-
@Snowy said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@booboo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
Although @Snowy suggest it's for the NH.
The original 1999 was.
"The original northern hemisphere hockey stick graph of Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999"
They overlaid it later on with global data which showed a similar trend.
I know some will continue to argue the point, and even Wikipedia as a source as below, but it does give some background as to the debate.
"More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Further reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions."
It is an interesting debate regardless, especially if you doubt the veracity of data and news sources. It makes it very difficult to make your own mind up because it is all conspiracy in spite of evidence to the contrary like temperatures in Aus and California. Some skepticism is probably wise, but I believe that there are bush fires in Aus and that temperatures are record highs. Draw your own conclusions.
Did these other reconstruction refuse to release their data and calculations?
-
@chimoaus said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
I don't have access to temperature records from thousands of years ago so I did a simple graph showing Sydney's annual mean max temperature since records began. Records say the mean annual max temp has gone from 21 to 23.5. Not really a hockey stick but more an uphill climb?
Data link.
You need to be careful as to where the data comes from. In both NZ and Aust various data record include unexplained adjustments. And without them there is often almost no increase. The other issue is the changes over time where the records are taken. For example in an open field compared to beside a building
That's why I prefer the satellite records. It harder to manipulate these records. And it shows the last 40 years. Long enough to show if there has been significant warming as CO2 has increased. And quite a large increase too -
@Winger said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
You need to be careful as to where the data comes from. In both NZ and Aust various data record include unexplained adjustments. And without them there is often almost no increase
How do you know what the adjustments are?
From the BOM: (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/acorn-sat/#tabs=Methods)
Consistency and adjustment of temperature records
A large number of factors affect the consistency of the temperature records over time. For this reason, a dataset such as ACORN-SAT is required for climate research.While considerable effort is made to keep observational practices consistent—and to keep a careful log of changes at each site—each change in methodology or technology can leave its mark on the record.
These include artificial changes in the record due to:
- a shift in the location of the station (for example, from a post office to an airport);
- a change in the environment around the station (for example a tree grows, a structure is built, a lawn is irrigated); or
- a change in measurement method (for example, from a manual instrument to a recording electronic instrument).
Adjustments are required to correct for these non-climate-related influences—since they may create artificial ‘jumps’ in the data over time. Correcting these biases is a key requirement for compiling and then analysing long-term records of daily maximum and minimum temperatures.
The Bureau does not alter the original temperature data measured at individual stations. Rather, the Bureau creates additional long, continuous and consistent (homogeneous) records for locations across the country.
This is accomplished by concatenating copies of individual station records and then making appropriate adjustments for artificial (non-climate related) discontinuities. Almost all locations require the concatenation of multiple observing sites—to extend temperature records back to 1910. These new dataseries are a complement to, not a replacement of, the original data.
-
-
@Winger said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
Did these other reconstruction refuse to release their data and calculations?
Probably not, nor do I care. It will be intellectual property and he has no reason to release it. That doesn't make it untrue. Somebody paid for that as you keep saying, so they own it.
The motivations for keeping it on the quiet aren't up to us to decide but people way more in the know than you and I accepted it.
-
@Winger said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
Heres the NZ case
The case they lost?
-
@antipodean said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
The case they lost?
Yep.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/7634556/Climate-sceptics-fail-in-Niwa-case
Justice Venning:
**"said NIWA acted "within its own sphere of expertise".Justice Venning said unless the trust could point to some defect in NIWA's decision-making process or show that the decision was clearly wrong in principle or in law the court could not intervene."**
-
@Snowy said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@antipodean said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
The case they lost?
Yep.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/7634556/Climate-sceptics-fail-in-Niwa-case
Justice Venning:
**"said NIWA acted "within its own sphere of expertise".Justice Venning said unless the trust could point to some defect in NIWA's decision-making process or show that the decision was clearly wrong in principle or in law the court could not intervene."**
I believe the world is warming, NZ included, but that still seems highly dodgy. Without knowing specifics I'm also not sure I could take a court as having the expertise to make a fair ruling on that case, can't be that hard to explain away something very technical to people who may not have the level of expertise to understand.
