What do you think of climate change?

  • Thread starter Thread starter phaster
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jeannetherese said:
And how does one determine who is considered to be a climate scientist?
Click to expand...
Do you really think that is an issue? I mean, this interrogation is starting to sound a bit like the Lady of the Green Kirtle as she questioned Eustace, Jill, and Puddleglum in The Silver Chair : “What is this sun you speak of?”
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Don’t bother unless they add up to at least 10% of climate scientists. (I see you had Anthony Watts do your cherry picking for you.)
Click to expand...
Oh stop. The author’s credentials are there. Either his arguments are valid or they aren’t, and if you’re not willing to engage arguments like his then you lack confidence that you can sustain your position other than by denying as valid everything that contests it.
 
I think it might, because so many of the arguments which I have perused have to do with credentials and credibility.
They seem to veer towards the no true scotsman fallacy and I wonder if there might be a way to extricate from this loop.
 
Ender said:
Oh stop. The author’s credentials are there.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say I would be convinced by a single person with credentials. I said a significant number of scientists. And again you are inviting me to put my expertise up against that of real scientists. As I said, these are not my arguments. I am not the one who is defending them. Real scientists are doing that, and I trust them.
 
Last edited:
The question of the validity of the homogenization of temperature data is a significant one about which much has been written, both as objection and defense. I don’t expect to resolve this question. What I’m going to do is simply provide citations and links that raise reasonable questions about its validity. I don’t present them as proof of anything, but as indications of concern.

Homogenisation: The Magical system which uses thermometers in Victoria to correct the temperature in Tasmania (JoNova)

Among other sites, Cape Bruny in far south Tasmania has been corrected with the help of Ballarat 812 km away on the mainland, over mountains and across the Bass Strait. In 1991 Cape Bruny was found to be “statistically” wrong, and adjusted down by over half a degree.

The significance of this comment is that stations not reasonably connected by physical location don’t seem to be good candidates for homogenization.

The Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm was designed as an automated method of detecting and correcting localized temperature biases due to station moves, instrument changes, microsite changes, and meso-scale changes like urban heat islands. (Berkeley Earth)

“Localized temperature biases” is the key here. This the whole meaning of “pairwise”.

If one station is warming rapidly over a period of a decade a few kilometers from a number of stations that are cooling over the same period, the warming station is likely responding to localized effects (instrument changes, station moves, microsite changes, etc.) rather than a real climate signal. (Ibid)

It is questionable whether Cape Bruny and Ballarat meet reasonable criteria to be considered a valid pair.
 
Here is a evaluation of the homogenization done by GISS.


In the article, the author took GISS raw data, applied his own adjustments, and compared his results with the GISS homogenized data.
The peaks and troughs match up well but GISS shows about 0.3C more overall warming, which as illustrated by the GISS-minus-RA difference plot is added quite regularly. Since both GISS and I used the same raw data set we can reasonably assume that this added warming was a product of the GISS homogeneity adjustments.

The question now becomes, is the added warming real or was it manufactured by the GISS homogenization algorithm? Comparing the hemispheric series gives the answer.
Click to expand...
He found virtually no difference between his and GISS data for the northern hemisphere. So where does the 0.3 C difference come from?
Which of course means that it must have added it in the Southern Hemisphere. And indeed it has. About six-tenths of a degree C since 1900:
Click to expand...
His conclusion:
Is there any chance this added warming is real? None.
Click to expand...
This is an 8 minute video on homogenization. If it is an accurate account of how the technique works then much of what is presented as global warming is not real and might be explained by urban growth in the southern hemisphere.
 
Given that much (most? all?) 20th century warming shows up not in the raw data but in the homogenized data, the question of the validity of the homogenization is paramount. Homogenized data is good if good stations influence bad ones, but clearly is a bad thing if the reverse is true, and it’s not clear that we know which is the case.

Here is a comment from BEST (Berkeley Earth) from about 2012 on the issue:
…we can’t rule out the possibility of large-scale systematic biases. Our reliability adjustment techniques can work well when one or a few records are noticeably inconsistent with their neighbors, but large scale biases affecting many stations could cause such comparative estimates to fail.
Click to expand...
This illustrates the concern. Homogenization has turned a modest cooling trend into a more significant warming one. Questioning whether this alteration is valid is, well…valid.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Experts say that the great majority of warming over the past 140 years is due to humans, and now that I’ve looked into this more, I find I have to agree.

It seems this is true because the vast majority of the temperature rise is due to data tampering by humans.

Updates to the NASA GISS global land surface temperature anomaly charts added 1 degree C of warming between 2000 and 2017. The 2019 updates added another 0.5 deg. Apparently this is of particular note inasmuch as satellites were showing a significant temperature decrease over those two years.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I find it intriguing that people think they can predict the future when apparently we can’t even settle on what happened in the recent past, but our hopes of changing our future look good given that we have the technology that allows us to change our past.
 
