# Climate Change, the Surge...Watch

Announcements
Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#61
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Take the original data as you provided. Remove data from the years 1991, 1998, 2016 and 2017. Fit the remaining data to a linear model with an intercept and slope parameter (this can very easily be done in R). Check the summary statistics to see if the slope parameter is significant, which it is.

You could also compare this model with a null model (which has an intercept but no slope parameter) using an ANOVA table/F-test and see if the different in RSS is significant, which it is.
You will need to adjust for ENSO better than that. Take a look at the ENSO INDEX
0
Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#62
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Stop demonising CO2! Didn't you know that CO2 is the foundation of all life on Earth?

It's exactly like water; fundemental for all life on Earth. So just shut up and let me flood your house.
Oh come on, dont be silly. At 400 parts per million we are no where near the 10%+ needed for CO2 to be toxic. We are discussing taking it to say 1000 ppm, the level commonly used in agriculture to get good crop yields, and perfectly safe enough for workers.
0
3 weeks ago
#63
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
You will need to adjust for ENSO better than that. Take a look at the ENSO INDEX
You asked me to remove certain periods and I did. Stop shifting the goalpost.

(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
Oh come on, dont be silly. At 400 parts per million we are no where near the 10%+ needed for CO2 to be toxic. We are discussing taking it to say 1000 ppm, the level commonly used in agriculture to get good crop yields, and perfectly safe enough for workers.
You missed the point/joke.
0
Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#64
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Take the original data as you provided. Remove data from the years 1991, 1998, 2016 and 2017. Fit the remaining data to a linear model with an intercept and slope parameter (this can very easily be done in R). Check the summary statistics to see if the slope parameter is significant, which it is.

You could also compare this model with a null model (which has an intercept but no slope parameter) using an ANOVA table/F-test and see if the different in RSS is significant, which it is.
OK, so using the ENSO index as a guide, pick two ENSO neutral years, 1995 and 2014/15 for example, and then look at the data UAH v6 data shows no increase

Now you cant have no warming like this for 20 years and still insist there is a significant rise in temperature, just because from 2014 to today it looks like this: 2014 to today

And all the while CO2 has been steadily increasing.... There is something else going on isnt there.
0
3 weeks ago
#65
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
OK, so using the ENSO index as a guide, pick two ENSO neutral years, 1995 and 2014/15 for example, and then look at the data UAH v6 data shows no increase

Now you cant have no warming like this for 20 years and still insist there is a significant rise in temperature, just because from 2014 to today it looks like this: 2014 to today

And all the while CO2 has been steadily increasing.... There is something else going on isnt there.
The article you linked earlier gave an explanation as to why we saw little warming between the 1990s to the early/mid-2010s. It even concluded that we would expect to see an increase in warming thereafter, which it also says we have done.
0
Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#66
(Original post by SHallowvale)
The article you linked earlier gave an explanation as to why we saw little warming between the 1990s to the early/mid-2010s. It even concluded that we would expect to see an increase in warming thereafter, which it also says we have done.
Yeah, it has been suggested China's aerosol production has caused the pause, cant see why that would have stopped, but the fact is that even though it has started getting warmer since 2015, the 20 year pause is still there.

Of course if aerosols, which affect albedo, or cosmic rays and sun spots, which affect albedo, are more powerful than CO2, then is CO2 an issue we need to address? Because the glaring fact is, for 20 years CO2 increased at a steady rate and temperature didnt.
0
3 weeks ago
#67
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
Yeah, it has been suggested China's aerosol production has caused the pause, cant see why that would have stopped, but the fact is that even though it has started getting warmer since 2015, the 20 year pause is still there.

Of course if aerosols, which affect albedo, or cosmic rays and sun spots, which affect albedo, are more powerful than CO2, then is CO2 an issue we need to address? Because the glaring fact is, for 20 years CO2 increased at a steady rate and temperature didnt.
Nope. The article you gave did not attribute the pause in warming to China's aerosol production. It reads:

"The most likely explanation for the lack of significant warming at the Earth’s surface in the past decade or so is that natural climate cycles—a series of La Niña events and a negative phase of the lesser-known Pacific Decadal Oscillation—caused shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean. Even so, recent years have been some of the warmest on record, and scientists expect temperatures will swing back up soon."

