Global warming up

I guess.

Maybe they just leave it up to the believers in the public to spread the news, and they themselves keep quiet...why is that?

Why do none of them come forward and announce in a loud voice; "HEY! everyone - our models are probably not that accurate!"

 

The point is heat records are being broken all over the world at rates never seen before, every year, with no "since 19xx" reference. The world is heating up.

 

That you really need to do some statistics courses.

 

What are the statistics involved in a statement where they quote a date for one temp, and then another date for a temp?

 

I am sure if we borrowed into the world of academia and peer review, every second 'review' is trying to find flaws in someone's else climate models. To me thats how science works and in its own scientific way, I am sure the world of peer review on climate models is brutal.

While brutal, I also understand the science is incredibly, repeat incredibly difficult for the layperson to understand..and not only difficult but about as fun as reading an old phone book. The media can only seize on the more outlandish statements to get anyone to read about the models.

Why have none of the come forward? I dont know if Jose in the lab at University of Santiago feels the need to contact the SMH every time she questions the multivarate data set of the 2014 modelling algorithms of temperature gains in northern lapland from Bjorn at Stockholm Uni.

 

The world has been heating up since the little ice age, and it is hotter now than it's been for 1200 years or so. So You'd expect records to be tumbling? What amazes me though is the amount of old ones still standing? For example,

Hottest ever temp and hottest in North America, Death Valley, 1913.
Hottest ever temp Australia, Oodnadatta, 1960.
Hottest ever temp South America, Villa de Maria, 1920.
Hottest ever temp, Athens Greece, 1977.

Amazingly, the hottest temp ever in Ireland was 1887.

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


I'm no statistician, but I'm guessing there is no proof whatsoever yet if one goes on heat records? But you'd think there should be as the world is getting hotter?

See ya's.

 

It's in interpreting the significance of that, and the frequency of anomalous events, that you'd clearly benefit from some courses. You keep citing anecdotes as though they are data, when they're not.

 

Except that (i) it's being compared with data taken from the same places for 25 years, (ii) is then compared with similar data collected since 1961, and (iii) is using data from 413 independent scientists across the world.

So it's not a 'very small window of time'. Nor is it the only source measuring long term trends. It's just one of thousands of similar reports being released by experts in the field and finding the same essential conclusion - that the world is warming.

Yes. When the overwhelming majority of experts in this field think that there's increasing warming occurring, and that warming is highly likely to have negative consequences, we should be extremely concerned.

Australia will only ever reduce a small fraction of emissions compared to larger nations. This is because we're significantly smaller than most other countries. That's not the point - the point is that we work in tandem with as many other nations as possible so that collectively we reduce emissions enough to mitigate the worst potential effects of climate change.

And an ETS is widely considered by economists and businesses to be the most economically efficient way of reducing emissions. If we're going to attempt to reduce pollution, we may as well do it as cheaply as possible.

 

I'm no statistician either, but you've surely heard of the concept of statistical outliers?

Let's go back to the market - if Woolworths has a bumper year while most other shares drop substantially in value, does that mean the market didn't drop that year? No, it means that Woolworth was an anomaly that doesn't reflect the wider trend.

There's a difference between climate and weather, as explained by Skeptical Science. Put simply, an unusually cold morning in Melbourne doesn't disprove climate change because it's only one measure, in one location, at one point in time.

 

Where on earth did you get your information?

Ummmm - where have I ever advocated that farmers return to broadacre ploughing?

And if you do some research you might find that Australia is reaching a saline crisis on a lot of farmland areas ... and it's getting worse

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/salinity/basics/salineareas.htm

And how the heck is "brown manuring" - where you grow a crop and then kill it with highly toxic herbicides so that it is no longer a living organism - supposed to beneficial to soil health?

file:///C:/Users/elizabeth/Downloads/FINAL%20low%20res%20GRDC%20Fact%20Sheet%20Manuring%20Pulse%20Crops%20pdf.pdf

And how does "green manure" involved the burning of fossil fuels - asides from digging it into the soil as a living manure which involves a tractor (same machinery one would use to poison the soils with brown manure)?

Doing some research on brown versus green manure ... some advocates of "green" recommend disc ploughing the green crop in which is, imo, the wrong method. A farmer should be deep ripping to break up compaction and any hard pans, sow the green crop and then dig in the green crop via rotary hoe.

