New Mars Forums

GW Johnson

Member

From: McGregor, Texas USA

Registered: 2011-12-04

Posts: 5,806

Website

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

To answer Terraformer's question post 200 above: 

Hurricanes are almost as destructive as tornadoes from a peak wind pressure standpoint:  ~157 lb-force per square foot at 150 mph (241 kph),  or ~7.5 KN/m^2.  There's probably more damage potential for solar panels than residential structures at wind pressures like that,  because they are more lightly built.  Further,  the exposure is hours long with hurricanes versus seconds long with tornadoes.  So,  I really,  really doubt a distributed solar power network is going to be even as survivable as a wires-on-poles grid. 

On the Gulf coast,  most municipalities require the Southern Building Code,  which is entirely inadequate for any tropical storm exposures,  requiring that buildings survive only a 3 second gust at only 90 mph wind speed,  as it does.  That's a 144 kph gust.  The wind pressure associated with it is only 56 lb/sq.ft (2.7 KN/m^2).  That's the failure point for "typical" code-built buildings,  and a lot of residences aren't built that good.  Solar panels (and windchargers) are built weaker still.

One of the problems with aid money is that it's easier given to some governmental or semi-governmental entity like a central power provider than it is to individual homeowners.  That's just the bureaucratic nonsense we fail to deal effectively with at election times,  but it's life.  Deal with it. 

Repairing Puerto Rico's wire-on-poles grid so that the power plant(s) can be restarted is probably the only practical thing to be done.  It's been several weeks,  yet the poles and wires are not back up.  Not even with the Army Corps of Engineers there.  And we have some sort of scandal about a crony-capitalism deal putting an undersized grid rebuilder on the island at US taxpayer expense.  Unconscionable!

To answer Spacenut's surprise in post 202 above: 

As near as I can tell pursuing this on multiple real-media news sites,  this is a climate status report required by current law,  and put together by (from what I read) 13 different agencies (although those 13 agencies were not actually listed in any of the reports I saw).  It predates the Trump presidency,  and his emplacing climate deniers as a couple of agency heads is not going to stop the publication of a report that has been published periodically for some years now.  I am surprised he hasn't already tweeted about it,  though. Maybe he is grinding his teeth more about Mueller's probe.  We can always hope.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-11-04 10:34:26)

---

GW Johnson
McGregor,  Texas

"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew,  especially one dead from a bad management decision"

SpaceNut

Administrator

From: New Hampshire

Registered: 2004-07-22

Posts: 29,433

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

The ultimate in climate change as Earth could become 'ball of fire' within 600 years

Ouch, hot foot, hot feet, Stephen Hawking .....

SpaceNut

Administrator

From: New Hampshire

Registered: 2004-07-22

Posts: 29,433

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

The most polluted air are still burning coal... New Delhi's polluted air doesn't deter half marathon runners

This could be the way that we will look if we keep going....

SpaceNut

Administrator

From: New Hampshire

Registered: 2004-07-22

Posts: 29,433

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

The data can lie but the pictures can not as the satelites have been taking images of mother earth as its gone through its changes during 20 years of taking them.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2017/11 … e-orig.cnn

Watch Earth 'breathe' in this awesome time-lapse video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeHhtABEcJk

The changing colors of our Living Planet NASA satellites can see our living Earth breathe. In the Northern Hemisphere, ecosystems wake up in the spring, taking in carbon dioxide and exhaling oxygen as they sprout leaves - and a fleet of Earth-observing satellites tracks the spread of the newly green vegetation.

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/video/details.php?id=1163

SpaceNut

Administrator

From: New Hampshire

Registered: 2004-07-22

Posts: 29,433

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

Global warming said hello to Texas Thursday night and Friday morning......

The Crazy Texas Snowfall Last Night Quite Mind-Boggling: Facts!, After Harvey and a hot summer, Thursday's snowfall was a welcome sight. Here's how it stacks up against all December snows in history.

