Trump withdrawal from the Paris agreement.

[The Scotsman]

Is it just me, or is it just that Dog refuses to read the sources I provide thus he remains ignorant of the reality that satellite data has closely mimicked that of ground data?

But, what would be your answers to the points raised in the article you posted? As you say Dog has some issues with them as do many others as posted in the article. The CRUTEM date, for example, has come under scrutiny in the past as indeed has the East Anglia University data sets. Are they all now freely avaliable and reliably reviewed - I recall the final report seems to think not? I recall there were also "anomalies" and data issues with the NOAA sets as well and the email traffic between UAE and NOAA reps etal seemed to point to some concerns as well?

I guess maybe Dog has some issues because there were some issues raised amongst the many the HadCRUT4 dataset, UHI problems or the blending issues with air and SST data modelling for example, do you think these have been ironed out now?
I would be interested to hear your views on the issues raised in the article posted... https://skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm

 

[The Scotsman]

The role of CO2 is debated but no reliable scientists has said t has no effect on global warming.

That's because all scientists including Judith Curry agree it has an effect on temperature the issue is how much and also what other "things" have an effect on temperture, what effect, how and why. What "things" counter-balance the energy management of the planet - how much and why etc. etc.
The planet operates on an energy budget - energy in and energy out. The bit inbetween the "in" and "out" and the interactions of the myriad components involved in the "in and "out" are the questions researchers and scientists are trying to understand at the moment. There is no single answer, there is no single cause and there is no single internet link that will explain it all.

 

[dogtowner]

Dogtowner continues to make statements as facts when they are in dispute by scientist. He seems to be following Dr Judit Curry who views have been condemned by most scientists. HE deny the problem exist, deny we're the cause and deny we can solve it.. He is a lukewarmer relying on models presented by he Skeptics He rejects the evidence supporting the worst case or even the most likely case. The role of CO2 is debated but no reliable scientists has said t has no effect on global warming. They have both increased. How much one cause the other is debatable but not that they are related.

Nope. Nobody questions satellite data, they ignore it as it refutes the models of the land based readings that are constantly manipulated. And amazingly enough they mirror with other predictable and measurable data where the land based reliably fails to do so.

 

[Aus22]

Nope. Nobody questions satellite data, they ignore it as it refutes the models of the land based readings that are constantly manipulated. And amazingly enough they mirror with other predictable and measurable data where the land based reliably fails to do so.

It seems pointless continuing this. Dogtowner seems convinced that a few data that he calls satellite data is the only correct data. Land based data and even underwater data shows a persistent rise in temperatures. While there may be some minor errors this data is supported by most scientists. As Skeptical science has said
"
"|It should be noted that in the past discrepancy between surface and satellite tends were much larger. Correcting various errors in the processing of the satellite data has brought them in closer agreement with the surface data."

 

[Aus22]

That's because all scientists including Judith Curry agree it has an effect on temperature the issue is how much and also what other "things" have an effect on temperture, what effect, how and why. What "things" counter-balance the energy management of the planet - how much and why etc. etc.
The planet operates on an energy budget - energy in and energy out. The bit inbetween the "in" and "out" and the interactions of the myriad components involved in the "in and "out" are the questions researchers and scientists are trying to understand at the moment. There is no single answer, there is no single cause and there is no single internet link that will explain it all.

While you are correct in saying there is no single cause of global warming CO2 is one cause. It is also one we can do something about. So why should we not do something to reduce that caused by coal production. At least in Australia both parties are moving in this direction to discriminate against coal

 

[dogtowner]

It seems pointless continuing this. Dogtowner seems convinced that a few data that he calls satellite data is the only correct data. Land based data and even underwater data shows a persistent rise in temperatures. While there may be some minor errors this data is supported by most scientists. As Skeptical science has said
"
"|It should be noted that in the past discrepancy between surface and satellite tends were much larger. Correcting various errors in the processing of the satellite data has brought them in closer agreement with the surface data."

No, more changes in the surface data by scientists lije Michael Mann have brought them closer.

 

[dogtowner]

While you are correct in saying there is no single cause of global warming CO2 is one cause. It is also one we can do something about. So why should we not do something to reduce that caused by coal production. At least in Australia both parties are moving in this direction to discriminate against coal

Because there is no proof that it does.

 

[The Scotsman]

It is also one we can do something about.

Sadly yes there is...turn off your electricity, stop travelling, eat your meat on the day you kill it, drink water and forage for herbs..coz no medicines..... what are you giving up?

 

[Openmind]

Because there is no proof that it does.

