Page 3 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#1429597 - 02/08/2017 18:32 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Funkyseefunkydo Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 30/04/2007
Posts: 467
Loc: East Lake Macquarie
Still waiting for your friend Per strandberg to explain his Enso predictions but just keeps tweeting radical you tube vids.

Top
#1430282 - 09/08/2017 19:26 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Knot Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/05/2014
Posts: 1859
Loc: Blue Bay N.S.W
My my. The bom changes their story about the Goulburn incident every few days. It's now due to 'smart cards'. A filter attached to the sensor. I am sure there are none at at hot sites to filter out non weather related heat spikes from air ducts, engines etc. /sarc
_________________________
The deep blue skies of youth are unlike any other.

Top
#1430481 - 12/08/2017 15:10 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Knot]
Morham Offline
Cloud Gazer

Registered: 23/01/2017
Posts: 40
Loc: Penrith, NSW
Originally Posted By: Knot
Since when hasn't the climate changed. A climate not changing would be the odd man out in earth's geological history. There never has been perpetual climate stasis and there never will be. There has been rapid change. Slow change and in between change. With without us. No need for gloom and doom about it.

Absolutely true. Nobody is denying that.

Earth has experienced many ice ages which have decimated life.
In fact this warmer period we live in now, arguably, has contributed to the rise of our powerful and intelligent civilization.

Carbon dioxide once helped Mars go through a period of warmth. There was liquid water on the surface, over millions of years the co2 was absorbed into rock (which is a theory) robbing Mars of its warm atmosphere.

Lots of co2 exists in rocks on earth as well. In coal for example.

Co2 is critical for atmospheric warmth. But obviously, too much of it will warm the atmosphere to a point where parts of earth may become uninhabitable.

That has happened on planet earth countless times over the eons. Species go extinct when the climate changes, new species adapt and live there, sometimes virtually all life vanishes from an area. Whale bones have been found in the Sahara desert.

However, why is the concentration of co2 on earth increasing now? Yes co2 has increased on earth when our ancestors were slithering around swampy pools.

Is the current increasing concentration of co2 a perfectly normal cycle, or is the co2 we release from rocks like coal contributing to it?

I guess even with the science, people have to make their own conclusions.

I believe releasing co2 from coal will add more co2 to the atmosphere, at a rate faster than plankton/ocean/forests can absorb it resulting in a warmer climate. Sounds crazy, but that's what i believe!
grin

Top
#1430485 - 12/08/2017 16:01 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Morham]
Steve777 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 20/10/2011
Posts: 3430
Loc: Artarmon (Sydney North Shore)
Originally Posted By: Morham
...Is the current increasing concentration of co2 a perfectly normal cycle, or is the co2 we release from rocks like coal contributing to it?


The scientific consensus is that it is caused by the burning of fossil fuels:

Quote:
"Carbon is composed of three different isotopes: carbon-12, 13, and 14. Carbon-12 is by far the most common, while carbon-13 is about 1% of the total, and carbon-14 accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms in the atmosphere.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere, because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (carbon-12 and 13); thus they have lower carbon-13 to 12 ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same carbon-13 to 12 ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average carbon-13 to 12 ratio of the atmosphere decreases."

What is causing increase in CO2


Here's another link: Climate Change (NASA)

Top
#1430487 - 12/08/2017 16:40 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Knot Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/05/2014
Posts: 1859
Loc: Blue Bay N.S.W
Not the old consensus routine again Steve. Many centuries ago in parts of the world there was a consensus held by otherwise very intelligent people that 'deniers' had to be burned at the stake (in some parts of todays world this is still happens under the gaze of fanatical nutcases).A consensus of opinion is not science. Now it may well be that some rudimentary consensus exists on matters that are clearly obvious. e.g If I held the belief that the earth was flat I would be going against an overwhelming tide of observation. However we are talking about a chaotic system that defies a one size fits all hypothesis when there are likely many inputs that as yet we have little or no understanding of. Co2 being solely responsible for empirical data that may indicate warming is one hypothesis that is in vogue when many scientists. But it is not the only one. And ultimately it is observations over a considerable period which may add credence to one hypothesis or another. If observations became at variance with the hypothesis than the hypothesis must be altered. There are specifically two observations, that were they to occur, would require the Co2 = warming hypothesis to be scrapped. 1. Co2 levels increased exponentially(either naturally or human action) but warming either stalled or reversed. 2. Co2 levels fell drastically and after a period of time allowing for lag temperatures increased. Either observation would nullify the hypothesis.