It's snow joke: South Texans post flurry of pics after rare snowstorm

But then again so will the rest of the path as it heads north as it appears to be following Texans.

‘I’ve never seen snow in my life!’: Texas woman experiences first snowfall in Richmond

But then again its been warm here so we are about due for a dusting tomorrow.

Northeast bracing for first major snow storm of the season

SpaceNut

Administrator

From: New Hampshire

Registered: 2004-07-22

Posts: 29,433

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

Global warming boosted Hurricane Harvey's rainfall by at least 15 percent, studies find The storm left 80 people dead and 800,000 in need of assistance.

https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/p … rspective/

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen … 08051.html

I remember discusion of putting more water into the air with Void and the drawback of that is apparent with the deluge of rain that we can not control when or where it will come back down..

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 … arch-shows

kbd512

Administrator

Registered: 2015-01-02

Posts: 7,862

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

Studies "find" whatever they're paid to "find".  Science is no longer about impartial assessment of data because the politics of money from political partisan donors who demand a specific result is involved.  Anyone who falsely believes they know with any high degree of certainty what Harvey would or would not do under different atmospheric conditions needs to stop smoking dope.

CalvinSteen

InActive

From: Tampa, Florida

Registered: 2017-12-06

Posts: 18

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

I remember discusion of putting more water into the air with Void and the drawback of that is apparent with the deluge of rain that we can not control when or where it will come back down..

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 … arch-shows

Well, nature wasn't meant to be controlled by humans, either that or there would be "side effects."

SpaceNut

Administrator

From: New Hampshire

Registered: 2004-07-22

Posts: 29,433

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

The deep freeze from 3  or 4 weeks ago was a joke to Trump with his global warming was needed but to find out that Even without El Niño, Earth's temperatures continue to rise

The global average temperature in 2017 was 58.51 degrees (14.7 degrees Celsius), which is 1.51 degrees (0.84 Celsius) above the 20th century average and just behind 2016 and 2015, NOAA said.

kbd512

Administrator

Registered: 2015-01-02

Posts: 7,862

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

If global warming was anything other than the greatest fraud of the century, you couldn't get a mortgage for a home anywhere near the coast in any country in the world.  The loans would be defaulted on by the borrowers and there'd be no possibility for the bank to resell a piece of "ocean front property" that's literally under water.

If there was even the slightest possibility that global warming is anything other than a fraud "to big to fail", propped up by pseudo-science from unscrupulous or ignorant people, then banks would quit handing out loans for properties near large bodies of water.  Your level of education doesn't have any bearing on your ability to recognize when you don't factually "know" something.  Data can mislead and a dearth of data can easily mislead and generate false assumptions about future events.  People who predict climate changes know about as much about what actually will happen a decade or ten from now as a fortune teller.  That said, there'd be no point in handing out 30 year home loans for submerged property.  At the very least, there'd be something written into mortgage contracts about global warming / global cooling / climate change or something along those lines.  Nothing of the sort is found in those bank loans.  There's your "proof" that ignorant people can quit hitting the panic button so hard over this non-issue.

We had ice ages when the level of CO2 in the atmosphere was greater than it was today, according to ice core samples, for whatever this data is actually worth.  My estimation is that it's a data point.  It's good to know, but that's as far as it goes.  Therefore, CO2 in the atmosphere, in the concentrations we're talking about, does not have a hard direct correlation with temperature increases when other factors must also be in play.  Water vapor has a much greater effect on temperature than CO2, for example.  Something else must also be going on at the same time that causes global average temperature changes, most likely a mix of factors.  Lab experiments are not suitable analogs for global scale weather phenomena, either.

