Thought experiment on catastrophic climate change

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ignatius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
Well, Sally, if what you say is correct…then some smart climate scientists should be able to adjust the climate/weather to ideal conditions and temperature just by telling us how to live our lives.
Click to expand...
Smog control on cars, unleaded gasoline. Of course, living in California, you’ve probably never dealt with these regulations. Oh wait, every two years, your car has to be certified as meeting air quality rules, depending on your county, you can be fined for leaf burning without a permit. As a result, the air quality of California, compared to what it was in the 60’s, is greatly improved. Check, you can now see the mountains from Pasadena (which I could’nt see them very often when I was a kid living there in the 60’s).

So yes, micro climates can be affected by man. Why do you think we spend so much on irrigation, pergulas, greenhouses, misters (go to Disneyland for these)? We are always trying to change and control our environment. That is what we do. It is not always bad or good, it just is.
 
sallybutler said:
Smog control on cars, unleaded gasoline. Of course, living in California, you’ve probably have never dealt with these regulations. Oh wait, every two years, your car has to be certified as meeting air quality rules, depending on your county, you can be fined for leaf burning without a permit. As a result, the air quality of California, compared to what it was in the 60’s, is greatly improved. Check, you can now see the mountains from Pasadena (which I could’nt see them very often when I was a kid living there in the 60’s).

So yes, micro climates can be affected by man. Why do you think we spend so much on irrigation, pergulas, greenhouses, misters (go to Disneyland for these)? We are always trying to change and control our environment. That is what we do. It is not always bad or good, it just is.
Click to expand...
I am familiar with all of that. I live in California. (although I don’t have my cars certified to meet CARB rules)

You claim we are always trying to change and control our environment. I say we are designed to adapt to our environment.

And again, if you say “That is what we do.” Why has the EPA not regulated the world into an ideal climate?

What kind of climate would you like Sally?
 
After living in Kansas for the last three years, I find myself lusting for the SF Bay Area. Snow is something you see on the mountains, humidity means fog. if you want heat you take BART out to the East Bay. 😃 😛
 
P.S. it is as close to Camelot ( think of the song) as one can get.
 
Can’t wait to see everyone’s reaction to the upcoming encyclical.

As Pope Pius XII said in Humani Generis in regard to encyclicals:

‘But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among theologians’.

So…cannot be considered a question of free discussion. That’ll be awkward if you think climate change is nothing but liberal hot air and left wing politics.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I don’t think you understand the role of the platinum resistance thermometers in the satellites.
Click to expand...
Yes, I am familiar with the processes of precision measurements.
The sole purpose of the platinum thermometer is this:
Click to expand...
A black body within the satellite is electrically heated to a controlled temperature. The platinum resistance thermometer just measures the temperature of that black body in the satellite so that the heating circuit knows when to turn down the heat to keep the black body at exactly the desired temperature.
Click to expand...
Yes, we call calibrating the measurement. The purpose of calibration is to remove error from the variations of the object being measured. So the data are as precise as possible.

This is the actual data taken directly from the RSS feeds from two satellite-based datasets (the other is the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). It is one of the five standard global temperature datasets, which include the two satellite datasets and the three terrestrial datasets – Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS); the Hadley Centre/CRU dataset, version 4 (HadCRUT4); and the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). This is the latest data from 2014. This is the actual temperature data used by the government before it is doctored in any way.
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
But my skepticism grows with the latest fraud by NOAA.

In a purely political move NOAA has re-adjusted global temperatures to support the UN agenda in Paris.

NOAA now claims the global warming hiatus that began in the late 1990s never actually happened. This is in direct contrast to the IPCC. To increase the rate in warming, NOAA scientists put more weight on certain ocean buoy arrays, adjusted ship-based temperature readings upward, and slightly raised land-based temperatures as well. It’s also worth noting that satellite measurements contradict NOAA’s claim and actually put the global warming hiatus now at 18 years six months.

Do these people have no shame?
Click to expand...
The data are available directly from the satellite feeds.
Ignatius said:
We can now go download the actual global temperature measurements ourselves directly from the RSS feeds and from University databases. You can do it yourself if you want.

