Climate Change News 4

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting review of Maduro:

These authors have done an excellent job of compiling well hidden facts, that if were published in media before 1990 would have nipped the environmental hoax of ozone depletion in the bud. There are literally dozens of natural sources for chlorine, such as vaporizing sea water and bacterial action that create atmospheric ozone. In addition, volcanoes belch thousands of tons of ostensibly ozone depleting chlorine atoms in to the atmosphere every year. One of these, Mt Erebus, is in the Antarctic. Exactly where they took chlorine measurements in the 80s and early 90s. In addition to this freon molecules are 50 times heavier than air. The Enviro-Socialists would have us believe that these heavy freon molecules somehow floated high into the troposphere and began munching on tasty ozone molecules. Problem is: No lab has ever been able to duplicate this remarkable ozone eating processed hypothesized by pseudo-scientists Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina. These two yahoos even made history by being the only two recipients of the Nobel prize ever to be protested by the scientific community. Gee, I wonder why?
The Montreal Protocol outlawing freon ensured monopoly of refrigerant production by the major chemical companies of the world, British Chemical Co. of England and DuPont (under Bronfmans) in America. It’s very easy to see that the only thing green about the environmental movement is M-O-N-E-Y. And lots of it.

ALSO: vast quantities of naturally occurring organs-halogens … denied by the mainstream:


© 2010

Naturally Occurring Organohalogen Compounds - A Comprehensive Update​

Authors: Gribble , Gordon W.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~gwgchem/

Despite the long association of organohalogen compounds with human activities, nature is the producer of nearly 5,000 halogen-containing chemicals. Once dismissed as accidents of nature or isolation artifacts, organohalogen compounds represent an important and ever growing class of natural products, in many cases exhibiting exceptional biological activity. Since the last comprehensive review in 1996 (Vol. 68, this series), there have been discovered an additional 2,500 organochlorine, organobromine, and other organohalogen compounds. These natural organohalogens are biosynthesized by bacteria, fungi, lichen, plants, marine organisms of all types, insects, and higher animals including humans. These compounds are also formed abiogenically, as in volcanoes, forest fires, and other geothermal events.In some instances, natural organohalogens are precisely the same chemicals that man synthesizes for industrial use, and some of the quantities of these natural chemicals far exceed the quantities emitted by man.
 
Last edited:
Gordon Gribble is one of the finest scientists in the world.

For years, it was denied in the “science community” that there were any natural sources of organohalogens. The controversy was extremely emotional. I can provide the citation of the public debate.

Anyway, Gribble simply provided the references of how and where the naturally occurring organohalogens were discovered. And this book has 2671 end notes.

This is an essential reference book, but I enjoy reading it.

The other thing is that it also contributes to the debate surrounding the alleged “ozone hole” … because if there are no natural sources, then the argument that the anti-ozone compounds are man-made would control. However, since we now know that there ARE naturally-occurring organohalogens, the it lends credibility to Mount Erebus being the source of the “anti-ozone” compounds.

With the publication of this book, the total number of naturally-occurring organohalogens is up around 4,700 … which is a big change from zero which the AGW people were pushing.

Outstanding book; a must buy for your reference shelf.
 
These authors have done an excellent job of compiling well hidden facts, that if were published in media before 1990 would have nipped the environmental hoax of ozone depletion in the bud. There are literally dozens of natural sources for chlorine, such as vaporizing sea water and bacterial action that create atmospheric ozone. In addition, volcanoes belch thousands of tons of ostensibly ozone depleting chlorine atoms in to the atmosphere every year…
The conclusion reached here is a hoax because:
How do we know that natural sources are not responsible for ozone depletion?

Although it is true that volcanoes and oceans release large amounts of chlorine, the chlorine from these sources is easily dissolved in water and washes out of the atmosphere in rain. In contrast, CFCs do not break down in the lower atmosphere or dissolve in water. Although they are heavier than air, they are eventually carried into the stratosphere. Scientists use balloons, aircraft, and satellites to measure the composition of the stratosphere. These measurements show a noticeable increase in stratospheric chlorine since 1985. The timing of this increase corresponds with the increase in emissions of CFCs and other ODS caused by human activities.
 
Glaciers have been melting for thousands of years.

People in New York should know that … the mile-thick glaciers in NYC have been long gone.
Here is why we should care.
The melting fresh water from glaciers alters the ocean, not only by directly contributing to the global sea level rise, but also because it pushes down the heavier salt water, thereby changing what scientists call the THC, or Thermo (heat) Haline (salt) Circulation, meaning currents in the ocean. This has an immediate effect on the near region, such as the north Atlantic off the coast of Greenland, but ultimately the impacts can ripple far beyond the immediate area and climate.
 