Edited by Knot (12/08/2017 16:41)
_________________________
The deep blue skies of youth are unlike any other.

Top
#1430489 - 12/08/2017 16:51 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Knot Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/05/2014
Posts: 1859
Loc: Blue Bay N.S.W
And I think it is fear of point No.1 in my previous post that drives the doom speak by many who now have a vested interest in the GW gravy train. And I would expect just like cultish behaviour exhibits in religions today and in the past that any informstion that threatens the cult will be expunged if survival of the cult and its' caste is at stake. So I think that any evidence of cooling will be obscured. None of the GW cult members would want to have the masses suddenly feeling like they have been had
_________________________
The deep blue skies of youth are unlike any other.

Top
#1430490 - 12/08/2017 17:39 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Kino Online   content
Weather Freak

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 663
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
'Consensus' is the new form of 'groupthink' IMO. Given they still can't accurately predict next weeks weather, how can they forecast any further than that?

And as for 'climate change', that has and always will. The question is "is it man made". If so, then what caused all the previous heat records in the 1800's? What caused the previous heat episodes eons ago and what caused the various ice ages. They can't answer those questions definitively so how can they now answer this one?

Top
#1430492 - 12/08/2017 17:47 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Steve777 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 20/10/2011
Posts: 3430
Loc: Artarmon (Sydney North Shore)
Originally Posted By: Knot
...Many centuries ago in parts of the world there was a consensus held by otherwise very intelligent people that 'deniers' had to be burned at the stake

That was not done because there was a consensus based upon careful observation and analyis that certain beliefs were wrong and dangerous. It was done by people who had an unshakeable conviction that they were absolutely right beyond the possibility of error and didn't need evidence. Or, in some cases, maybe it didn't matter. Certain people were deemed to be a threat to the established order and had to be 'dealt with'. There is no parallel to science.

Quote:
1. Co2 levels increased exponentially(either naturally or human action) but warming either stalled or reversed.

False: Warming since 1998


Quote:
2. Co2 levels fell drastically and after a period of time allowing for lag temperatures increased. Either observation would nullify the hypothesis.

Not quite sure what you mean there. CO2 has risen steadily since the start of the Indistrial Revolution: Greenhouse gases. Over geological time CO2 has risen and fallen owing to natural processes, e.g. volcanoes. These processes are happening now and will continue to do so. Anthropogenic warming will be in addition to these. One way or another it might wash out in a few thousand years, but we need to get through the next hundred first.

Quote:
And I think it is fear of point No.1 in my previous post that drives the doom speak by many who now have a vested interest in the GW gravy train.

Any credible climate scientist, i.e. one who has relevant qualifications, has been involved in climate research and who has published in peer-reviewed journals on the subject, who put up a case that the extra CO2 put into the atmosphere (fact) by the burning of fossil fuels (very strongly supported by isotopic analysis) would not cause any significant changes in the world's climate system would be in line to receive rivers old gold from fossil fuel interests to support their research. They'd be set for life.

EDIT: I know I won't convince anyone, but just needed to say it. Everyone is free to check out the evidence by Googling on the science. Fossil fuel interests accept scientific evidence when looking for coal and oil, they don't rely on contrarian bloggers.