From what I've read 6 stations weren't changed, I haven't been able to work out how to find the raw figures for the 6 unchanged stations only, would be keen to have a look at that if anyone can point me in the right direction. Maybe it vindicates the NIWA folk anyway.
-
@Rembrandt said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
not sure I could take a court as having the expertise to make a fair ruling on that case
Hey welcome to the world. Innocent people get locked up all the time too. If you a have a better idea for a judicial system, go for it. The point is the skeptics lost as they didn't have a valid case to question NIWA.
We all have doubts about some of the science, some of the forecasts, even some of the outcomes as regards to our own circumstance, but denying that it is happening....well...
-
@Snowy said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@Rembrandt said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
not sure I could take a court as having the expertise to make a fair ruling on that case
Hey welcome to the world. Innocent people get locked up all the time too. If you a have a better idea for a judicial system, go for it. The point is the skeptics lost as they didn't have a valid case to question NIWA.
We all have doubts about some of the science, some of the forecasts, even some of the outcomes as regards to our own circumstance, but denying that it is happening....well...
CC really is a money making end of world religion now. Take out the huge money and it would all disappear pronto.
This religion is based on dodgy 'science' where the people concerned who provide the so called science refuse to release their data and calculations. Or provide an explanation where historical data is adjusted. The group who challenged the adjustments only wanted an explanation. That they never got
So I will stick with the unadjusted records. That shows warming but not much
-
@Winger said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
This religion is based on dodgy 'science' where the people concerned who provide the so called science refuse to release their data and calculations. Or provide an explanation where historical data is adjusted. The group who challenged the adjustments only wanted an explanation.
Actually your own source says the statement of claim is vastly different, quelle surprise:
The statement of claim filed on behalf of the New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust (NZCSET) asks the court for three rulings:
A: to set aside NIWA’s decisions to rely upon its Seven Station Series (7SS) and Eleven Station Series (11SS), and to find the current NZTR to be invalid
B: to prevent NIWA from using the current NZTR (or information originally derived from it) for the purpose of advice to any governmental authority or to the public
to require NIWA to produce a full and accurate NZTR.
-
13 degrees in Surrey at 5am this morning. In the middle of January.
Got into London at around 6:30 this morning and joggers everywhere, all just in t-shirts / shorts.
I took the dog for a walk at around 8pm last night and knew something didn't feel quite right, but couldn't put my finger on it. It's very strange.
-
@MajorRage My first year in London was a particularly warm one. I was fine not wearing a suit jacket right into December..I thought "The weather here isn't bad, what are people moaning about?" ..I found out the following 6 years.
-
@MajorRage said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
13 degrees in Surrey at 5am this morning. In the middle of January.
Got into London at around 6:30 this morning and joggers everywhere, all just in t-shirts / shorts.
I took the dog for a walk at around 8pm last night and knew something didn't feel quite right, but couldn't put my finger on it. It's very strange.
I remember playing Tennis in Late Feb over West London on a peach of a warm day. Then every other year we were there we would remind ourselves with incredulity how we managed to do that. Was just a one off.
-
I got married in the UK, mid-September, was 30 degrees...had played a few games of rugby in the new season that was starting as well, and had no skin on my knees from the rock hard grounds.
-
This is one of the best articles broadly about climate change that I've read recently. It bemoans the lack of scientific rigour which is a particular bugbear of mine. If there is any chance of a) figuring out what is happening, b) figuring out how much mankind is responsible, and c) innovating ways to cope / reverse the worst effects, then we need more science not less.