SpaceNut

Administrator

From: New Hampshire

Registered: 2004-07-22

Posts: 29,433

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

Water front owners do not care about the banks or insurance companies...
Multimillion-dollar Malibu home teetering after mudslide

or how about this one

Water from global warming does not just cause the oceans to rise....

kbd512

Administrator

Registered: 2015-01-02

Posts: 7,862

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

SpaceNut,

Not everyone who lives on the beach is a millionaire, although I personally know at least one multi-millionaire, a CEO, who has purchased beach front personal and corporate property along the coastline near Houston using bank loans.  People who live on the beach can and do get loans from banks.  Corporations also get loans from banks for ocean front property.  If the bank thought for a second that they couldn't repossess and sell the property if or when, in cases of predatory lending, the borrower defaulted on the loan, then they'd quit lending unless they were being forced to lend by law.  Will we actually argue that the banks care about anything other than their money?  I don't think that point is even up for debate.  If you feel differently, then feel free to share.

I'm trying to understand how someone who is educated can believe something that is so logically flawed.  The climate models don't even agree with observed temperature recordings.  Perhaps this belief is purely based upon emotion about something that someone is trying to terrorize you with for their own financial gain.  The data doesn't agree with the hypothesis.  If the CO2 levels were more or less constant until we started using fossil fuels, then what other explanation is there for the global temperature changes?  I posit that the measurements are wrong or the conclusion that current and projected CO2 levels have created a forcing function that causes warming or cooling is wrong.

I think we have a lot of profit driven pseudo-science producing results that they're paid to produce because the scientists and the people providing the money will financially benefit from producing specific results.  I think reasonable and educated people would be scared of such a catastrophe, if it were actually true.  Fortunately, there's nothing I've ever seen amounting to proof of any of this.  If CO2 levels were the prime mover behind global temperature changes, then there's no explanation for past temperature changes when use of fossil fuels was negligible.

I put people who believe in anthropogenic global warming in the same category as people who believe the Earth is flat.  Both suppositions are so absurd that only "science deniers" would believe either form of utter nonsense.  This flawed "global warming" or "anthropogenic global warming" nonsense is now called "climate change" because the planet isn't warming to any significant degree according to the temperature records.  If the planet does warm, then it must be "climate change".  If it the planet cools, then that's also "climate change".  Since the global temperatures have largely remained unchanged, well within temperature measurement margin of error, is that "climate sameness"?  Is "anthropogenic global sameness" a major issue that intelligent people should get upset about?  Seriously, I'm worried about you "temperature data deniers" and "requirement for correlation deniers".

EdwardHeisler

Member

Registered: 2017-09-20

Posts: 357

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

SpaceNut,

I put people who believe in anthropogenic global warming in the same category as people who believe the Earth is flat.  Both suppositions are so absurd that only "science deniers" would believe either form of utter nonsense.  This flawed "global warming" or "anthropogenic global warming" nonsense is now called "climate change" because the planet isn't warming to any significant degree according to the temperature records.

The Science Jury Is In. Global warming is real and human activity is driving it.   There is nothing left to seriously debate on this matter.   One might as well debate those who believe the Earth is flat.

Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)

American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)

American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)

American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)

American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)

American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)

The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)

U.S. Global Change Research Program
"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009)

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”

“Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”

List of worldwide scientific organizations
The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.

Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society 
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences 
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina 
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences 
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research 
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia 
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters   
Society of Biology (UK)   
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America 
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole Research Center
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

kbd512

Administrator

Registered: 2015-01-02

Posts: 7,862

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

EdwardHeisler,

Science is not consensus-based, meaning it's not democratic, quite unlike a jury of your peers or a government by, of, and for the people.  Science is not "correct" based upon the number of people who vote for "X" versus "Y".  It doesn't matter how many letters, numbers, or acronyms you have behind your name, nor how many people agree with you.  If you state something that's demonstrably false, then you're wrong, and it doesn't matter how many other people falsely believe the same thing.  Any appeal to authority, rather than an appeal to the evidence- which does not support your demonstrably false assertion, is prima facie that those who support such a position have no evidence-based argument to make.  Any "science" that produces results that do not agree with the evidence is called "religion".  Religious people will believe whatever they wish, irrespective of any evidence to the contrary.

