A four step guide to Global Warming

[richaron]

REFERENCES

 

[glenn1]

REFERENCES

While it's good to correctly state the percentage of scientists who agree with something, science still isn't a popularity contest and thus the percentage agreeing with a particular proposition is relevant but barely. If 99.99999999999999999% of scientists agree with a theory for which there's little evidence but represents what's thought to currently be the best fit to explain the observations then that theory will be well-agreed with but not robust.

This is all a sideshow anyway, even if one stipulates to climate change that doesn't by itself oblige everyone to accept any and all proposals to mitigate it. Do you think the 3rd world will agree to remain non-industrialized in order to prevent releasing some more carbon into the air? Do you think people are going to agree to abandon their cars, or all go vegan, or even really agree to pay large scale carbon taxes or whatnot? People will agree with peripheral changes that don't really impact their lifestyles. When/if technology advances so that people actually see "climate change fighting" products as being better alternatives then they'll be adopted without government prompting. Currently there's some key technology pieces missing (like battery storage) or the products aren't fit for purpose for most users (e.g. range too short, etc) and thus you can scream "global warming" all day long until the cow farts turn us into Venus and nobody will change much if at all.

 

[richaron]

science still isn't a popularity contest

And this simple quote shows how much you don't understand science.

Ideas like gravity have yet to be "proven", so there can easily be an argument it's unknown. But how do we know something like the boiling point of water? It's based upon atmospheric pressure, which is in turn based upon gravity. So it's not possible to scientifically calculate the boiling point using 100% understood maths alone. But obviously the boiling point of water is accepted as a very simple scientific fact.

Because popularity contest.

 

[fskimospy]

"Barack Obama was a founding member, chairman, and president of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was also funded by the Annenberg Foundation."

Guess who owns factcheck.org? You must love getting manhandled by me.

Hey, why did the manhandling stop? You were doing so well!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

After New York City floods the people who learned how to swim will be fine; there will be plenty of space in Greenland them to move to after it melts. Plus there will be plenty of oceanfront views to go around in the underlying archipelago of land below the ice sheet.

Of course the majority of oxygen producing organisms die with no chance to evolve.

 

[Vic]

"Barack Obama was a founding member, chairman, and president of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was also funded by the Annenberg Foundation."

Guess who owns factcheck.org? You must love getting manhandled by me.

Yep, and Walter Annenberg, the founder of the Annenberg Foundation, was a lifelong Republican who was appointed to an Ambassadorship by Nixon and was a long time personal friend of the Reagans.

 

[SP33Demon]

It’s a quote from an AP article which is directly linked. The source of the quote has nothing to do with factcheck.org. The person you used as your source for ‘data tampering’ straight out said ‘there was no data tampering’.

I find your continued puffery even while having your stupidity rubbed in your face to be hilarious. If you want to keep ‘manhandling’ me please go ahead. You’re just making yourself look stupider than you already do.

In case you haven’t noticed conservative media long ago realized how stupid you are, that’s why they run these articles. They know you’ll believe anything they tell you.

Except you linked factcheck.org like a chump, who are funded by Barack supporters. Keep chumping, chump. "Consider the source", you believe everything you read, don't you?

 

[Vic]

Yaknow, it used to be said that the conservatives were the logical ones and liberals the emotional ones, but on this issue we can see that is clearly no longer the case.
The liberal side of this argument is supported unemotionally by logic, facts, and the science of relatively simple math and basic chemistry. CO2 has a greater heat capacity that most other atmospheric components thus, all else being equal, more CO2 in the atmosphere equates to higher atmospheric temperatures on average.
The conservative argument OTOH is based emotionally on paranoia and conspiracy theories. Some nebulous cabal of scientists and elites conspiring to enslave and impoverish us, we are told.
It's sad, but should be unsurprising in the Trump era.

 

[fskimospy]

Except you linked factcheck.org like a chump, who are funded by Barack supporters. Keep chumping, chump. "Consider the source", you believe everything you read, don't you?

