The idea being that you cite your source - which in this case appears to be half decent:
Look odd records are to be expected. Its some measure of long term "averages" that are important. Of course your choice of average matters. We usually think of the "arithmetic mean" as "the average" but as its badly affect by extreme data points..
... and climate change isn't always about record temperatures, As Flanders and Swann sang "work is heat, and heat is work"
So more heat means more volatile weather.... ... and we are seeing more volatile weather. In the Malaga province of Southern Spain nearly three years of drought, followed by two years of near record rainfalls. Reservoirs have gone from being virtually empty to over flowing in under two years...
Dave
That's what google maps gave me. A degree is about 42km at the latitude of S Wales
Perhaps woogle knows something I don;t
The Met Office web site has this:
“What’s important is that numerous datasets from around the world consistently show that our climate is warming and over 90% of scientists agree that it is human activity that is driving this change.”Really?
Obama, who warned of rising sea levels and then retired to a beach-front property at Martha’s Vineyard, said something similar, and that was shown to be rubbish.
So, without cost or fanfare, we have corrected the Earth’s axil tilt (simultaneously ending the precession of the axis), and we have circularised its orbit (simultaneously ending its own precession), thus ending their over-riding effect on climate, at the same time as stabilising the Sun’s output and also controlling the cosmic ray flux. Who knew?
Otherwise, what has ‘human activity’ got to do with anything?
In deed as the primary requirement for being a climate scientist is that you are in fact a failed meteorologist working for left wing climate denying 'green' and 'renewable' companies. Quite who he expects to take any notice of that drivel is beyond me.. Of course your response marks you out as someone who is not interested in the truth, only the political persuasion of the writer,
That is called 'religion' or 'populism'
Not possible
Its religion, not science. Facts are not invited.
The metaphysics of Green is a retelling of the Garden of Eden Myth, except Eve has invented flint knapping , fire and burning coal.
The Original Sin is man acquiring Knowledge, Without which we would all be Equal in the eyes of a Man Eating Tiger.
LOL
Inb fact we have done.
I have looked at the actual location of the site. Others have pointed out that even climate scientists so called regard this as a junk site.
Even the IPCC has now accepted that RCP8.5 is impossible and so are all the scare stories associated with it. * SOME of us have been looking at climate science (so called) critically for over a decade.
One of those scenarios was called RCP 8.5 – and its successor was SSP5
8.5. (The 8.5 refers to the amount of extra heat trapped in the atmosphere by the end of the century, measured – if you really want this detail – in watts per square metre).This was the worst-case scenario, where the world’s population ballooned and fossil fuels continued to be discovered, drilled and burned to the point where global heating hits about 4.5C by the end of the century.
Other scenarios showed what might happen under lower levels of emissions.
For almost a decade, there has been a mostly polite debate among climate scientists about the appropriateness of using RCP 8.5 as it became clear that emissions won’t reach the level outlined in that scenario.
In May, the group of scientists responsible for advising the climate modellers wrote that the 8.5 scenario had “become implausible, based on trends in the costs of renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends.”
The group suggested six new scenarios. Their worst-case imagined “a rollback of current mitigation policies” and global warming reaching about 3.5C by the end of the century – about 1C lower than under RCP 8.5.
Mitchell argued the 8.5 scenario had generated “hysteria” that had made people poorer, and that countries had committed to net zero by 2050 “on the basis of predictions the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] now accepts are way off kilter”.
There is a glaring problem with this claim (aside from attributing the change to the IPCC).
When countries went to Paris in 2015 to negotiate what level of global heating they wanted to avoid, they were not negotiating over the threat of temperatures rising by about 4.5C (but with an uncertainty range taking it over 5C).
They agreed that temperatures should be kept “well below 2C” and should aim for 1.5C.
Dr Andrew King, a climate scientist at the University of Melbourne, was among those behind the recommendation to use new scenarios.
“Climate scientists can’t predict the future so instead we construct scenarios of what could happen depending on what we do next,” he said. “RCP8.5/SSP5-8.5 was always pretty much a worst-case scenario. Even though we haven’t done enough to tackle climate change over the last decade, we have seen enough decarbonisation that we won’t follow that path. “It’s important to note that we also have dropped the most optimistic scenario for the 21st century with substantially higher peak warming in the new lowest emissions scenario than previously.”Some of us do our research. Others spout alarmist left wing dogma.
