Climate Change News 4

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MonteRCMS said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
What data would convince you that future climate change is a real threat?
Click to expand...
Nothing that we have.

Look at the graph I just posted.

The actual data shows no threat at all.
Click to expand...
For the 6th or 7th time, I am asking about future data. What future data that we do not have now but that we could have by 2030 would convince you that the threat is real?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
For the 6th or 7th time, I am asking about future data. What future data that we do not have now but that we could have by 2030 would convince you that the threat is real?
Click to expand...
There is NO future data.

There is too much evidence of faking data to create a fake future narrative.

If I say what data I WANT, someone will create it.

So, we measure the best we can, and go from there.

AND, we find that current measurements are challenging enough as it is.

If that’s not good enough, well, that goes with not being an actual scientist.

Instead, see what you can do to improve actual data collection.

The chart I posted shows the temp is basically flat.

The models show all kinds of increases.
 
Last edited:
MonteRCMS said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
For the 6th or 7th time, I am asking about future data. What future data that we do not have now but that we could have by 2030 would convince you that the threat is real?
Click to expand...
There is NO future data.
Click to expand...
There will be. And from what you are saying there is no possibility of future data that will convince you that climate change is a threat. Not very scientific!
 
LeafByNiggle said:
So let me ask you, if global temperatures do rise to 2.7 F above pre-industrial levels by 2030, will you be convinced? Or will you find some other reason to deny the seriousness of the warnings?
Click to expand...
That would probably be sufficient. If we have gone up 1.5 deg F since 1880, should we go up another 1.2 deg F in 12 years that would signify something. I would, however, be unlikely to accept that the temperature had actually gone up if virtually all of that change was found in the adjusted numbers rather then the actual measurements.

Now, what would it take for you to finally admit that global warming is not the problem it has been made out to be?
 
Last edited:
Ender said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
So let me ask you, if global temperatures do rise to 2.7 F above pre-industrial levels by 2030, will you be convinced? Or will you find some other reason to deny the seriousness of the warnings?
Click to expand...
That would probably be sufficient. If we have gone up 1.5 deg F since 1880, should we go up another 1.2 deg F in 12 years that would signify something. I would, however, be unlikely to accept that the temperature had actually gone up if virtually all of that change was found in the adjusted numbers rather then the actual measurements.

Now, what would it take for you to finally admit that global warming is not the problem it has been made out to be?
Click to expand...
A demonstration that all the data that has been cited showing it is a problem is flawed data. All of it. Not just some cherry-picked examples.
 
MonteRCMS said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
There will be.
Click to expand...
No.
Click to expand...
What are you saying “no” to? There will not be future measurements of temperature, sea level, polar ice, etc. ? Or are you saying there will not be measurements that confirm climate change predictions? I can understand why you might claim the later, but it is nonsense to claim the former.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
What are you saying “no” to? There will not be future measurements of temperature, sea level, polar ice, etc. ? Or are you saying there will not be measurements that confirm climate change predictions? I can understand why you might claim the later, but it is nonsense to claim the former.
Click to expand...
So, next year, you do the measurements of actual, and add them to the graph that I posted.

[Do you believe that the actuals are going to suddenly jump WAAYY up???]
 
MonteRCMS said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
What are you saying “no” to? There will not be future measurements of temperature, sea level, polar ice, etc. ? Or are you saying there will not be measurements that confirm climate change predictions? I can understand why you might claim the later, but it is nonsense to claim the former.
Click to expand...
So, next year, you do the measurements of actual, and add them to the graph that I posted.

[Do you believe that the actuals are going to suddenly jump WAAYY up???]
Click to expand...
You are getting closer. Please make a falsifiable prediction for 2030.
 
In January of 2017 Dr. Roy Spencer said this:
“I expect there will soon be a revised TLT product from RSS which shows enhanced warming, too.

Here’s what I’m predicting:
  1. neither John Christy nor I will be asked to review the paper
  2. it will quickly sail through peer review (our UAH V6 paper is still not in print nearly 1 year after submission)
  3. it will have many authors, including climate model people and the usual model pundits (e.g. Santer), which will supposedly lend legitimacy to the new data adjustments.
Let’s see how many of my 3 predictions come true.

-Roy”
Click to expand...
This came out in June, 2017
 
https://www.amazon.com/Disgrace-Profession-Mark-Steyn-ebook/dp/B013TZFRGE/ref=pd_sim_351_4?

Santer has a bad reputation for fakery.

Read up on Benjamin Santer.

The Relentless Attack on Climate Scientist Ben Santer​

54 comments

Ben Santer had impeccable scientific credentials, and he had never before been involved in even the suggestion of impropriety of any kind, but now a group of physicists tied to a think tank in Washington, DC, accused him of doctoring the report to make the science seem firmer than it really was. They wrote reports accusing him of “scientific cleansing” — expunging the views of those who did not agree. [1] They wrote reports with titles like “Greenhouse Debate Continued” and “Doctoring the Documents,” published in places like Energy Daily and Investor’s Business Daily . They wrote letters to congressmen, to officials in the Department of Energy and to the editors of scientific journals, spreading the accusations high and wide. They pressured contacts in the Energy Department to get Santer fired from his job. Most public — and most publicized — was an op-ed piece published in the Wall Street Journal , accusing Santer of making the alleged changes to “deceive policy makers and the public.”[2] Santer had made changes to the report, but not to deceive anyone. The changes were made in response to review comments from fellow scientists.

Every scientific paper and report has to go through the critical scrutiny of other experts: peer review. Scientific authors are required to take reviewers’ comments and criticisms seriously, and to fix any mistakes that may have been found. It’s a foundational ethic of scientific work: no claim can be considered valid — not even potentially valid — until it has passed peer review.
 
Last edited:
This is from NASA:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

This graph illustrates the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures. Seventeen of the 18 warmest years in the 136-year record all have occurred since 2001, with the exception of 1998. The year 2016 ranks as the warmest on record. (Source: NASA/GISS). This research is broadly consistent with similar constructions prepared by the Climatic Research Unitand the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
 
This is also from NASA. It is Arctic Sea Ice in square km.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Average rate of change: -13.2% per decade.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top