Yes, I do believe direct, unequivocal quotations from a primary source, haha. Keep going though! Tell me about how it's all a conspiracy to make the source for your link say the exact opposite of what you claimed.

After all it couldn't be that you're just kind of stupid and easy to manipulate. Nahhhhhh. Salesmen in your town must LOVE you.

 

[Paratus]

• BS. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/climate-change-whistleblower-alleges-noaa-manipula/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rs-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

Wrong. Sensor data gets manipulated all the time. Any scientist or engineer who doesn’t isn’t doing their job.

Your background in leg squats and convincing people to invest in gold doesn’t provide the experience required to draw the correct conclusion about what NOAA was doing.

I personally have manipulated and calibrated the output of hundreds of sensors, and massaged thousands of pieces of data to keep my crews safe.

Sensors drift. Measurements have quantifiable individual and systemic errors that manipulations can remove. As long as the process was documented, which they were, there was nothing underhanded going on.

Otherwise you believe in a world wide conspiracy of 100-1000’s of climate and climate related scientists lying to the public for decades. If that’s your position, I believe Gwyenth Paltrow can sell you a jade vagina egg that will keep the evil liberal lizard people out of your head better than tin foil.

This is what they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, data tampering also doesn't help their case.

This has been proven so well it is a theory, (well beyond a reasonable doubt), and no longer a hypothesis.

Natural climate forcing are roughly neutral to slightly cooling over the last 50 years. All gains have been mapped to man made forcings.

While your finance background doesn’t help you above it might help you here if you can handle the idea of a budget.

This is an energy budget.

It’s just like a financial budget.

• If money in = money out then there is no change in the acccount
• If W/m^2 in (which is heat energy) = W/m^2 Out there is no change in Earths overall temperature
• If money in > money out then the account gains money
• If energy in > energy out the earth gains heat (gets hotter)
• If money in < money out the account loses money
• If energy in < energy out the earth cools

Each of those arrows follows the energy (money) from one transformation (account) like reflected or absorbed or emitted to another.

It shows that the Earth is retaining 0.9W/m^2 on average of the 341W/m^2 it receives from the sun. (0.25% of the money that comes in stays in Earths account).

We have been measuring the energy coming from the sun and leaving the Earth via satellites, telescopes and solar panels over the last several decades by scientists from many nations. (Money coming into and leaving the accounts)

We have been measuring the energy absorbed, reflected and emitted by the ground, oceans and skies for decades by scientists from around the world. (Money moving in between individual accounts)

The budget allows us to focus on areas where energy is accumulating.

The only phenomena that can account for this energy accumulation is increasing greenhouse gasses.

As has already been mentioned in this thread we know the greenhouse gasses causing the problems are due to fossil fuels. Old Carbon has no radioactive C14 in it while new / natural carbon has C14.

So instead of blindly swallowing whatever right wing media you’ve been consuming maybe extend a small fraction of the effort you put into your squats and learn about this topic.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Always fun to keep up with new literature.
https://judithcurry.com/2018/06/23/sea-level-rise-isostatic-adjustment/#more-24194

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yaknow, it used to be said that the conservatives were the logical ones and liberals the emotional ones, but on this issue we can see that is clearly no longer the case.
The liberal side of this argument is supported unemotionally by logic, facts, and the science of relatively simple math and basic chemistry.
The conservative argument OTOH is based emotionally on paranoia and conspiracy theories. Some nebulous cabal of scientists and elites conspiring to enslave and impoverish us, we are told.
It's sad, but should be unsurprising in the Trump era.

I've been reviewing the literature on CC especially the ecological ramifications and it's much worse than losing a billion people and flooding. Maybe 30 years time to reverse?

The o2 goes down a few percent we suffer. A third? Likely extinction of higher life.

 

[Paratus]

Always fun to keep up with new literature.
https://judithcurry.com/2018/06/23/sea-level-rise-isostatic-adjustment/#more-24194

Lol. So what do you think this means?