Edited by Steve777 (12/08/2017 17:51)

Top
#1430495 - 12/08/2017 17:50 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Steve777]
Kino Online   content
Weather Freak

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 663
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
Originally Posted By: Steve777
Originally Posted By: Knot
...Many centuries ago in parts of the world there was a consensus held by otherwise very intelligent people that 'deniers' had to be burned at the stake

That was not done because there was a consensus based upon careful observation and analyis that certain beliefs were wrong and dangerous. It was done by people who had an unshakeable conviction that they were absolutely right beyond the possibility of error and didn't need evidence. Or, in some cases, maybe it didn't matter. Certain people were deemed to be a threat to the established order and had to be 'dealt with'. There is no parallel to science.


Oh the irony in this statement....

Can we please not turn this into another AGW -v- Non-AGW thread. Suffice to say everyones had their say. Back to the topic which is the BoM fiddled with the data smile

Top
#1430498 - 12/08/2017 18:06 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Knot Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/05/2014
Posts: 1859
Loc: Blue Bay N.S.W
@Kino
Maybe what happened at Goulburn AP is maybe a small glimpse into how the data gate keepers are going about shoring up the 'faith'. I ask a straight fwd question now. Does the bom use 'smart cards' to filter out what they think may be anomalous high temps?
hmm. Should be a simple answer.
_________________________
The deep blue skies of youth are unlike any other.

Top
#1430499 - 12/08/2017 18:11 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Knot]
Kino Online   content
Weather Freak

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 663
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
Originally Posted By: Knot
@Kino
Maybe what happened at Goulburn AP is maybe a small glimpse into how the data gate keepers are going about shoring up the 'faith'. I ask a straight fwd question now. Does the bom use 'smart cards' to filter out what they think may be anomalous high temps?
hmm. Should be a simple answer.


A quick glance at the BoM website shows clearly not...#heatreigns

Top
#1430501 - 12/08/2017 18:18 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Knot Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/05/2014
Posts: 1859
Loc: Blue Bay N.S.W
I think you read point 1 wrong Steve. I will put it another way. If co2 levels quadrupled in 50 years to what they are now but temperatures decreased ( with no discernable imput from high sulphur volcanic activity, solar min or or orbit changes etc), would this not renders the Co2 hypothesis untenable. Yes or no?
_________________________
The deep blue skies of youth are unlike any other.

Top
#1430502 - 12/08/2017 18:34 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Morham Offline
Cloud Gazer

Registered: 23/01/2017
Posts: 40
Loc: Penrith, NSW
Beliefs aside, what happened at Goulburn station is not a good look.

Do temperature adjustments like that happen at the BoM regularly?

Do they only have one weather station at the site? Would it make more sense to have 3 weather stations so outlier readings can clearly show malfunctions?

Top
#1430504 - 12/08/2017 18:48 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Knot]
Steve777 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 20/10/2011
Posts: 3430
Loc: Artarmon (Sydney North Shore)
Originally Posted By: Knot
I think you read point 1 wrong Steve. I will put it another way. If co2 levels quadrupled in 50 years to what they are now but temperatures decreased ( with no discernable imput from high sulphur volcanic activity, solar min or or orbit changes etc), would this not renders the Co2 hypothesis untenable. Yes or no?


OK I misunderstood your question. Science is testable and falsifiable. If, hypothetically, a quadrupling of CO2 was accompanied by a temperature decrease, that would cast severe doubt upon anthropogenic global warming. There would be something else going on. It's science, not faith.

Another example. If an object were to be detected travelling faster than light, that would at the very least mean that the theory of relativity as currently understood, is wrong. It would be unlikely to be totally wrong, more likely incomplete, as was Newton's theory it replaced.


Edited by Steve777 (12/08/2017 18:51)
Edit Reason: Last para

Top
#1430505 - 12/08/2017 19:03 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Knot Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/05/2014
Posts: 1859
Loc: Blue Bay N.S.W
All good Steve.
_________________________
The deep blue skies of youth are unlike any other.