And you were never in it., Let's face it anyone with the time and inclination and a STEM degree can make sense of climate science. As it is made out to be.
And anyone who does this becomes rapidly aware of starling anomalies, and the attempts to sweep them under the carpet by blackballing anyone who points them out.
'Climate denial' is not a scientific term. It is a populists emotional knee jerk epithet.
No it doesn't,. Another populist myth,m leading to over reporting of any extreme weather, inclduiong weather that isn't extreme.
My central heating cam,e on last might. It was unusually cold for the time of year. There hasn't been a really damaging hurricane since Katrina. And that was 20 years ago.
All so called 'climate change' evidence is well within 3 sigma of the average, and mostly withib 2, and even a,llowing for the hypothesis that the climate is changing is true (enough) attributing it all to human activity is clearly bollocks.
When the Mayans did that and doubled sacrificing virgins to the weather gods, they disappeared as a civilisation
About 14,000 years go a period or unbelievably rapid cooling followed by
1300 years of glacial increase, that ended abruptly with massive warning in less than a hundred years, is still a mystery to 'climate scientists'(During the Pleistocene Epoch, extensive ice sheets and other glaciers formed repeatedly on large landmasses. The Younger Dryas, one of several very abrupt climatic changes that took place near the end of the late Pleistocene, was preceded by a sudden warming interval beginning approximately 14,700 years ago. This interval, the Bølling-Allerød interstadial, saw the rapid retreat of the immense Pleistocene ice sheets. A second abrupt climatic warming event, approximately 11,600 years ago, marked the end of the Younger Dryas and the beginning of the Holocene Epoch (11,700 years ago to the present) and Earth’s modern climate. There is evidence that this warming was quite rapid; Greenland ice-core samples suggest that local temperatures increased by up to 10 °C (18 °F) in just a few decades."
Look ma, no human hands involved.
Whatever the explanation for this massive climate change, it wasn't human beings wot dun it.
The actual 'scientific' evidence is that a devastating climate change from entirely 'natural' causes is far far more likely than one generated by humans., and certainly renewable energy is useless at making a difference to anything except fuel poverty.
Who knows what it says about anything? Your text clearly didn't come from the WMO, probably some right wing blog or something.
Quoting from the WMO itself:
" The numbers should not be taken to mean that higher class stations are of low value, as there may be very good reasons for the site exposure depending on the purpose for which that station was established (specific vs general purpose, mountain stations, agricultural stations, safety reasons, …). However, we acknowledge that the use of numbers can easily lead one to suggest a ranking. This is not the purpose and should be avoided. For some time the measurement experts have taken different requirements for different users, and this may be more pronounced in emergency circumstances when higher (number) classes may still be highly valuable"
You have been had. TW
Yes, really. Unless you have info to the contrary. And noted that you've shifted the topic and presumably conceded your 'junk' thesis.
What was shown to be rubbish?
Climate change (see above, 90% etc.).
I’m only following the twists and turns of the Climate Believers, so blame them for the thread drift.
Obama’s claim about the proportion of scientists (97%) that support an anthropogenic cause of climate change, similar to the 90% claim by the Met Office mentioned above.
Obama said it was 97%, but that didn’t make it right:
" In 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama sent out a tweet claiming 97 per cent of climate experts believe global warming is “real, man-made and dangerous.” As it turns out, the survey he was referring to didn’t ask that question, so he was basically making it up." "The most highly cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers (66 per cent) actually took no position. Of the remaining 34 per cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is unremarkable since the
33 per cent includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position."“The WMO Siting Classification for Surface Observing Stations on Land was formally introduced from 2014, enabling us to make broad comparisons of our weather and climate stations with those around the world. These WMO classifications focus on the exposure of an observed element at a site, with a Class 1 assessment being the highest standard and Class 5 the lowest. These classifications were added to the existing Met Office inspection process, complementing existing assessments around exposure, such as shading and heat sinks/sources, and are now routinely reviewed and updated as part of Met Office site inspection visits.”