 

[hal2kilo]

Yes, I do believe direct, unequivocal quotations from a primary source, haha. Keep going though! Tell me about how it's all a conspiracy to make the source for your link say the exact opposite of what you claimed.

After all it couldn't be that you're just kind of stupid and easy to manipulate. Nahhhhhh. Salesmen in your town must LOVE you.

On no. He's already told us how smart he is.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Always fun to keep up with new literature.
https://judithcurry.com/2018/06/23/sea-level-rise-isostatic-adjustment/#more-24194

That's very sciencey

 

[hal2kilo]

Wrong. Sensor data gets manipulated all the time. Any scientist or engineer who doesn’t isn’t doing their job.

Your background in leg squats and convincing people to invest in gold doesn’t provide the experience required to draw the correct conclusion about what NOAA was doing.

I personally have manipulated and calibrated the output of hundreds of sensors, and massaged thousands of pieces of data to keep my crews safe.

Sensors drift. Measurements have quantifiable individual and systemic errors that manipulations can remove. As long as the process was documented, which they were, there was nothing underhanded going on.

Otherwise you believe in a world wide conspiracy of 100-1000’s of climate and climate related scientists lying to the public for decades. If that’s your position, I believe Gwyenth Paltrow can sell you a jade vagina egg that will keep the evil liberal lizard people out of your head better than tin foil.



This has been proven so well it is a theory, (well beyond a reasonable doubt), and no longer a hypothesis.

Natural climate forcing are roughly neutral to slightly cooling over the last 50 years. All gains have been mapped to man made forcings.

While your finance background doesn’t help you above it might help you here if you can handle the idea of a budget.

This is an energy budget.

It’s just like a financial budget.

• If money in = money out then there is no change in the acccount
• If W/m^2 in (which is heat energy) = W/m^2 Out there is no change in Earths overall temperature
• If money in > money out then the account gains money
• If energy in > energy out the earth gains heat (gets hotter)
• If money in < money out the account loses money
• If energy in < energy out the earth cools

Each of those arrows follows the energy (money) from one transformation (account) like reflected or absorbed or emitted to another.

It shows that the Earth is retaining 0.9W/m^2 on average of the 341W/m^2 it receives from the sun. (0.25% of the money that comes in stays in Earths account).

We have been measuring the energy coming from the sun and leaving the Earth via satellites, telescopes and solar panels over the last several decades by scientists from many nations. (Money coming into and leaving the accounts)

We have been measuring the energy absorbed, reflected and emitted by the ground, oceans and skies for decades by scientists from around the world. (Money moving in between individual accounts)

The budget allows us to focus on areas where energy is accumulating.

The only phenomena that can account for this energy accumulation is increasing greenhouse gasses.

As has already been mentioned in this thread we know the greenhouse gasses causing the problems are due to fossil fuels. Old Carbon has no radioactive C14 in it while new / natural carbon has C14.

So instead of blindly swallowing whatever right wing media you’ve been consuming maybe extend a small fraction of the effort you put into your squats and learn about this topic.

Why waste your time teaching him about calibration coeficients.
All analog data we record has a calibration preamble and a calibration post amble.

 

[glenn1]

And this simple quote shows how much you don't understand science.

Ideas like gravity have yet to be "proven", so there can easily be an argument it's unknown. But how do we know something like the boiling point of water? It's based upon atmospheric pressure, which is in turn based upon gravity. So it's not possible to scientifically calculate the boiling point using 100% understood maths alone. But obviously the boiling point of water is accepted as a very simple scientific fact.

Because popularity contest.

You obviously didn't read the words which immediately followed that. Scientific "consensus" exists on any number of theories from the extremely robustly supported (such as gravity) to those where evidence is much less robust (e.g. Hawking Radiation, Gravity Waves, etc). Any scientific theory is falsifiable including gravity although the robust evidence for it makes that much harder. Climate change would be something where the theory is supported by most scientists, the theory seems to fit observations, and it models well, but the timescales involved make it hard to test (or falsify) conclusively. It's also basically impossible to conduct a double-blind test to make the theory more robust as we don't have a spare Earth lying around.

