drives a Rankine Cycle engine. You cant really do that without using a parabolic trough.
They can also be used to purify water, solar a/c, heat for cooking, etc. The list is endless, and they are 20-40% efficient.

 

We're not sure of anything... But asphalt is not the correct place...
Sea is more accurate, we have many measurements of temperatures for sea temperatures, water need approx 10 x the energy to increase 1° than for instance steel does.

So water, is more safe for surface temperatures, and it covers approx 70% of this ball we're sitting on.

Don't need a thermometer to understand that something have changed;
Birds, springtime, they're back here, we have snow up to our ears...?! So if the temperature where they are in the Norwegian winter (and should have stayed, in my opinion) is what triggers them to go north, that may indicate that the temperature is higher further south, than here.... That type of birdsong, when we're in over our ears in snow, isnt right...

Arctic sea ice is thinning, Norway isnt too big, there are some strange persons here that actually does trips in that area for a living, they're pretty gathered in their opinion; more difficult ice, thinner, more open waters, which is a problem, if you land in the drink at a surface temp of approx -30°C, Antarctica is more uncertain, but pretty large chunks of ice have broken free. (probably something that have to happen anyway, sooner or later). And Great barrier reef is reported to have received som damages, probably due to higher temperatures.

All of this may be well within normal variations.... But, what if we add to this? my only some fractions? CO2 does have some mechanical properties, that can't be argued away from, we did use that gas in double windows... That chosen gas was not a coincidence, it was better for the purpose than N2....

AND we have a max consumption of an unrenewable source of energy, with less (easy available) resources of it left in the nature....?

We can deal with some of the problems now, and make a "gradually" conversion to what will have to come, anyway.

Or we can go at full speed into a pit of gravel...

IF we're ending up partly resposible for making large areas of this "ball" uninhabitable, well, around equator, there's a "belt" quite a lot of the land area is around that "belt", some of the areas are pretty crowded, if they heat up and looses the water for drinking and plants.... but still have their AK47 dug down somewhere, they'll migrate or they choose to stay and die... What would you do...?

To stay, in a heated environment, they'll need resources, tractors, drilling equipment, gas.. pumps... Lots of kg's with machinery... well out of financial reach for an average person ibn this area. An AK47 weights only approx 4,5-5 kgs, steel plastic and some wood, far more within reach for an average person in these regions.

(Well, for myself; I'd look at my children, and would think; not one to loose..., better find a better place than this one before we're too weak to dig in... can we consider them wrong to think like that?).

 

My last post was a bit unclear, methinks...

It's a responce of sort to those who say that its not a problem, we'll adapt, we always have...

In my opinion, to adapt, you need resources (and living where I do, you should listen... I'm not always wrong...). Some of the warmest areas are some of the most populated ones, not too much resources either, and some of the most political unstable, also... (read that as "weapons").

In earlier times pre-industrial, when the weather heated up like it seem around equator, now.... we had lesser populations, lesser ability to travel or change position. People stayed and died, no internet, so we didn't know, they didn't know of the fat tribe up north either, so they didn't consider travel north or south a solution either. If you dont have the equipment or ability to get hold of that equipment to drill down to fresh water.... but you do have a gun... It'll only take a few out of a many to consider that solution further.

 

Your reference to the birds and snow this year has 0 bearing on a climate change conversation. That is weather, a snapshot of particular area at a particular time. Climate is more like a movie of what happens for a long time. All this snow we are seeing, especially on the east coast of the US, is related to El Nino, which causes a lot more precipitation than normal.

 

For those "Australians" out here banging their old, dried out chests with "it's all a conspiracy!!!", CSIRO, australian scientific organisation with quite a good reputation for honest and scientific work, confirmed last week that the climate change is real, and that the human factor IS significant.

So, here's the thing. Between the scientists and some markey/zeddo neapolitan puddles, I think that the scientists, with a solid reputation, have more things to say than local bullshitters pretending to know it all, posting charts and "discoveries" about yet another "conspiracy".

Of, course, it is quite plausible that CSIRO was taken by a communist rapid-reaction squad and that they are now transmitting their anti-capitalist propaganda against the nice and humanitarian private enterprises who only have our best in their hearts and minds.

I mean, who the **** are you to dispute this quite possible option? Show me the proof otherwise.

A chart would be good...