Save the world, install an LPG tank.

[Ed Davies]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

[Simplysimon]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48678196

 

of course it may not be true ?

[Ferdinand]

 

 

Edited June 23, 2019 by Ferdinand

[SteamyTea]

2 hours ago, Ed Davies said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

I have now learnt a new term.

Gish gallop = talking bollocks

[SteamyTea]

3 hours ago, Simplysimon said:

of course it may not be true

I have a picture for sale called 6°F.  Only one person has commented on its meaning.  She did not buy it.

Edited June 23, 2019 by SteamyTea

[Simplysimon]

2 hours ago, Simplysimon said:

 

of course it may not be true ?

meant as sarcasm, btw what has -14^oC got to do with it?

[epsilonGreedy]

15 hours ago, Ed Davies said:

The hockey stick is seen over longer periods. IIRC the original Mann et al one was over 1000 years.

 

 

Could you point to the hockey stick?

 

The upwards blip at the end of the graphic is just a rebound from the little ice age up to 1950.

 

[SteamyTea]

13 hours ago, Simplysimon said:

of course it may not be true

I have a picture for sales called 6°F.  Only one person has commented on its meaning.  She did not buy it.

[SteamyTea]

@epsilonGreedy

You are showing just one area of the globe there, and an extreme environment as well.

If you constantly go looking for the outliers then you are just reinforcing your biases.

There was a study a few years back about some glaciers that had increased in length and volume.  This was used as proof that climate change was not happen, in fact I think they stated that it showed cooling.

It was soon pointed out that in this special case, there was more rainfall in the region.  Rainfall goes up when the world is warmer.  It just happened to be dumped on those 4 glaciers because of the local weather patterns.  There is a reason why we use different words for weather and climate.

You really need to ask yourself what you are trying to prove here.

Edited June 24, 2019 by SteamyTea

[epsilonGreedy]

26 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

You are showing just one area of the globe there, and an extreme environment as well.

If you constantly go looking for the outliers then you are just reinforcing your biases.

 

 

If Greenland is an outlier why is it the most studied epicenter of global warming concern?

 

29 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

There is a reason why we use different words for weather and climate.

 

 

Indeed, which raises the question why the climate change alarmists use every forest fire or hurricane as evidence of global warming.

 

The whole debate has succumbed to fanatical tribal believe mechanisms not experienced in the UK since the religious conflicts at the time of Elizabeth I.

[SteamyTea]

2 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

If Greenland is an outlier why is it the most studied epicenter of global warming concern?

Because by looking at extremes it can be helpful to the bigger picture.

3 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

Indeed, which raises the question why the climate change alarmists use every forest fire or hurricane as evidence of global warming.

Because they look at the rate of increase or decrease in numbers and it is helpful to the bigger picture.

44 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

You really need to ask yourself what you are trying to prove here.

Can you answer this?

[Ed Davies]

12 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

Gish gallop = talking bollocks

 

Yes, but it's a bit more specific than that. It's the tactic widely used by evolution and climate change deniers, moon hoaxers and so on of asking “questions” but not engaging with the answer given, instead just changing the subject and bombarding the opposition with further irrelevant questions.

[Ed Davies]

1 hour ago, epsilonGreedy said:

If Greenland is an outlier why is it the most studied epicenter of global warming concern?

 

Because if it melts it'll raise sea levels significantly.

 

Because that's where the ice cores are (which are a good record of global climate if you pick the right data series).

 

1 hour ago, epsilonGreedy said:

Indeed, which raises the question why the climate change alarmists use every forest fire or hurricane as evidence of global warming.

 

Yes, that's irritating when it's used as some sort of “proof” (which is more down to activists and journalists than scientists). Used as an illustration of the sort of effects expected it's sort of OK, though and combined with some pretty heavy statistics for attribution is quite reasonable.

[Ed Davies]

3 hours ago, epsilonGreedy said:

Could you point to the hockey stick?

 

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/ONLINE-PREPRINTS/Millennium/mbh99.pdf

 

Figure 3 (a).

 

I've no idea what your graph is showing but temperatures in the region of -30 °C are clearly more local than hemispheric or global.

[epsilonGreedy]

13 minutes ago, Ed Davies said:

Yes, but it's a bit more specific than that. It's the tactic widely used by evolution and climate change deniers, moon hoaxers and so on of asking “questions” but not engaging with the answer given, instead just changing the subject and bombarding the opposition with further irrelevant questions.

 

 

I did not engage because I could not see the grand revelation you thought you had presented. What did your graphs show:

1. The area compensated temperature record shows a 0.5 degree rise over 120 years, which is just a smidgen more the natural long term rebound from the little ice age.
2. There is no hockey stick unless a highly selective period is used (1970 to 1998).
3. Just when co2 output was ramping up post WWII the temperature fell for a few decades.
4. Just when China's co2 output went stratospheric we experienced the global warming pause.
5. When pre WWII co2 output was a small fraction of today's output we had the dustbowl temperature peak similar to current temperatures.

Your graph seems to disprove a link between co2 and global warming.

[Ed Davies]

4 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

I did not engage because I could not see the grand revelation you thought you had presented.

 

The point was that a) Heller's presentation of the raw data was flawed to start with so the rest of his article should be taken with a pinch of salt and b) that with just this simple correction the raw data doesn't disprove global warming anyway so his theory that the adjustments were added just to cover this up is not supported.

 

As to your other points, and has already been said on this thread IIRC, if volcanoes, solar variation, human aerosol emissions and CO₂ are taken into account models get a fairly good match the last century or so's climate. If CO₂ is left out then it's impossible to get a good match, so no, the graph doesn't seem to disprove a link between CO₂ and global warming.