This is the article you gave me.
0
3 weeks ago
#68
Ive seen convincing presentations from both sides. If find it interesting that you never seem to see the same people debating one another on the same platform.
0
3 weeks ago
#69
(Original post by Just my opinion)
Ive seen convincing presentations from both sides. If find it interesting that you never seem to see the same people debating one another on the same platform.
But that's the thing. It's not even a debate. The science on it is settled. The only debate is what to do about it.
0
3 weeks ago
#70
Then surely the believers should debate the non believers on the same platform show them up as wrong and put it to bed once and for all.
It's because both sides get to put up points unchallenged that for many, whether you like it or not, some see it as in dispute.
0
Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#71
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Nope. The article you gave did not attribute the pause in warming to China's aerosol production. It reads:

"The most likely explanation for the lack of significant warming at the Earth’s surface in the past decade or so is that natural climate cycles—a series of La Niña events and a negative phase of the lesser-known Pacific Decadal Oscillation—caused shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean. Even so, recent years have been some of the warmest on record, and scientists expect temperatures will swing back up soon."

This is the article you gave me.
Yes, I know I gave it to you, it was to demonstrate there was a pause in warming from 1995 to 2014/15 (China often gets the blame by the way).

Yes, it is surprising how important these ocean osculations are, Here for example is the Atlantic heat content. Perhaps most of the land surface warming since 1969 was due to heat coming out of the oceans, which clearly reversed between 1995 and 2014/15. Perhaps CO2 doesnt play that much of a role.
0
Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#72
(Original post by Just my opinion)
Then surely the believers should debate the non believers on the same platform show them up as wrong and put it to bed once and for all.
It's because both sides get to put up points unchallenged that for many, whether you like it or not, some see it as in dispute.
The believers refuse to debate, because they know they will lose, as all the facts and science are on the side of the sceptics.
0
Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#73
(Original post by username4977980)
But that's the thing. It's not even a debate. The science on it is settled. The only debate is what to do about it.
No, it isnt settled: Climate sensitivity. There is a very wide spread of responses, all of which are quite possible. THe lower the response, the more beneficial CO2 is, the higher the response, the more the risk of adverse weather changes.
0
3 weeks ago
#74
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
The believers refuse to debate, because they know they will lose, as all the facts and science are on the side of the sceptics.
Is this genuinely the case? I haven't researched it
0
Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#75
(Original post by Just my opinion)
Is this genuinely the case? I haven't researched it
There is a classic video of Gavin Schmidt, of GISS, took over from Hansen, who actually walks off set when suddenly Spencer walks on set to debate with him Gavin runs away

Another debate, where alarmist scientists didnt turn up Heartland debate
Last edited by MonkeyChunks; 3 weeks ago
0
3 weeks ago
#76
So....AJ126y
Jake tsr
Shallowvale
and anyone else on the believer side.
Can you post video of a debate on the same stage between believers and deniers?
(Hate these terms but what can you do)
Are the deniers posting here right that believers won't debate?

So what do I make of no reply?
I assume it means deniers are correct that believers won't openly debate?
Last edited by Just my opinion; 3 weeks ago
0
3 weeks ago
#77
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
Yes, I know I gave it to you, it was to demonstrate there was a pause in warming from 1995 to 2014/15 (China often gets the blame by the way).

Yes, it is surprising how important these ocean osculations are, Here for example is the Atlantic heat content. Perhaps most of the land surface warming since 1969 was due to heat coming out of the oceans, which clearly reversed between 1995 and 2014/15. Perhaps CO2 doesnt play that much of a role.
It's already known that CO2 is not the only thing that can have an influence on the temperature of the Earth, I'm not sure why you feel that this is surprising? This has been known for some time.

The increase in land surface temperature since 1969 was not reversed between 1995 and 2014/15.
0
3 weeks ago
#78
(Original post by Just my opinion)
Is this genuinely the case? I haven't researched it
Not really, no. This thread is an excellent example.
0
Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#79
(Original post by SHallowvale)
It's already known that CO2 is not the only thing that can have an influence on the temperature of the Earth, I'm not sure why you feel that this is surprising? This has been known for some time.

The increase in land surface temperature since 1969 was not reversed between 1995 and 2014/15.
I meant heat coming out of the oceans was reversed. Yes, there are many factors driving the climate, that is very much my point, and while we can no attribute with any real understanding, a score to each one, we should not be making policy decisions. We just arent ready yet.
0
Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#80
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Not really, no. This thread is an excellent example.
Among us perhaps, but among scientists, as I showed in my two videos above, the alarmists are very unwilling to debate.

Here is a 'debate' between two scientists, one a sceptic, and the other more of a believer, but their differences are very slight, in fact it makes for very good viewing if you have the time: Lindzen and Dowlatabadi discuss climate change (Hadi Dowlatabadi was a recent lead author for the IPCC)
0
X

new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

### Oops, nobody has postedin the last few hours.

Why not re-start the conversation?

see more

### See more of what you like onThe Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

### Poll

Join the discussion

#### Did you vote in the 2019 general election?

Yes (354)
46.09%
No (82)
10.68%
I'm not old enough (332)
43.23%