When billions of dollars are paid to scientifically "discover" a specific result, then that is the result that the "science" (pseudo-science, obviously) will "discover".  Corporations involved in the manufacture of leaded gasoline paid a lot of money to scientifically "prove" that leaded gasoline was not causing health issues in humans and other living organisms.  We have known centuries before gasoline ever existed that heavy metals like lead are toxic to humans and other living things.  IF science was consensus-based, then gasoline manufacturers could simply pay enough unscrupulous scientists to state that leaded gasoline is not harmful to humans.

Thankfully, actual science is not now, never has been, and never will be consensus-based.  If 97% of scientists say that "Brand X" leaded gasoline is "safer" than "Brand Y" leaded gasoline, then they're all still wrong about the health effects from using leaded gasoline and we can safely discount everything they have to say about "Brand X" vs "Brand Y" leaded gasoline having no deleterious effects on human health.  This is what climate hoaxers like you are doing.

But let's not take my word for it, let's look at what NOAA says about global average temperature and global temperature uncertainty.

From NOAA's own website (an organization that you listed that "believes" in "climate change", absent evidence obviously, since neither you nor they have much of that):

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/global-precision.php

Evaluating the temperature of the entire planet has an inherent level of uncertainty. Because of this, NCEI provides values that describe the range of this uncertainty, or simply "range", of each month's, season's or year's global temperature anomaly. These values are provided as plus/minus values. For example, a month's temperature anomaly may be reported as "0.54°C above the 20th Century average, plus or minus 0.08°C." This may be written in shorthand as "+0.54°C +/- 0.08°C." Scientists, statisticians and mathematicians have several terms for this concept, such as "precision", "margin of error" or "confidence interval".

Yet elsewhere on their website, they state the following:

Climate Change: Global Temperature

Temperatures measured on land and at sea for more than a century show that Earth's globally averaged surface temperature is rising. Since 1970, global surface temperature rose at an average rate of about 0.17°C (around 0.3° Fahrenheit) per decade—more than twice as fast as the 0.07°C per decade increase observed for the entire period of recorded observations (1880-2015). The average global temperature for 2016 was 0.94°C (1.69°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), surpassing the previous record warmth of 2015 by 0.04°C (0.07°F).

Change over time
Though warming has not been uniform across the planet, the upward trend in the globally averaged temperature shows that more areas are warming than cooling. Since 1880, surface temperature has risen at an average pace of 0.13°F (0.07°C) every 10 years for a net warming of 1.69°F (0.94°C) through 2016. Over this 137-year period, average temperature over land areas has warmed faster than ocean temperatures: 0.18°F (0.10°C) per decade compared to 0.11°F (0.06°C) per decade.  The last year with a temperature cooler than the twentieth-century average was 1976.

According to the official 2016 global report from NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information,

[2016]  marks the fifth time in the 21st century a new record high annual temperature has been set (along with 2005, 2010, 2014, and 2015) and also marks the 40th consecutive year (since 1977) that the annual temperature has been above the 20th century average. To date, all 16 years of the 21st century rank among the seventeen warmest on record (1998 is currently the eighth warmest.) The five warmest years have all occurred since 2010.

By 2020, models project that global surface temperature will be more than 0.5°C (0.9°F) warmer than the 1986-2005 average, regardless of which carbon dioxide emissions pathway the world follows. This similarity in temperatures regardless of total emissions is a short-term phenomenon: it reflects the tremendous inertia of Earth's vast oceans. The high heat capacity of water means that ocean temperature doesn't react instantly to the increased heat being trapped by greenhouse gases. By 2030, however, the heating imbalance caused by greenhouse gases begins to overcome the oceans' thermal inertia, and projected temperature pathways begin to diverge, with unchecked carbon dioxide emissions likely leading to several additional degrees of warming by the end of the century.