1: Here’s the actual data taken directly from the RSS feeds from two satellite-based datasets (the other is the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). It is one of the five standard global temperature datasets, which include the two satellite datasets and the three terrestrial datasets – Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS); the Hadley Centre/CRU dataset, version 4 (HadCRUT4); and the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC).

2: The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/clip_image002_thumb.png?w=602&h=329

3: The graph is news. Not only is it very recent: it is also something that the mainstream news media do not reveal.

All this in spite of continued increases in CO2 and other “greenhouse gasses”. Clearly this shows that there is no causal correlation with CO2 whatsoever.
Click to expand...
You can contact the Universities, get the data, and verify it for yourself.
 
Ignatius said:
Yes, we call calibrating the measurement. The purpose of calibration is to remove error from the variations of the object being measured. So the data are as precise as possible.
Click to expand...
That is the goal. But is is misleading to imply that the calibrated measurements so obtained are automatically just as accurate as the thermometer used in the calibration. There is still the issue of the basic stability and linearity of the radiometer measurement. It is nowhere near as good as a platinum resistance sensor. The satellite temperature measurements are still radiometer measurements with lots of modeling on how radiation from different layers of the atmosphere are detected at the satellite. The blackbody used for calibration is right up there in the satellite. You should be asking how anyone can be sure that radiation measurements from an object a few inches away can be comparable to radiation filtered through km and km of diffusing atmosphere. It is totally unjustified to say that satellite temperature measurements are made with the most accurate sensor possible.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Ignatius;13041214:
We can now go download the actual global temperature measurements ourselves directly from the RSS feeds and from University databases. You can do it yourself if you want.

1: Here’s the actual data taken directly from the RSS feeds from two satellite-based datasets (the other is the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). It is one of the five standard global temperature datasets, which include the two satellite datasets and the three terrestrial datasets – Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS); the Hadley Centre/CRU dataset, version 4 (HadCRUT4); and the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC).

2: The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers, which not only measure temperature at various altitudes above the Earth’s surface via microwave sounding units but also constantly calibrate themselves by measuring the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/clip_image002_thumb.png?w=602&h=329
Click to expand...
3: The graph is news. Not only is it very recent: it is also something that the mainstream news media do not reveal.

All this in spite of continued increases in CO2 and other “greenhouse gasses”. Clearly this shows that there is no causal correlation with CO2 whatsoever.

That is the goal. But is is misleading to imply that the calibrated measurements so obtained are automatically just as accurate as the thermometer used in the calibration. There is still the issue of the basic stability and linearity of the radiometer measurement. It is nowhere near as good as a platinum resistance sensor. The satellite temperature measurements are still radiometer measurements with lots of modeling on how radiation from different layers of the atmosphere are detected at the satellite. The blackbody used for calibration is right up there in the satellite. You should be asking how anyone can be sure that radiation measurements from an object a few inches away can be comparable to radiation filtered through km and km of diffusing atmosphere. It is totally unjustified to say that satellite temperature measurements are made with the most accurate sensor possible.
Click to expand...
You’ve missed the point, or are attempting to obfuscate it.
The point being, the raw data are available from the very Universities that collect the data and anyone can see for themselves that the climate alarmist position is a complete hoax.

The actual data is taken directly from the RSS feeds, from two satellite-based datasets ,the other is the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). It is one of the five standard global temperature datasets, which include the two satellite datasets and the three terrestrial datasets – Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS); the Hadley Centre/CRU dataset, version 4 (HadCRUT4); and the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). This is all of the actual data and anyone can download this data and see for themselves that the climate alarmist position is a complete hoax.
 
