Thoughts -  Necessary Action Climate Change (40898 views) Notify me whenever anyone posts in this discussion.Subscribe
 
From: YoungGandalf DelphiPlus Member IconJan-4 9:12 AM 
To: All  (1766 of 1780) 
 10121.1766 in reply to 10121.1765 

Now that climate change is here and consequences are unavoidable, what does it mean during your lifetime?

Here are some answers:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2021/oct/14/climate-change-happening-now-stats-graphs-maps-cop26
 

The error in these predictions is now quite small. But nations could still react and make some changes. The effects will mostly matter after most of us are gone.
 

 
 Reply   Options 

 
From: OldAl88Jan-16 8:41 PM 
To: YoungGandalf DelphiPlus Member Icon  (1767 of 1780) 
 10121.1767 in reply to 10121.1766 

What do you say JD, about the claim re editing of data - see this article.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/

There must be many thousands of data sets, and certain formulas probably needed to arrive at "AVERAGE", so I cannot help but wonder how many 'climate scientists' actually use RAW data to peer review 'official' results. You accept, but have you reviewed what IPCC claims?

As for me, I just have to sit on the fence (whilst putting panels om my roof - etc).

Addendum Edit. 

From your link "“The difference between 1.5C and 2C is a death sentence for the Maldives,” said Ibrahim Mohamed Solih, president of the country......"!  Would he have reviewed the raw data and results? Obviously not, bur he makes a solid 'statement'. Ditto for 99.999% of populations, but .....   You get the message.

14712.25 in reply to 14712.21 
 

 

  • Edited January 16, 2022 8:53 pm  by  OldAl88
 

 
From: BobSciJan-17 12:56 AM 
To: OldAl88  (1768 of 1780) 
 10121.1768 in reply to 10121.1767 

Here is a plot of raw data and adjusted data.  Note not much difference and the raw data does show warming.

Also there have been papers checking on how accurate the early IPCC predictions were.  It was found that nearly all predictions were on the conservative side and the changes have been larger than predicted.

 

 
From: Delphi ForumsSponsored Message 
To: All 
 

 
From: OldAl88Jan-17 6:04 AM 
To: BobSci  (1769 of 1780) 
 10121.1769 in reply to 10121.1768 

Hi Bob. Significant adjustment shows before circa 1945. Next to nothing post 1945, so I presume recording became better then. BTW, where did the graph come from?

What sparks my interest more is where and how many recording points are used, how gaps between points are treated etc. Then the spread of industrial and urban areas has to be factored in somehow. (That could account for adjustment prior to 1945.)

I think I read sometime back that several methods of measurement are used - are there anomalies between methods - if so how is that dealt with? Last of all, to be a true global average temp, all readings should be at the same time - everywhere. How is that accomplished? A tall order when we are talking fractions of a degree.

Summing up, 10, 20 or more guys working independently could be expected to have different methods of arriving at an av temp, with 10, 20 or more different answers, all from the same data points. Who has final say? 

 

 
From: YoungGandalf DelphiPlus Member IconJan-17 9:14 AM 
To: BobSci  (1770 of 1780) 
 10121.1770 in reply to 10121.1768 

Bob, please cite your sources.

 

 
From: YoungGandalf DelphiPlus Member IconJan-17 12:29 PM 
To: OldAl88  (1771 of 1780) 
 10121.1771 in reply to 10121.1767 

I am not JD so I assume you meant me when you posted to me.

The argumentative article is free from evidence. One can see that they would have partisan interests in there not being global warming.

The science of anything goes like this: scientists = 100% of what makes the leading verified opinion, based on their peer reviewed research. All else = 0%, including paid cronies = 0%.

 

 
From: BobSciJan-17 2:01 PM 
To: OldAl88  (1772 of 1780) 
 10121.1772 in reply to 10121.1770 

Here is the source, the first one I found with a quick search.  A little old but it also answers the questions of how and why these changes are made.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/08/no-climate-conspiracy-noaa-temperature-adjustments-bring-data-closer-to-pristine

 

 
From: BobSciJan-17 2:02 PM 
To: YoungGandalf DelphiPlus Member Icon  (1773 of 1780) 
 10121.1773 in reply to 10121.1770 

Source given in previous post to OldAl88

  • Edited January 17, 2022 2:02 pm  by  BobSci
 

 
From: OldAl88Jan-17 5:31 PM 
To: YoungGandalf DelphiPlus Member Icon  (1774 of 1780) 
 10121.1774 in reply to 10121.1771 

Sorry about the error - its age related!

YoungGandalf said...

The argumentative article is free from evidence.

So is the common public presentation from the scientific side. While most seem to accept at face value, and a few don't want to for their own reasons, I need to be assured by asking questions that get the scientific  community riled up! 

We don't all have partisan interests YG. We just don't like being completely in the dark regarding such important things.

 

 
From: YoungGandalf DelphiPlus Member IconApr-5 1:58 PM 
To: All  (1775 of 1780) 
 10121.1775 in reply to 10121.1774 

Now that we are in the point of no return era of climate change there is still little to know recognition among mere politicians.

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/fossil-fuels-ipcc-report-b2050522.html

"Warning "it’s now or never", the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said in its latest assessment of human progress on mitigating the threat posed by the worsening climate crisis.

The assessment shows that even limiting warming to a less optimistic target of 2C will require global greenhouse gas emissions to peak by 2025 at the latest, and then be reduced by a quarter by 2030.
To keep the 1.5C target within sight, global emissions must be cut by 43 per cent by 2030.

How can this be done? At the moment, emissions are still increasing "across all sectors globally", the report warned. While some economies have made considerable strides in cutting emissions from fossil fuel and industrial processes, these cuts have been less than rising global levels of emissions from industry, energy supply, transport, agricultural activity and buildings."

Why are we walking such a risky tight robe? Well, the implications for our wealth are significant. The chances to be elected are slim, the chances to be reelected are basically zero if one would run such a program.

 

 

Navigate this discussion: 1-5 6-15 16-25 ... 1746-1755 1756-1765 1766-1775 1776-1780
Adjust text size:

Welcome, guest! Get more out of Delphi Forums by logging in.

New to Delphi Forums? You can log in with your Facebook, Twitter, or Google account or use the New Member Login option and log in with any email address.

Home | Help | Forums | Chat | Blogs | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
© Delphi Forums LLC All rights reserved.