About surface temperature
The concept of an average temperature for the entire globe may seem odd. After all, at this very moment, the highest and lowest temperatures on Earth are likely more than 100°F (55°C) apart. Temperatures vary from night to day and between seasonal extremes in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. This means that some parts of Earth are quite cold while other parts are downright hot. To speak of the "average" temperature, then, may seem like nonsense. However, the concept of a global average temperature is convenient for detecting and tracking changes in Earth's energy budget—how much sunlight Earth absorbs minus how much it radiates to space as heat—over time.

To calculate a global average temperature, scientists begin with temperature measurements taken at locations around the globe. Because their goal is to track changes in temperature, measurements are converted from absolute temperature readings to temperature anomalies—the difference between the observed temperature and the long-term average temperature for each location and date. Multiple independent research groups across the world perform their own analysis of the surface temperature data, and they all show a similar upward trend.

Across inaccessible areas that have few measurements, scientists use surrounding temperatures and other information to estimate the missing values. Each value is then used to calculate a global temperature average. This process provides a consistent, reliable method for monitoring changes in Earth's surface temperature over time. Read more about how the global surface temperature record is built in our Climate Data Primer.

References
NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, State of the Climate: Global Analysis for Annual 2016, published online January 2017, retrieved on September 11, 2017 from https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201613.

IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers.  In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the 5th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

R. J. H. Dunn, D. F. Hurst, N. Gobron, and K. M. Willett, Eds., 2017: Global Climate [in “State of the Climate in 2016”]. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 98 (8), S5–S62, doi:10.1175/2017BAMSStateoftheClimate.1.

If the temperature warmed .5C in the past decade, but the margin of error is .08C for every observation made, and any of the temperature observations were skewed upwards or downwards, my contention is that we still know nothing.

Who had a thermometer accurate enough to record the temperature to within .08C in 1900 and how many people were using that specific type of thermometer to record the temperature?

How many accurate observations were made?

Where were the observations made?

If 70% of the world is covered by oceans, then how many temperature observations were made in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, for example?

Here's an interesting read:

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: History of GISTEMP

It says all prior analysis attempts basically ignored an entire hemisphere of the planet for lack of data.  Hmm...  A "climate change" is defined as a temperature change over a 30 year period, we recorded little temperature data for half of the planet until the 1980's, but we're worried about an upward trend, and we've only had accurate satellites and temperature recording devices for the past few decades.  Our most accurate temperature records seem to have a margin of error of nearly a tenth of a degree.  I know!  It must be "global warming".  If it is "global warming", then I'll get more grant money for my research from the tax payers.  If it's not, then I get nothing and I can't scare adult children into thinking that the world is coming to an end so my pals in the solar panel industry won't be able to sell them on ideas like a "solar powered planet".

Since the "Zambia Academy of Sciences was founded in 2005 and the "Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences" was founded in 2004, meaning neither organization existed back when we started trying to scare ignorant children with these "climate studies", I haven't checked their data.  Maybe someone there has all the answers, but I sincerely doubt it.  Even so, I'll do my due diligence and read what they wrote.

If I discover that all these organizations are re-hashing existing studies, then I'm also going to start attacking your methodology for determining what "consensus" means.  Regurgitation is not consensus.  If I write a paper that says the "AA" battery has a voltage of 1.5v and someone else references my paper and makes the same claim, without adding new evidence of their own to support the claim, then they're merely regurgitating what I wrote.

EdwardHeisler

Member

Registered: 2017-09-20

Posts: 357

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

Global warming?   Humbug!

I agree with peasant Trump and his loyal Trumpeters that global warming is a gigantic international hoax concocted by Chinese foreneers!

Last year John Davis,  Secretary of the Flat Earth, Society publicly announced:   “Universities have a history of granting honorary degrees to men of great significance.   Therefore I’m suggesting that this Society  make Donald J. Trump a lifetime honorary member of the Zetetic Council of the Flat Earth Society.

In response a member of the Flat Earth Society commented on their discussion board:   “I totally agree.   I think that Trump has the qualities needed to be a flattie.”   Another Flat Earth member chimed in:   “Perhaps someone should propose a flat Earth curriculum be taught at Trump University.”