Ignatius said:
You’ve missed the point, or are attempting to obfuscate it.
The point being, the raw data are available from the very Universities that collect the data and anyone can see for themselves that the climate alarmist position is a complete hoax…
Click to expand...
The point I was responding to was the claim you made post #55 (point #2), that the satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers. For someone reading this without a knowledge of what that platinum thingy does in this system, they will get the mistaken impression that the measurements themselves are just as accurate as a platinum resistance sensor. Since your ultimate point about the climate alarmist position being a complete hoax is supported by this supposed accuracy, it is entirely proper for me to examine the claim of accuracy to see if it meets the expectations.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The point I was responding to was the claim you made post #55 (point #2), . . . .s.
Click to expand...
To be clear, the point of that post is that, the raw data are available from the very Universities that collect the data use by the climate alarmists and anyone can see for themselves that the climate alarmist position is a complete hoax.

The actual data is taken directly from the RSS feeds, from two satellite-based datasets ,the other is the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). It is one of the five standard global temperature datasets, which include the two satellite datasets and the three terrestrial datasets – Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS); the Hadley Centre/CRU dataset, version 4 (HadCRUT4); and the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). This is all of the actual data and anyone can download this data and see for themselves that the climate alarmist position is a complete hoax.
 
truetofaith said:
There would be no more air or land travel…what so ever! I drive a Prius and I still need gas. All electric cars are not practical!
Click to expand...
You do know where the electricity that powers your Prius comes from, right? Coal-fired power plants, nuclear power plants. There is certainly not enough or could not be enough solar power farms or wind energy to keep a functioning planet that is currently run by fossil fuels.
 
JoeFreedom said:
You do know where the electricity that powers your Prius comes from, right? Coal-fired power plants, nuclear power plants. There is certainly not enough or could not be enough solar power farms or wind energy to keep a functioning planet that is currently run by fossil fuels.
Click to expand...
There’s not enough fossil fuels to keep it running indefinitely either.
 
truetofaith said:
There would be no more air or land travel…what so ever! I drive a Prius and I still need gas. All electric cars are not practical!
Click to expand...
They will be very practical once there is no more oil and synfuel is prohitbitively expensive.
 
Ignatius said:
To be clear, the point of that post is that, the raw data are available from the very Universities that collect the data use by the climate alarmists and anyone can see for themselves that the climate alarmist position is a complete hoax.

The actual data is taken directly from the RSS feeds, from two satellite-based datasets ,the other is the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). It is one of the five standard global temperature datasets, which include the two satellite datasets and the three terrestrial datasets – Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS); the Hadley Centre/CRU dataset, version 4 (HadCRUT4); and the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). This is all of the actual data and anyone can download this data and see for themselves that the climate alarmist position is a complete hoax.
Click to expand...
The data are available. No question about it. But whether those data constitute proof that the “alarmist” position is a hoax is another matter. I think it proves very little. But I would like to see your arguement that shows what you claim.

Also I keep challenging your point # 2 in post 55 because it bears on the accuracy of the satellite measurements, which is an important step in proving anything about hoaxes.
 
JoeFreedom said:
You do know where the electricity that powers your Prius comes from, right? Coal-fired power plants, nuclear power plants. There is certainly not enough or could not be enough solar power farms or wind energy to keep a functioning planet that is currently run by fossil fuels.
Click to expand...
Why are you telling Me this :confused:…I just said my Prius needs gas …all electric is not practical.

Try powering a jumbo jet with solar or wind.
 
weller2 said:
They will be very practical once there is no more oil and synfuel is prohitbitively expensive.
Click to expand...
The all-electric cars will have to go much farther than they do now before charging. You’d have to stop about 15 times & waste many hours to go from NY to Florida in a totally electric car. We have plenty of un-tapped fossil fuel to use until we start riding in flying saucers! 😉
 
weller2 said:
There’s not enough fossil fuels to keep it running indefinitely either.
Click to expand...
Fossil fuels are not finite like many people believe. Fossil fuels are regenerated through the earth’s inner core processes naturally. Yes, they take time, and no, not trillions of years, like the evolutionists believe.

We should be good stewards of the earth, conserve and not waste, but use wisely for good purposes, and leave the government intrusion out of the lives of people because when we leave it to the government to make decisions for us, we end up with unintended consequences, slow progress, hurt the economy, end up with depopulationists in power, and ultimately hurt those who truly benefit from a growth economy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top