With my understanding of what “flow” means, I would say the answer is “no.”
The new numbers, which were recently adjusted, purport to show about 0.125 degrees Celsius of warming every 10 years. That is radically more than the 0.078 Celsius per decade — a statistically insignificant figure — that the RSS data set showed before being “adjusted.” The new numbers from RSS also show radically higher temperature increases than other satellite data, such as the numbers from the University of Alabama at Huntsville’s data set (UAH). Examining the alleged warming over the tropics, for example, the new adjusted RSS data shows a rate of warming almost five times larger than UAH data, analysts said. (Source)
 
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
With my understanding of what “flow” means, I would say the answer is “no.”
The new numbers, which were recently adjusted, purport to show about 0.125 degrees Celsius of warming every 10 years. That is radically more than the 0.078 Celsius per decade — a statistically insignificant figure — that the RSS data set showed before being “adjusted.” The new numbers from RSS also show radically higher temperature increases than other satellite data, such as the numbers from the University of Alabama at Huntsville’s data set (UAH). Examining the alleged warming over the tropics, for example, the new adjusted RSS data shows a rate of warming almost five times larger than UAH data, analysts said. (Source)
This is not inconsistent with the warming and the need for adjustments being a coincidence. It does not show the warming “flows from” those adjustments.

As for comparison with satellite measurements, why do you assume the RSS measurements and surface station measurements are at fault and not the satellite measurements?
 
This is not inconsistent with the warming and the need for adjustments being a coincidence. It does not show the warming “flows from” those adjustments.
These are word games. If the raw data show no warming, and all of the warming appears only after the data are adjusted, then the warming is tied directly to the adjustments. This is not to say the tweaking was invalid; it merely establishes a fact.
As for comparison with satellite measurements, why do you assume the RSS measurements and surface station measurements are at fault and not the satellite measurements?
RSS data are satellite data, and it ought to raise a red flag or two when the tweaked data create a warming signal five times higher than other (UAH) satellite data.

“Nothing about climate science reeks more of confirmation bias, than the changes scientists make to their own data sets over time,” noted climate-model whistleblower Steve Goddard (pseudonym) of Real Climate Science in a post highlighting the changes to various data sets, including the new revisions to RSS. “They all show exactly the same pattern of monotonically cooling the past and warming the present, regardless of the instrumentation.”
 
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
This is not inconsistent with the warming and the need for adjustments being a coincidence. It does not show the warming “flows from” those adjustments.
These are word games. If the raw data show no warming, and all of the warming appears only after the data are adjusted, then the warming is tied directly to the adjustments. This is not to say the tweaking was invalid; it merely establishes a fact.
A coincidence. Coincidences can be facts without implying anything more. Why would you bring up this coincidence if you were not trying to imply something more than “Gee, I have the same birthday as Michael Jackson!”
As for comparison with satellite measurements, why do you assume the RSS measurements and surface station measurements are at fault and not the satellite measurements?
RSS data are satellite data, and it ought to raise a red flag or two when the tweaked data create a warming signal five times higher than other (UAH) satellite data.
Those red flags will be allayed when you consider the possible reasons why they might be different and don’t just jump to the conclusion that “One of them must have been intentionally corrupted!”
 
One degree centigrade is about 33 degrees Fahrenheit. The average temperature in my state has hardly changed at all since the 1800s. So where, exactly, is the average annual temperature now 33 degrees higher?
 
One degree centigrade is about 33 degrees Fahrenheit. The average temperature in my state has hardly changed at all since the 1800s. So where, exactly, is the average annual temperature now 33 degrees higher?
The average year-round temperature in St. Louis has risen 2.25 degrees F from 1972 to 2000. The average summer dewpoint in St. Louis has risen from 64 deg. to 66.5 deg. (It’s getting muggier). And of course one degree change Celsius is 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit.
 
A coincidence. Coincidences can be facts without implying anything more. Why would you bring up this coincidence if you were not trying to imply something more than “Gee, I have the same birthday as Michael Jackson!”
I’m first trying to establish certain facts. It seems you are reluctant even to admit what is true. We can discuss what the facts mean only after we have settled on what they are. Why is it so hard to get you to accept even true statements?
 
Possibly neither of us should be opining on this, given our seeming level of expertise.