Green manure dug in certainly doesn't "make" weeds grow - certainly doesn't kill worms (I've got hundreds of thousands, if not millions, more worms in my green manure improved paddock than any other paddock on the farm) - digging in aerates and soil and most certainly improves my water infiltration and soil moisture holding capacity ... and because the green manure is dug in only a few weeks before a crop is planted there is almost always certainly a "cover" over the soil - green manure also improves the humus layer and binds it together preventing wind erosion whilst adding moisture rich fibre (and nutrients) to the soil directly.

I also agree that mulching (slashing only the tops of the plants) is also wonderful for paddock improvement ... we do that as well in our non-crop paddocks.

p.s. the word is "techniques"

 

Yeah but...but... when I was a kid from 1954 - 1968, I can accurately recall local ambient air temperature and sea level data and compare this data with variations recorded for the last decade...combine this with data from the internet that the hottest temperature ever recorded in Greece was in 1977 and snow in Queensland in 2015, I can deduce with 99% certainty that AGW is statistically invalid.

 

If I've learnt anything from property and investment forums, it's to never, ever trust in my own non-expert opinions. Sure, I'll make my own investment decisions, but I'm basing it on expert advice.

 

It's possibly the cheapest way...to do what?

Save the world from a possible increase of 1/4000th of a degree...as the best estimate.

It brings us back to the point of; why bother?

All it will do is drive more comm investment and jobs out of Aus.

I looked at this chart;

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...ly-difference-can-we-make-20110903-1jrom.html

We are responsible for 1.5% of emissions, apparently.

Our contribution to saving a temp increase by 2020 is estimated as above at 1,4000th of a degree. This represents Aus contributing 1.5% of the possible temp increase saving if we all do the same thing.

If we add the other 98.5% together and assume they save the temp from increasing collectively at the same rate, we have a possible saving from an increase in the world's temps of approx.....0.0394 of a degree by 2020.

Is that three tenths of a degree?

Can someone double-check the figure because I'm terrible at maths.

 

Just so you know; my wife is an anesthetic theatre nurse with a degree in her field.

I can probably say with all confidence that your analogy here is probably not a good one....

 

Did you miss the paragraph I wrote that specifically answered your question?

 

So I take it you checked my maths?

 

Why would I check your maths? It's irrelevant to my point, which is that all countries must work together to effectively respond to climate change. As an individual country our overall emissions are small (though not the per capita emissions, which is what we should actually be emphasising), but responding collectively is the only realistic way to address this problem.

So as an anesthetic theatre nurse she can provide an expert critique of the specific brain surgery techniques recommended by the College of Surgeons and taught in mainstream medical schools? No, I'm very confident she can't. She's not an expert in brain surgery - she's a theatre nurse.

But if you want another analogy, here's one. I used to be a theatre orderly. If I, a person with no qualifications in nursing, wandered into the theatre and started telling your wife how to do her job, what should the response from the medical team be?

 

No, never heard of it before? So these are just "statistical outliers". OK.

There are some clever people on here isn't there? It's all pretty clear to me now. Thanks.
So increasing hotter temperatures and records getting broken are proof of anthropogenic climate change. Gotcha. But some records are just "statistical outliers"? I suppose you don't include the statistical outliers? Just the non statistical outliers?

See ya's.


.[/QUOTE]

 

Thank god they can all pull together to possibly - possibly - save a temp rise of 3/10 of a degree. That was the best estimate of a temp increase if we did nothing.

I was talking about the anesthetics, actually. They are "at the coalface" with those brain surgeons every operation.

FYI, I worked in an ICU (right next door to my wife's area) for 3 years as a nurse assistant. I worked with those ICU nurses who worked at the coalface with the ICU registrars and conultants/surgeons etc.

As you would probably know; many of those senior nurses knew/know virtually as much as the doctors.

 

Here's another article about how outliers should be interpreted:

Yes, and I would expect an anesthetics nurse (and anesthesiologist) to have expert knowledge on anasthetics. Just as I'm very happy for an economist to point out that a particular way of addressing climate change is efficient economically .

I have no objection when an economist says "switching entirely to solar power will destroy our economy, don't even try doing that". What I do object to is an economist who says "I've worked out that addressing climate change costs money, so I'm just going to ignore climate scientists and pretend this issue is not real".

That economist wouldn't know, just as some deluded environmental activist who rants on about moving to 100% renewables wouldn't know how much such a move would impact the Australian economy.