Climate Change - record World temp. rises in Feb.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

If only there was some form of scientific consensus, say, perhaps, something like 97% of Climate Scientists agreeing on the causes of Climate Change....

There isn't scientific consensus. As you suggest there's consensus amongst those that already back the hypothesis.

Fortunately, we have the plucky little oil and energy companies, who have no axe to grind whatsoever, to watch our back against the evils of those biased scientists...

I'm not an oil company.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I'm not an oil company.

Are you a climate scientist

Originally Posted by papa smurf

thats like 97% of rabbi's saying god exists [they would their job depends on it ]

Many scientists could find employment if they came out with conclusions which helped the oil companies and indeed they do find jobs, just not the science.

---------- Post added at 07:51 ---------- Previous post was at 07:30 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

There isn't scientific consensus. As you suggest there's consensus amongst those that already back the hypothesis.

Well that's a nonsense isn't it? By definition if you exclude everyone who backs the hypothesis then you're going to be left with people who aren't part of the consensus.

However the scientific bodies that form part of that consensus are pretty qualified: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...ific_consensus they include the likes of NASA, the Scientific Academies of a lot of nations including the UK (Royal Society). Many organisations whose purpose is far broader than climate change so their jobs do not depend on it.

The skeptics don't produce much scientific evidence for their claims. I believe they've yet to produce any serious paper that refutes it. Most of the science which has caused climate scientists to revise their predictions comes from those who continue to back the hypothesis.

Most skeptic work comes from outside of science from people writing opinion pieces or editorals. It's the same as the vaccine nonsense a few years ago where you get one scientist/doctor say something and then an army of opinion-markers who take that and blow it up beyond all proportion to the scientific merit of their case. Bonus points if they dismiss the vast majority of scientists contradiction as part the establishment elite.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Are you a climate scientist

Tchhh, what do they know?

It's not as if they've spent decades learning about and researching Climate Science, having their research peer-reviewed and scrutinised, working to advance fact-based information so we can understand more about the Climate.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Tchhh, what do they know?

It's not as if they've spent decades learning about and researching Climate Science, having their research peer-reviewed and scrutinised, working to advance fact-based information so we can understand more about the Climate.

they spent decades falsifying data to fit the model if memory serves me correctly, that's why no one listens any more.


http://principia-scientific.org/nasa...te-data-fraud/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/045695_gl...fic_fraud.html

[Taf]

I wonder what happened to "the hole in the ozone layer" ?

Originally Posted by Taf

I wonder what happened to "the hole in the ozone layer" ?

Do you actually want to know? Or was it meant to be a wise-crack? Cos a quick Google will tell you: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...hole-25-years/

Looks like deciding to do something about it worked. Yay Science.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Damien

Do you actually want to know? Or was it meant to be a wise-crack? Cos a quick Google will tell you: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...hole-25-years/

Looks like deciding to do something about it worked. Yay Science.

Ozone Recovery to Warm Antarctica?

Meanwhile, some scientists say the environmental triumph of a recovering ozone layer could have a troubling side effect: boosting global warming, at least in the Antarctic region.

science oh heck

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Ozone Recovery to Warm Antarctica?

Meanwhile, some scientists say the environmental triumph of a recovering ozone layer could have a troubling side effect: boosting global warming, at least in the Antarctic region.

science oh heck

Well nobody said it was easy.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

they spent decades falsifying data to fit the model if memory serves me correctly, that's why no one listens any more.


http://principia-scientific.org/nasa...te-data-fraud/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/045695_gl...fic_fraud.html

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/not...perature-data/

NOAA maintains about 1,500 monitoring stations, and accumulates data from more than a thousand other stations in countries around the world (many national and international organizations share this type of data freely). There are actually fewer monitoring stations today than there used to be; modern stations have better technology and are accessible in real time, unlike some older outposts no longer in use. The raw, unadjusted data from these stations is available from many sources, including the international collaboration known as the Global Historical Climatology Network and others.

As the years go by, all those stations undergo various types of changes: This can include shifts in how monitoring is done, improvements in technology, or even just the addition or subtraction of nearby buildings.
For example, a new building constructed next to a monitoring station could cast a shadow over a station, or change wind patterns, in such ways that could affect the readings. Also, the timing of temperature measurements has varied over time. And in the 1980s, most U.S. stations switched from liquid-in-glass to electronic resistance thermometers, which could both cool maximum temperature readings and warm minimum readings.

Monitoring organizations like NOAA use data from other stations nearby to try and adjust for these types of issues, either raising or lowering the temperature readings for a given station. This is known as homogenization. The most significant adjustment around the world, according to NOAA, is actually for temperatures taken over the oceans, and that adjustment acts to lower rather than raise the global temperature trend.

The homogenization methods used have been validated and peer-reviewed. For example, a 2012 paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research confirmed the effectiveness of the homogenization processes for NOAA’s network of stations, and even noted that “it is likely that maximum temperature trends have been underestimated.” In other words, there may have actually been more warming than NOAA has reported.

Another paper, from 2010, looked into the siting of U.S. monitoring stations in particular, and again found no problem with the homogenization methods. “[T]he adjusted [U.S. Historical Climatology Network] temperatures are extremely well aligned with recent measurements. … In summary, we find no evidence that the [conterminous United States] average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting.”

Berkeley Earth, a climate science nonprofit founded in early 2010 by scientists expressing skepticism at the time about global warming, has also found no undue manipulation of temperature data in its own analyses. Its page specifically on the Paraguayan Puerto Casado station that Homewood mentioned shows the adjusted readings do in fact show a rise in temperature over time.

btw, Natural News? Whose other reports include -

Mandatory euthanasia coming soon to California so that medical industry can harvest organs from everyone right before killing them

CLAIM: Cell towers across the USA are broadcasting brain resonance frequencies to disrupt human minds, says former DARPA scientist

[papa smurf]

[QUOTE=Hugh;35832908]http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/not...perature-data/

Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group

If you wanted to use a devious method to deceive people who are trying to differentiate between truth and lies on the Internet how would you do it? If you were extremely devious and had no conscience, you might set up a Web site with some official and unbiased sounding name that claims to be the encyclopedia of truth to be used as a tool for anyone who has the same biased view and wants to make believe to "back it up" with what they would like you to think is "indisputable fact."

http://www.matchdoctor.com/blog_1419...cal_Group.html

[Taf]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Meanwhile, some scientists say the environmental triumph of a recovering ozone layer could have a troubling side effect: boosting global warming, at least in the Antarctic region.

science oh heck

That was what I was hinting at. A sort "Oh buggeration!" reaction by scientists when the figures came in.

Originally Posted by Taf

That was what I was hinting at. A sort "Oh buggeration!" reaction by scientists when the figures came in.

Why? The hole in the Ozone layer still have bad consequences so it's not as if we're being told to go out and spray as CFCs into the atmosphere to damage it further.

[Taf]

Quite a few scientists backtracked a few years ago when some laymen pointed out that several months of darkness at the poles was bound to deplete ozone levels. Ozone is formed by the action of ultraviolet sunlight on atmospheric oxygen.

Originally Posted by Taf

Quite a few scientists backtracked a few years ago when some laymen pointed out that several months of darkness at the poles was bound to deplete ozone levels. Ozone is formed by the action of ultraviolet sunlight on atmospheric oxygen.

No one knows for sure the consequences of it. It seem to remain a hypotheses without much data. I still don't understand the point though? Should we have ignored the hole in the Ozone layer?