One degree Celsius is more than 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. To convert, you take the Celsius reading and add 32. So 1 degree Celsius is 33 degrees Fahrenheit. I’m no expert, but so the following says.
https://www.metric-conversions.org/temperature/celsius-to-fahrenheit.htm

And dewpoint is an interaction of air temperature and humidity, not humidity alone.

How many of the years between 1972 and 2000 were El Nino years? If 1972 was not, and there were any between those years, that’s not a good basis for any conclusion about temperature.

Do you know in what part of St. Louis those measurements were taken?
 
Last edited:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
A coincidence. Coincidences can be facts without implying anything more. Why would you bring up this coincidence if you were not trying to imply something more than “Gee, I have the same birthday as Michael Jackson!”
I’m first trying to establish certain facts. It seems you are reluctant even to admit what is true. We can discuss what the facts mean only after we have settled on what they are. Why is it so hard to get you to accept even true statements?
Well, I’m not sure of what it is you want me to accept as fact. You showed a graph from a website that denies the seriousness of climate change with no independent verification of that data. How do I know they aren’t just making it up? Can you link to an authoritative USHNC site that describes the adjustments in question?
 
Last edited:
Can you link to an authoritative USHNC site that describes the adjustments in question?
I can link to an analysis of that data done by Dr. Roy Spenser (in 2012), who is certainly qualified to do it.

Since NOAA encourages the use the USHCN station network as the official U.S. climate record, I have analyzed the average [(Tmax+Tmin)/2] USHCN version 2 dataset in the same way I analyzed the CRUTem3 and International Surface Hourly (ISH) data.

The main conclusions are:

1) The linear warming trend during 1973-2012 is greatest in USHCN (+0.245 C/decade), followed by CRUTem3 (+0.198 C/decade), then my ISH population density adjusted temperatures (PDAT) as a distant third (+0.013 C/decade)


2) Virtually all of the USHCN warming since 1973 appears to be the result of adjustments NOAA has made to the data, mainly in the 1995-97 timeframe.
 
Last edited:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Can you link to an authoritative USHNC site that describes the adjustments in question?
I can link to an analysis of that data done by Dr. Roy Spenser (in 2012), who is certainly qualified to do it.
No, if you are going to appeal to authority than so am I, and I can find plenty of authorities that say the planet is warming just as the NOAA says.
 
To convert, you take the Celsius reading and add 32.
this is missing the intermediate step. to convert C to F multiply the temperature in C by 1.8 then add 32 to that. So yes, 1 C is equivalent to ~33F but an increase of 1 C is not an increase of 33F

i prefer using the fraction 9/5 (=1.8) because it makes it easier to remember how to go F to C: subtract 32 then multiply by 5/9. It is much easier to remember reciprocal fractions than decimals.
 
Possibly neither of us should be opining on this, given our seeming level of expertise.
And yet you go on to opine…
How many of the years between 1972 and 2000 were El Nino years? If 1972 was not, and there were any between those years, that’s not a good basis for any conclusion about temperature.
The data I was quoting from was 30-year averages. So the “1972” data point is really the average of 1957-1987, and the “2000” data point was really the average of 1985-2015. So the effect of an El Nino year here and there is filtered out.
Do you know in what part of St. Louis those measurements were taken?
I don’t know. The data came from NOAA.
 
Last edited:
Oops! Well, I admitted up front that my expertise level is not high.
 
Yes, 1972 through about 1995 was in a cool period. It was followed by a warm period, which we’re still in. Prior to 1972 there was another warm period, warmer than the one we’re now in.

http://climate.missouri.edu/
https://ipm.missouri.edu/MEG/2008/8/Hotter-Temperatures-In-Missouri/

Location in St. Louis makes a lot of difference. Certain parts of town near the river are extremely hot during the summer and very humid. Higher elevations where there is not as much asphalt and concrete are cooler. If, for example, you take measurements around the old courthouse, they’ll be a lot different from measurements taken on the campus of Washington U.
 
No, if you are going to appeal to authority than so am I, and I can find plenty of authorities that say the planet is warming just as the NOAA says.
This is useless. Spenser is one of the big names in the satellite measurement community. If you’re going to dismiss what he says as merely an “appeal to authority” then you’ve basically discarded all of science.

And you still won’t accept any fact that is inconvenient. Facts are irrelevant if they suggest something contrary to the accepted narrative. Nor have I said anything whatever as to whether warming is or is not occurring, so scurrying away under cover of what NOAA says - aside from being an appeal to authority - is utterly irrelevant.

I have been making one point, and one point alone: virtually all of the warming appears not in the raw data but only in the adjusted data. That claim is either true or false, and you don’t seem to care which it is, you reject it because of its implication.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top