The UN's 'woke' climate change propaganda is an insult to science
SHERELLE JACOBS
DAILY TELEGRAPH COLUMNIST
Follow 3 DECEMBER 2019 • 7:00AMI was always a 'middle-grounder', rather than a 'denier' – until I discovered the extent of the dishonesty
The climate change “emergency” is fake news. Many will roll their eyes in exasperation at the conspiratorial bombastry of yet another “denier”. But for years I have been a plastic recycling, polar bear cooing middle-grounder. In fact, Aristotle would probably turn in his grave at the logical fallaciousness of my long-held presumption that the truth must lie somewhere between those two mutually loathing opposites – Scepticism and Armageddon.
But as the doom-mongering acquires the rubber-stamped smell of instutionalised illness, it is impossible to ignore that the “woke” are the new “slept” – too deep in their sugar coma of confected hysteria to realise they are being duped by disinformation.
Before I explain why the climate “emergency” is the most electrifyingly effective propaganda exercise of the 21st century, two clarifications. I have no fight to pick with glaring evidential realities: surface records clearly show the planet is getting warmer. Nor do I have a culture war-bloodied axe to grind with the fundamental chemistry: carbon dioxide indisputably contributes to the greenhouse effect. But I do take issue with how the mainstream debate has become an insult to both the public’s intelligence and basic science.
Greta Thunberg
It's time to call out the most powerful post-truth scam of the 21st century CREDIT: CHRISTOPHER HUNT/GQ MAGAZINE/ PAThis was clearer than ever yesterday, as bureaucratic catastrophists kicked up dystopian dust-clouds on their way into the UN Madrid climate change summit. As Greta Thunberg arrived by yacht (after her British skipper likely clocked up 3 tonnes of carbon emissions flying to the US to pick her up), UN Secretary General António Guterres rumbled that, over the horizon, he could see “the point of no return”. Delegates waved the UN’s latest Emissions Gap Report as if it were both a millenarian death oracle and a methodologically indisputable text; in it, the recommendation to cut emissions by at least 7.6 per cent per year for the next decade.
One can’t help but feel that we have heard such curiously precise warnings before. Last year the UN warned that we had just 12 years to save the planet. Scientists have since revised this to approximately 18 months. Or perhaps it is already too late. The experts don’t seem quite sure.
Indeed, the distinction between present and future seems to be fading to discardable subtlety. Take the study which has gone viral in recent days for claiming that parts of the world have either already reached – or are inching towards –“tipping point”, whereby the planet becomes caught in destructive feedback loops. Are we already doomed, or nearly doomed, or nearly already doomed? More is the mystery.
Claims such as these are projections, but they are routinely presented to the public as unquestionable facts. This effectively reduces them to fake news. Even more so, given that the accuracy of the climate modelling upon which these figures and scenarios rely is contested, and the climate does not change in a straight line.
To take one example, the UN’s international climate change body, the IPCC, said in 2007 that temperatures had risen by 0.2C per decade between 1990-2005 and used that figure for its 20-year projection. Inconveniently, warming turned out to have been just 0.05C per decade over the 15 years to 2012.
The IPCC acknowledges the uncertainty of the computations it champions; hence the disclaimer squirreled away on its website stating that it does not guarantee the accuracy of the information it contains. A caveat lost in translation at the resplendently funereal press conferences.
This post-truth scam is having a chilling effect on science. Experts are locked in a race to the bottom to make detailed and disastrous premonitions. And despite the fact that disciplined debate is the motor of scientific discovery, eco-extremists are shutting down discussions that dissent from the Apocalypse narrative. CO2 emissions may not be the only reason for warming. So sidelining studies that have, for example, found the natural climate system can suddenly shift, and ridiculing researchers who explore other possible variables – from solar changes to volcanoes – could be driving us further from the truth.
Laymen like me sense that something is amiss, because we grew up assuming science is more about possibility than limitations. But so it goes that, in this messed-up world, the optimists have become sceptics; and those unradicalised by global warming delirium, the extremists.
Climate Change