“manmade” haze/smog

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

because of covid-19 and the need to social distance,… people are basically staying at home, so the typical SoCal haze/smog layer pretty much has disappeared!!!


the fact that is much less man made pollution (not just in LA but also around the world) can be used to test a scientific hypothesis related to climate change

basically a lingering smog layer along w/ jet contrails act as heat trapping insulators at night, so given the clear skies which is a result of the pandemic we should expect to see a yuge “delta” between daytime and nighttime temperatures (which will confirm that global dimming is masking the global warming effects of CO2)
NARRATOR: September 12th, 2001, the aftermath of tragedy: ironically, as America mourned, the weather all over the country was unusually clear and sunny. Eight hundred miles west of New York, in Madison, Wisconsin, climate scientist David Travis was on his way to work.

DOCTOR DAVID TRAVIS (University of Wisconsin-Whitewater): Around the 12th, later on in the day, when I was driving to work, and I noticed how bright blue and clear the sky was, and…at first I didn’t think about it, then I realized the sky was unusually clear.

NARRATOR: For 15 years, Travis had been researching a relatively obscure topic: whether the vapor trails left by aircraft were having a significant effect on the weather. In the aftermath of 9/11, the entire U.S. fleet was grounded, and Travis finally had a chance to find out.

DAVID TRAVIS: It was certainly, you know, one of the tiny positives that may have come out of this—an opportunity to do research—that hopefully will never happen again.

NARRATOR: Travis suspected the grounding might make a small, but detectable, change to the weather, but what he observed was both immediate and dramatic.

DAVID TRAVIS: We found that the change in temperature range during those three days was just over one degree centigrade. And you have to realize that from a layman’s perspective that doesn’t sound like much, but from a climate perspective that is huge.

NARRATOR: The temperature range is the difference between the highest and the lowest temperatures in a 24-hour period. Usually, it stays much the same from day to day, even if the weather changes, but not this time. Travis had come across a new and powerful phenomenon, one which would call into question all our predictions about the future of our planet.

NOVA | Transcripts | Dimming the Sun | PBS
Click to expand...
the circa 2005 PBS NOVA documentary is not “online” for viewing, but there is a link to the BBC global dimming documentary (w/ a Kassandra warning) that outlines how climate scientists made an interesting discovery after 9/11

 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
NASA did not create global warming by manipulating data
Click to expand...
Asserting this is not quite the same as demonstrating it, but I looked at the charts in your article to compare them with the charts in my last post to try to understand the difference, and the first thing to note is that they are comparing different things. My chart is the GISS land surface temp anomaly while “your” charts include ocean data as well, which is more than a little suspect given the method of data collection of ocean temperatures in the past.

Still, even though it doesn’t really address the issue raised regarding their continual modifications of past “results”, it’s interesting. I’ll also point out that this is the kind of article you pretty much reject out of hand when “we” post them because who are we to question the experts? So let me ask: I posted a chart purporting to be an overlay of the 2000 and 2017 NASA GISS data showing how their changes added to global warming. Do you accept the data as valid or do you think the author fudged the charts?
 
Ender said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
NASA did not create global warming by manipulating data
Click to expand...
Asserting this is not quite the same as demonstrating it,
Click to expand...
I know. I am not claiming to understand how to demonstrate it. I was only posting the rebuttal to show that I can find experts on my side too. As I said before, I do not understand the technical aspects of this debate to the degree necessary to argue at a top level, and I doubt that anyone else on this forum can either.
 
Last edited:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
The eco-extremists who have found something to like in the coronavirus
April 4, 2020

Just as some hard-core partisans apparently view the coronavirus pandemic as just one more excuse to attack their political opponents, some fringe members of the environmental movement are also eyeing the public health emergency as an opportunity. They see the shuttering of modern industry, the grounding of airplanes, the mothballing of cruise ships and the faltering demand for gasoline as positives, which, if they persist, promise a more “sustainable” economy and society. Some enviro-geniuses have even created a label for the great socioeconomic unraveling that they seek: they call it "degrowth.”

…others, like Bloomberg columnist James Gibney, see the coronavirus as a form of divine intervention in favor of Mother Earth; he tweeted: “Coronavirus is God’s way of getting us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-no-virus-blessing-disguise-20200404-xhrraopynvdr7g6vwjypuag3sm-story.html
Click to expand...
L.A.’s Air Quality Is Better Than It’s Been in Decades

…‪Last month, Los Angeles experienced the longest stretch of days of “good” air since at least 1980. The federal agency’s online data goes back no further, but one expert suspects that L.A.’s air hasn’t been this clean since around the time the United States entered the Second World War.

www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/air-quality-covid/
Click to expand...
The Pandemic Is Turning the Natural World Upside Down

…In a bittersweet twist, the surreal slowdown of life as we know it has presented researchers with a rare opportunity to study the modern world under some truly bizarre conditions, and they’re scrambling to collect as much data as they can. Here are four ways the pandemic is being felt across land, air, and sea.