And there is no proof that it doesn't!

 

[Aus22]

And there is no proof that it doesn't!

Openmind , You are correct. There is no proof that coal dose not contribute to global warming. In fact most scientists think it doss
"The increase in temperatures since 1975 is a consistent feature of reconstructions and is a major feature found in reconstructions from natural temperature proxy measurements. the increase cannot be explained as an artefact of the adjustment process , the decrease in station numbers or other non-climatological factors : (Skeptical Science)
It is not necessary to prove anything just provide evidence it is likely.
" In any case we have a huge amount of information about temperatures in the recent and most more distant geological past. This also informs our understanding and provides evidence in support of the expected surface warming response to enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations. For example there is a good correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and the Earth's temperature in proxy C02 and proxy temperatures data stretching back right through the Phanerozoic"
(Skeptical Science)
"The deniers have moved from saying the climate is warming or that humans are responsible to deny it's a problem/ These are luckwarmers claim the climate is relatively insensitive to the increasing greenhouse effect and hence climate change will proceed slowly enough to not be a serious problem in the near future. This is akin to rolling the dice and betting against the vast body of evidence suggesting that the climate is really sensitive to the increasing greenhouse effect."
I afraid Trump and dogtowner have join this group.

 

[dogtowner]

Openmind , You are correct. There is no proof that coal dose not contribute to global warming. In fact most scientists think it doss
"The increase in temperatures since 1975 is a consistent feature of reconstructions and is a major feature found in reconstructions from natural temperature proxy measurements. the increase cannot be explained as an artefact of the adjustment process , the decrease in station numbers or other non-climatological factors : (Skeptical Science)
It is not necessary to prove anything just provide evidence it is likely.
" In any case we have a huge amount of information about temperatures in the recent and most more distant geological past. This also informs our understanding and provides evidence in support of the expected surface warming response to enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations. For example there is a good correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and the Earth's temperature in proxy C02 and proxy temperatures data stretching back right through the Phanerozoic"
(Skeptical Science)
"The deniers have moved from saying the climate is warming or that humans are responsible to deny it's a problem/ These are luckwarmers claim the climate is relatively insensitive to the increasing greenhouse effect and hence climate change will proceed slowly enough to not be a serious problem in the near future. This is akin to rolling the dice and betting against the vast body of evidence suggesting that the climate is really sensitive to the increasing greenhouse effect."
I afraid Trump and dogtowner have join this group.

Yet there is no scientific proof that CO2 produces greenhouse effect.

 

[Openmind]

Yet there is no scientific proof that CO2 produces greenhouse effect.

So. . .when in doubt, follow the majority of scientists and take the least potentially harmful measures.

What is certain, is that, reducing the use of fossil fuel will NOT create any damage. . .on the contrary, it will move us to the future!

 

[dogtowner]

So. . .when in doubt, follow the majority of scientists and take the least potentially harmful measures.

What is certain, is that, reducing the use of fossil fuel will NOT create any damage. . .on the contrary, it will move us to the future!

It's not in doubt. Nor are wind and solar a future. There is a future but r&d canot be forced to only look in one direction if we are to find it.

 

[Openmind]

It's not in doubt. Nor are wind and solar a future. There is a future but r&d canot be forced to only look in one direction if we are to find it.

I agree. . .it is not in doubt! Fossil fuel is ruining our future.
And, being stuck with it is certainly NOT looking in the right direction!

 

[The Scotsman]

What is certain, is that, reducing the use of fossil fuel will NOT create any damage. . .on the contrary, it will move us to the future!

I have to confess to being really frustrated with all the money and effort being squandered on solar and windmills and politicians squabbling over "the green alternatives", I just wonder of all the trillions so far spent on politics and climate science and the politics of climate science, if just 10% of that money and effort had been spent to projects like JET and the Culham Facility in the UK for example just how much further along they would be in their research?

Fusion offers a secure, long-term source of supply, with important advantages. These include: no production of greenhouse gases from the fusion process; no long-lived radioactive waste (all waste will be recyclable within 100 years); inherent safety features; and almost unlimited fuel supplies. On current estimates, the cost of fusion-generated electricity is predicted to be broadly comparable to that obtained from fission, renewables and fossil fuels.

Fusion, therefore, could have a key role to play in the energy market of the future, with the potential to produce at least 20% of the world's electricity by 2100.

http://www.ccfe.ac.uk/Why_fusion.aspx

It seems that UK is due to commission the worlds first commercial fussion reactor by 2025-30 so finger crossed.