A well deserved and hard earned reward by our Twitter-in-Chief.

kbd512

Administrator

Registered: 2015-01-02

Posts: 7,862

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

EdwardHeisler,

I think you have the qualities needed to be a liberal regressive.  You ignore math, observation, experimental error, and even real science, except when it suits your agenda.  It's an evil and/or ignorant agenda meant to deny energy resources to people who need those resources to survive and live productive lives, so I take no issue with pointing out the absurdities of what you state.  In the absence of real incontrovertible evidence, which requires no appeal to authority or consensus or petty insults, you choose to substitute your own beliefs about things you can't possibly "know" because we have a dearth of accurate observations to support any hypothesis pertaining to "climate change".

Let's go through the entire liberal regressive playbook:

1. Make a claim that the data doesn't support and assert that it is fact.  Use studies replete with incomplete data, inaccurate data, speculation based on computer models that have never been accurate for prediction of future trends, or simple outright fraud.
2. When that fails, appeal to authority.  Johnny B. Good says the climate is warming, therefore it must be warming because we trust Johnny.  If Johnny was paid on condition that he produce a specific result, then the rest of us should just ignore that because, hey, it's Johnny.
3. When the appeal to authority fails, start insulting people like a schoolyard bully.

Sadly, that's the entire liberal regressive playbook right there.  It's why they lost the last election.  Most of them don't have enough intellectual honesty to admit it, so it must be the Russians.  It's more of that "foreneer" nonsense that regressives, such as yourself, like to spout off.  That's the extent of the sophistication of the arguments from people falsely claiming or insinuating to be our betters.

Try harder.  Maybe someone out there is gullible enough to believe you.

EdwardHeisler

Member

Registered: 2017-09-20

Posts: 357

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

Sorry.   But I just can't go along with the anti-science President and conspiracy minded Trumpeters.  I don't believe that over 200 scientific organizations and thousands of scientists are engaged in a world-wide conspiracy to deceive us in order advance the economic interests of solar, wind and electric power capitalists such as Elon Musk.

I may as well believe in flat earth advocates.

Last edited by EdwardHeisler (2018-01-21 22:39:55)

kbd512

Administrator

Registered: 2015-01-02

Posts: 7,862

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

EdwardHeisler,

Another appeal to authority mixed with insults?

Frankly, I don't think you'd recognize real science if you saw it.  If there is experimental error, uncertainty, or missing data, then you state as much and ask for more money to get a definitive result.  If we were only interested in discovering what's going on, then that's exactly what our climate scientists would do and governments / corporations / universities would fund their work for that purpose.  Unfortunately, reporting "nothing much to report for lack of data or precision of observation" doesn't typically garner research grants.

Are the millions of petrochemical engineers and thousands of petrochemical corporations around the world engaged in a world-wide conspiracy to make the planet unlivable for humans or are they merely trying to produce energy for people who need energy using technology we actually have?

The petrochemical industry is obviously trying to make money and they're selling chemical energy products to do it.  If that's not a conspiracy, then the people who get our tax dollars for climate research are not engaged in any sort of conspiracy, either.  As long as they produce a specific result that provides more funding, they'll keep doing what they're doing.  I presume climate scientists want to eat and live indoors and do what they've studied to do, so they're going to keep producing results that keep paying the bills.

The Earth has been around for billions of years.  We've had accurate temperature records for less then a century.  Climate changes are defined as phenomena that occur over several decades or more.  What could we possibly conclude with so little accurately observed data and computer models that haven't accurately predicted much of anything?

Irrespective of which one of us is right or wrong, there's a cost associated with any action we take.  Do you have any actual solutions that don't involve mass murder by denying energy resources to people who need energy or spending ourselves into oblivion on speculative technologies?  If not, then it doesn't matter much because most of us won't go along with actions that are tantamount to mass murder or financial suicide.