Class 5 the lowest standard. LOL.
You might find this of interest:
Which links to this:
Note how few Class 1 weather stations there are.
I'm not sure why I need to tell you this - pick relevant sources, written by qualified authors in peer reviewed publications. That's over 10 years old, for example. A lot has changed since then.
Mind, it could be that you're just trolling. Not sure.
So there is a high standard. Good to know
The grounds on which Obama’s “97% of scientists claim that…” was rubbished does not diminish with the passage of time. It was wrong then, and it’s wrong now.
But now you quote the Met Office claiming 90% of scientists, etc, so in the light of previous fake statements, have you checked the veracity of the Met Office’s claim? Of course you haven’t, you just take it as gospel.
LOL
Again, I know you think you're right, but see it from my point of view - well over 90% of cognate scientists support the notion of anthropogenic climate change:
Lynas et al.:
Lynas, M., Houlton, B.Z. & Perry, S. (2021). "Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature." Environmental Research Letters, 16(11).
Myers et al:
Myers, K.F., Doran, P.T., Cook, J., Kotcher, J.E. & Myers, T.A. (2021). "Consensus revisited: quantifying scientific agreement on climate change and climate expertise among Earth scientists 10 years later." Environmental Research Letters, 16(10), 104030.
This surveyed 2,780 Earth scientists and found that among 153 independently confirmed climate experts, 98.7% agreed the Earth is warming mostly due to human activity — rising to 100% among those who had published 20 or more peer-reviewed papers on climate change between 2015 and 2019.
Who should I believe - you, relying on dated and non-specialist or reviewed mass media, or them?
You say you're a climate scientist yet you're quite coy about your own research and primary data . . .
I've not knowingly quoted the Met Office.
Mmmm . . .
Obama wasn’t a scientist. His claim of 97% of scientists agreement was wrong then and it’s wrong now.
Where did I say that?
You seem to have a distorted view of science and its processes. Nearly 100% of scientists once believed in phlogiston, a theory that sought to explain the phenomenon of combustion.
An unquantifiable number of scientists once believed in Vitalism, the idea that living organisms are differentiated from the non-living by the presence of forces, properties or powers including those which may not be physical or chemical. That was blown apart when Wohler synthesised urea, up until that time known as microcosmic salt, and so brought together the microcosm and the macrocosm, leading to the abandonment of Vitalism and the foundation of Organic Chemistry.
If your case is based on such populism, all that the 99 to 100% of climate scientists now have to do is explain what brought on the Roman Warm Period (it wasn’t human activity), the Late Antique Little Ice Age (it wasn’t human activity), the Medieval Warm Period (it wasn’t human activity), and the Little Ice Age (it wasn’t human activity). Humans had nothing to do with these events.
What happens when an ice age comes to an end?
Things get warmer…Think about it.
But…Science doesn’t consist of ‘truths’ that are ‘discovered’, it consists of descriptions of those things that currently explain the observed facts ‘for now’, and which as knowledge and discoveries expand, lead to the current scientific ‘laws’ being abandoned in favour of new ones. Phlogiston and microcosmic salt are merely two examples of the process. The atomic weight of Chlorine was a raging discussion for many decades, because isotopes hadn’t yet been discovered. And that’s the process; it isn’t a popularity contest, and anyone that says ‘the science is settled’ is either a liar, or is ignorant, or both.
The 97% of scientists ' was always a half truth at best.
If a scientist said 'I suspect that human's play some part in the climate' they were put in the 97%.
And of course, humans do.
*I* would also admit that humans play some part on affecting the climate. Cities certainly do.But that is not the same as believing in 'anthropogenic climate change' as the 'dominant agency in modern climate change' 'through the agency of CO2' or indeed that modern climate change is anything particularly unusual.
THAT conjecture is a political and commercial canard, contrived by politicians and industry for power and money. Defended not by careful science and facts, but by emotion and blackballing.
As some scientist said 'what 97% of scientists believe is not relevant: It is what one scientist says that *fits the facts better*, that counts'
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required