THERE’S LESS RUMBLING ON THE SURFACE
THERE’S LESS AIR POLLUTION
CITY SOUNDSCAPES ARE CHANGING
THE OCEANS ARE PROBABLY QUIETER, TOO

www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/04/coronavirus-pandemic-earth-pollution-noise/609316/
Click to expand...
WRT LESS AIR POLLUTION,… covid-19 weather data will confirm GLOBAL DIMMING
40.png
What do you think of climate change? Social Justice
“manmade” haze/smog (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) because of covid-19 and the need to social distance,… people are basically staying at home, so the typical SoCal haze/smog layer pretty much has disappeared!!! the fact that is much less man made pollution (not just in LA but also around the world) can be used to test a scientific hypothesis related to climate change basically a lingering smog layer along w/ jet contrails act as heat trapping insulators at nig…
Click to expand...
BUT physics gut tells me the “delta” between day and nighttime temperatures will not be as great as the 2001 period because the northern hemisphere has less heat soaking (i.e. summer time in the northern hemisphere when days have long exposure to sunlight) and most likely there will be more precipitation

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)


bottom line

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2008JD011470
 

The environment has been trying to express that it wants to transition for a while now, but the problem is that nobody is listening. It’s no wonder rainfall is up and the world is expected to flood over in at least twelve years. The environment is weeping because it is trying to change and yet we choose not to believe it.

Climate change is an emotional decision, one that is not easy for any planet to make. The last thing our environment needs is a bunch of dogmatic environmental transphobes telling the environment who it should be based on some archaic ideas about polar ice caps and greenhouse gasses.
 
It’s almost a year since this thread started and now we have the answer! Smog over cities is greatly reduced due to the stay-at-home order. So apparently we really are the problem. And now nature is fighting back and destroying the organism (us) that has been damaging the Earth.

It’s time to completely change our values! Instead of raping the earth for fun and profit, we need to be what God intended us to be: the caretakers of the earth and each other.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)


the pandemic is a teachable moment along being an opportunity to address big problems head on!!!

typically when times are good people don’t want to hear bad news because they don’t want anything to kill their happy mood BUT when people are in a difficult situation they might be more willing to listen and have an open mind about unsettling news (and take action to avoid the fermi-paradox)

The Ostrich Effect (HIDDEN BRAIN podcast)

…Information aversion is one of many, many domains where human behavior seems to deviate from the models of economists. Instead of doing the rational thing, learning as much as possible about something, many of us do the opposite. We stick our heads in the sand. And this is true for more than just financial information.

…The bigger the potential good news, the more likely volunteers were to pay. The studies show that people are hungry for information when information is pleasant.

…just as the researchers had expected, volunteers were more likely to pay money to avoid getting highly unpleasant information

…Another thing the researchers found - students who were in a good mood were more likely to avoid information than those in a bad mood. This may seem surprising, but it actually makes complete sense. When you’re in a good mood, do you really want to ruin how you feel

www.npr.org/2018/08/06/636133086/you-2-0-the-ostrich-effect
Click to expand...
Virus Shows Why There Won’t Be Global Action on Climate Change

COVID-19 reveals three reasons why fighting climate change is so hard.

First, stopping the spread of this highly contagious disease requires that we all upend our daily lives in dramatic ways—and often do so for the benefit of others.

The second sobering lesson from COVID-19 for climate change efforts is the importance of public buy-in and education. The problems of collective action described above are less acute when the public broadly understands the gravity of the threat.

The third reason COVID-19 should give pause to expectations about climate change action is because of what it reveals about the strong link between carbon emissions and economic activity.

…the pandemic is a reminder of just how wicked a problem climate change is because it requires collective action, public understanding and buy-in, and decarbonizing the energy mix while supporting economic growth and energy use around the world.

Coronavirus Pandemic Shows Exactly Why There Won't Be Global Action on Climate Change
Click to expand...
bottom line unless trends change,… humanity and the environment on the planet is in big trouble

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
I’ll bite. I’m only 17 and I’ve seen the climate change here in Florida pretty drastically. Summers are getting hotter. Hurricanes are getting more extreme. Not only this, but our sea levels are slowly, but steadily rising. It’s imperative that we do something about this right now.
 
TheBomb.Com said:
I’ll bite. I’m only 17 and I’ve seen the climate change here in Florida pretty drastically. Summers are getting hotter. Hurricanes are getting more extreme. Not only this, but our sea levels are slowly, but steadily rising. It’s imperative that we do something about this right now.
Click to expand...
If you look at the actual data you will see that hurricanes are not in fact getting more extreme. That is an exaggeration, and is regrettably typical of the misleading coverage this issue gets. The same is true of rising sea levels. The data simply does not support those claims. Be aware: if you get your information about global warming from the media you are not getting an honest view of what’s really happening.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The tide gauge data is from the Battery in New York. It is NOAA’s longest period of tide measurements, 162 years. It shows no notable acceleration and is typical of all of NOAA’s US tidal stations.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top