If Elon Musk owned an oil company, he'd be trying to sell oil.  He owns a solar panel and electric car company.  We could speculate about what he's trying to sell, but it's probably electric cars and solar panels.  I wish him all the best, so long as we're not consuming fossil fuels at record rates to pursue this solar powered utopia that doesn't exist, has never existed, and probably never will exist on a time scale that positively affects the outcome of the great climate hoax.

Incidentally, decades ago the US actually did try to lower consumption of fossil fuels using nuclear power.  Then the environmentalists started using pseudo logic about the safety, or lack thereof, as it pertains to using nuclear power.  I quit listening to what they have to say because their arguments aren't reality-based and haven't been for quite some time.  All electricity generation in the world could have been supplied by nuclear power at this point, but we have too many ignorant and fearful people who know nothing about what real solutions to energy problems look like.  We're not going to make an energy omelet without cracking a few nuclear eggs.  We're for damn sure not going to build a separate branch of human civilization on Mars using current solar panel and battery technology.

Anyway, my crystal ball must be broken because it's never accurately predicted the future.  You claim your crystal ball works better, but I've never seen one that works at all, so I'll believe it when I see it.

SpaceNut

Administrator

From: New Hampshire

Registered: 2004-07-22

Posts: 29,433

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

38 Powerful Photos of the World Feeling the Impact of Climate Change

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/category/96/all

EdwardHeisler

Member

Registered: 2017-09-20

Posts: 357

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

EdwardHeisler,

the great climate hoax.

So you agree with the Trump that this is nothing more than a "great climate hoax."    Do you also agree with Trump that China is behind the "hoax" and that their objective is to put West Virginia coal miners out of work?

All I can say is ..... YIKES!

Last edited by EdwardHeisler (2018-01-21 22:43:50)

kbd512

Administrator

Registered: 2015-01-02

Posts: 7,862

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

EdwardHeisler,

So you agree that you have no evidence and no solutions, even if "climate change" was an actual problem.  If you had solutions, you could've presented them.  You chose not to.  Apparently you have lots of insults and appeals to authority.  All I can say is... REGRESSIVE!

EdwardHeisler

Member

Registered: 2017-09-20

Posts: 357

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

Sorry kbd512.   You and Donald Trump simply don't have the standing and scientific credentials as the 200 plus scientific organizations that have proven global warming is real and that humans have played a major role in causing it.

Discussion over.

Last edited by EdwardHeisler (2018-01-22 08:48:19)

SpaceNut

Administrator

From: New Hampshire

Registered: 2004-07-22

Posts: 29,433

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

Void and I did talk about the moisture seeding of the atmosphere to which that is another of the components of global warming, and so are many others. Its not just CO2 but that one is the only one that is man made at this point in greater quantities than in previous centuries.

Terraformer

Member

From: The Fortunate Isles

Registered: 2007-08-27

Posts: 3,907

Website

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

Whether or not anthropogenic climate change is real, global dimming seems to be. It's worrying that temperatures are lower than they should be - a 1 degree rise has the same effects whether it's natural or man-made.

---

Use what is abundant and build to last

kbd512

Administrator

Registered: 2015-01-02

Posts: 7,862

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

Sorry EdwardHeisler.  Neither you nor 200 plus scientific organizations that have forfeited their personal integrity for more research funding can predict what will happen to Earth's climate several decades into the future.  That would be why climate research comes with so many disclaimers, why the observed data doesn't agree with any of the computer climate prediction models used, and why you and your fellow "true believers" can't convince people who can use basic math and deductive reasoning that there's any validity to your claims.

You didn't come here for a discussion.  You came here to receive validation from an echo chamber.  You didn't get the response you wanted, so you made claims that the organizations you listed have never proven because they're all based on computer simulations using climate models that don't agree with observed data.  That went nowhere fast after I quoted one of the organizations making such claims, so you made appeals to authority as if authority has any bearing on whether or not a claim is valid.  After that also failed, you started insulting people.  That's never proof of anything, apart from the fact that you're a petty and regressive person who can't think for himself.