Plus as I said in the post you quoted, this is all somewhat moot anyway as technology isn't where it needs to be to go off fossil fuels and emerging world nations aren't going to not buy cars or industrialize because they are afraid of climate change. Mostly symbolic things like shaming people for SUVs is mere virtue signalling and won't do shit.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Lol. So what do you think this means?

That he thinks 11 years old is new?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

That's very sciencey

Check out more information on one of the nations most respected climate scientists sites who's testified to Congress on 4 or 5 occasions and been called by both Democrats and Republicans to testify of the subject.
Or not, it just depends if you want to actually be informed or just want to be fed the pablum of conformity.

https://judithcurry.com/

 

[Vic]

I've been reviewing the literature on CC especially the ecological ramifications and it's much worse than losing a billion people and flooding. Maybe 30 years time to reverse?

The o2 goes down a few percent we suffer. A third? Likely extinction of higher life.

..

 

[imported_tajmahal]

https://judithcurry.com/2018/06/05/top-15-climate-scientists-consensus-and-skeptics/#more-24132

"
This is rather astonishing, kudos to Best Schools for putting this together.


Best Schools has put together another very interesting list: Top 15 Climate Change Scientists – Consensus and Skeptics. Recall their previous list that included the top 50 women in STEM

Here is the rationale for what they have done............................
Here is the list:

10 Consensus scientists ( alphabetical):

• Wallace Broecker
• James Hansen
• Phil Jones
• Syukuro Manabe
• Michael Mann
• John Mitchell
• V. Ramanathan
• William Ruddiman
• Susan Solomon
• Tom Wigley

5 skeptical scientists:

• Lennaert Bengtsson
• John Christy
• Judith Curry
• Richard Lindzen
• Nir Shaviv"

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Check out more information on one of the nations most respected climate scientists sites who's testified to Congress on 4 or 5 occasions and been called by both Democrats and Republicans to testify of the subject.
Or not, it just depends if you want to actually be informed or just want to be fed the pablum of conformity.

https://judithcurry.com/

I've seen her testimony.

 

[Jaskalas]

Do you think the 3rd world will agree to remain non-industrialized in order to prevent releasing some more carbon into the air?

I think we get to revolutionize what it means to be an industrial nation. Where we mass deploy carbon neutral technology and industry, then export that technology to the third world. Even if it's not all neutral, reductions will help if/when we eventually get around to deploying carbon sinks.

 

[richaron]

You obviously didn't read the words which immediately followed that. Scientific "consensus" exists on any number of theories from the extremely robustly supported (such as gravity) to those where evidence is much less robust (e.g. Hawking Radiation, Gravity Waves, etc). Any scientific theory is falsifiable including gravity although the robust evidence for it makes that much harder. Climate change would be something where the theory is supported by most scientists, the theory seems to fit observations, and it models well, but the timescales involved make it hard to test (or falsify) conclusively. It's also basically impossible to conduct a double-blind test to make the theory more robust as we don't have a spare Earth lying around.

Plus as I said in the post you quoted, this is all somewhat moot anyway as technology isn't where it needs to be to go off fossil fuels and emerging world nations aren't going to not buy cars or industrialize because they are afraid of climate change. Mostly symbolic things like shaming people for SUVs is mere virtue signalling and won't do shit.

OK cool, I'm happy to agree that best theory which fits is scientifically accepted... That's kinda my thing as someone who subscribes to the scientific method.

Though I don't agree it's moot in any circumstances. And as smart as it might sound I really don't think anything you said adds to the discussion. I saw something about the timescales and something about "SUV"'s in "emerging world nations". Plus the concept of shaming those people.

Not really relevant.

 

[Thebobo]

Always fun to keep up with new literature.
https://judithcurry.com/2018/06/23/sea-level-rise-isostatic-adjustment/#more-24194

Can you explain any of that?