Top
#1430528 - 13/08/2017 09:40 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Steve777]
sou Offline
Cloud Gazer

Registered: 19/02/2015
Posts: 45
Loc: Katoomba
"Any credible climate scientist, i.e. one who has relevant qualifications, has been involved in climate research and who has published in peer-reviewed journals on the subject, who put up a case that the extra CO2 put into the atmosphere (fact) by the burning of fossil fuels (very strongly supported by isotopic analysis) would not cause any significant changes in the world's climate system would be in line to receive rivers old gold from fossil fuel interests to support their research. They'd be set for life."
Tooooottttalllllly!!

Top
#1430538 - 13/08/2017 12:26 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Knot Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/05/2014
Posts: 1859
Loc: Blue Bay N.S.W
@Sou
I pose the same question I posed Steve. If co2 in Atmosphere quadruple and temps decline, would you accept that the co2 = warming hypothesis is dead? If you would accept that, well and good. If you wouldn't accept it then what would be your reasoning for doing so?
_________________________
The deep blue skies of youth are unlike any other.

Top
#1430627 - 14/08/2017 16:38 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Teddy]
Seira Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7029
Loc: Adelaide Hills.
If CO2 in the lower atmosphere quadrupled in concentration, my understanding is more terrestrial IR heat could be absorbed from the surface. CO2 does not condense naturally (that I know of) in the lower atmosphere; however, water does. Thus, the surface environment would absorb solar radiation (when there is less cloud-cover) and support increasing amounts of the thermal heat. That would drive the saturation vapour pressure up – because it is heat-dependent, and thus the temperature at which given quantity of water-vapour could be retained within the lower atmosphere (troposphere and stratosphere) would increase. This, in turn, would increase the difference between the most and least amount of water-vapour the troposphere could retain, thus generating greater differences (geographically) between temperatures readings (including due to orographic, land-sea breeze and convection effects). Hence, it would not be surprising to see more extreme-end spectrum records being broken. This would be a true reflection of raw data, accounting for human’s being here, whether or not they are contributing to this dynamic or not. However, as homogenisation and consistency of records needs to be maintained for reason of reliability for research purposes, I would think spurious data or outliers need to be considered when adjusting records accordingly.

Top
#1430638 - 14/08/2017 18:21 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Snowies]
Petros Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 30/12/2002
Posts: 6510
Loc: Maffra, Central Gippsland, Vi...
Originally Posted By: Snowies


......I guess history will be the judge in this instance, the scientists vs those who prefer alternative views/theories, refute the scientific evidence for $$ gain or believe its a conspiracy.




The very point of this thread is "scientists" manipulating the said evidence. Ongoing for near decades. Tree rings.......????

Top
#1430646 - 14/08/2017 18:45 Re: Minimum temperatures at Goulburn [Re: Petros]
Seira Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7029
Loc: Adelaide Hills.
Originally Posted By: Petros
Originally Posted By: Snowies


......I guess history will be the judge in this instance, the scientists vs those who prefer alternative views/theories, refute the scientific evidence for $$ gain or believe its a conspiracy.




The very point of this thread is "scientists" manipulating the said evidence. Ongoing for near decades. Tree rings.......????

Well if people can demonstrate the last X years of claimed data manipulation have detrimentally impacted and laid waste to more than 50 years of scientific advancement (going back to the very beginnings of lab experiments), go for it...otherwise.

Top
Page 3 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >


Who's Online
10 registered (EddyG, Mad Elf #1.5, Jimi, ThunderBob, eauetsoleil, Foehn Correspondent, Purnong, Kino, 2 invisible), 257 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
Andrew_C, Bindon, Leasy, Nikko, rainthisway, sutek, Tropicana
Forum Stats
29368 Members
32 Forums
23684 Topics
1462155 Posts

Max Online: 2925 @ 02/02/2011 22:23
Satellite Image