Why I stopped debating Climate Science with Science denialists...

Nooooo problems lols! You DO realise don’t you that many many of our smaller rural communities are serviced by an “airport” that consists of a graded bit of dirt and markings for where to park cars at night so the car lights can shine on the runway. Lols! Bloody hell half the time the RFDS uses the roads!
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/stations/
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/lists_by_element/alphaAUS_3.txt

So all over the place lols!

 

Thank you for confirming my stance - here is hoping that those claiming that there cannot be any trempersture rise will read your post

 

Btw this is the post I was answering

Don’t know about you but to me, given Malarky’s posting history “significantly” I took to mean there was virtually no change, hence my reaction given that we have already seen change

 

But none away from civilization. Are you now claiming that Australia is a "rest of the world"?

 

A list of airfields does not mean they report the temperature on a regular basis. Bush pilot don't have much use for temperature data. Take off and land temperatures are only required for large high performance aircraft. I owned a couple of aircraft and flew out of numerous small airfields including grass and dirt strips. Most were completely unmanned.

 

You obviously haven't seen much of my posting history. My specialty is government regulation. I'll gladly leave the fine technical details of the climate change fraud to the many fine technical experts in that that are here.

Since regulation requires a high degree of linguistic precision, I was very deliberate in qualifying my opinion with "significantly". Basically, while some degree of climate change may in fact be happening, it isn't significant enough to justify the knee jerk totalitarianism of destroying fossil fuels or internal combustion engines.

And, as of yet, you haven't made any kind of case otherwise.

 

Of course not! But I think I have adequately proven that not all temperature gauges are located on or rather at airports and a few minutes googling came up with some fascinating debunking of your theory

https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3071/the-raw-truth-on-global-temperature-records/

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=20

 

Oh! So you are not a physicist?

 

My point exactly! And yet these sites do have weather stations. The BOM has a huge number spread out across the continent regardless of wether or not there is an airfield

 

Obsolete.

 

Never claimed to be. I'm an automotive engineer.

 

I doubt that they all have weather stations. There is no need for a weather station. And having temperature measuring equipment still does not mean they are representative. The temperature must be measured in an open grassy area well away from any kind of structure or pavement. In addition, the temperature measuring device must be checked and calibrated periodically.

 

Once again, what is known as "The Big Lie".

Damned near nobody denies things are getting warmer. And most of us that you scream are "deniers" laugh at them as much as we do the brain dead who preach the AGW religion.

 

Therefore, you have no right to say anything against it.

Oh, they will accept anybody who believes in the religion. Even the guy who won a Steve Martin Look-Alike Contest and left his engineering job with his BA in Mechanical Engineering to be a stand-up comic. His word matters, because he believes.

But anybody else? Unless you are a climate scientist your opinion is meaningless. And if you are one and refuse to drink the kool-aid, then obviously you are being paid by the Fossil Fuel Industry and must be ignored.

 

The global warming myth is a joke. This thread proves it.

 

Yeah, in their rush to save us from ourselves they never bother to consult the people who actually build their comfortable little existence.

As a consequence they rush headlong into the destruction of humanity.

 

His loony ravings have been debunked many times. Each time, he ignores the debunkings and then repeats the same crazy talk. That's why nobody bothers with him any more. He's like the guy on the corner with a sandwich board.

But since it's so easy, I'll debunk him and you again.

He's essentially arguing that a blanket can't make a person warmer, because the blanket doesn't generate additional energy.

Do you agree with him that a blanket can't make a person warmer?

And yes, the analogy is very good and very valid, since in both cases, it talks about how temperature will change, given a constant energy source and a change in "insulation".

 

I see you fail at physics in multiple ways.

I'm sure you can go deeper into why those terms you throw out -- terms which you clearly don't understand -- prove that climate isn't changing.

Again, this is guaranteed to be hilarious.

No, you don't. That's very obvious.

 

It really is true. If you just repeat your claims often enough, they'll magically become true. Evidence is irrelevant, only the sheer force of your mighty will matters.

Back in reality, despite the intensity of your religious fervor, rural stations still show the same warming and urban stations, annihilating the "It's the UHI" theory.

But yes, like I said, you can change that. If you wish hard enough for your fantasies to become reality, it will happen, so keep wishing.

 

I didn't ask for an evasion. I asked for you to, in your own words, summarize and explain Curry's most recent theory, and show what evidence supports it.

You presented the paper IN THIS THREAD, so discuss it IN THIS THREAD. Unless you can't.

As happens so often, I'll have to explain your own cites to you.

Shaviv uses ... a model. With 11 factors.

"With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk." -- von Neuman.

He's speaking of the overfitting problem, relying on too many input parameters.Tweak what you want your parameters to represent, and you can get any result you want. That's what Shaviv does, though probably without realizing it. Here's the much more exhaustive explanation of the error.

https://skepticalscience.com/from-email-bag-ziskin-shaviv.html

 

This is called "Engineers' Arrogance Syndrome". They learn a little science, and then believe it makes them experts in everything.

Other disciplines can display it, but engineers tend to be the worst.

 

0.0.04% of the atmosphere is a mighty thin blanket to keep anything warm.

Are you sure about that?

 

So you don't understand them. What does that have to do with me?

 

It's not a paper, it's a book. And it's not Curry's, it's by Javier Vinos: Climate Puzzle: The Sun’s Surprising Role.
The book grew out of a series of posts, the first of which is posted below, and sets forth the "Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis."
In one sentence: Evidence suggests that the solar effect on climate works through changes in atmospheric circulation.

The Sun-Climate Effect: The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (I). The search for a solar signal
Posted on July 31, 2022 by curryja | 253 comments
by Javier Vinós and Andy May “Probably no subfield of meteorology has had as much effort devoted to it as the effects of solar variability on weather and climate. And none has had as little to show for the research … Continue reading

 

Lols!

and you previously claimed to have a qualification in physics?