Climate continues to change.

Status
Not open for further replies.


Up 'til 1980, temperatures for 70% of the earth's surface:


by Rebecca Hersher
NPR




"(NPR)...To know how ocean temperature is changing today, scientists rely on more than a century's worth of temperature data gathered by sailors who used buckets to gather samples of water.

It's the best information available about how hot the oceans were before the middle of the 20th century, but it's full of errors and biases. Making the historical data more reliable led researchers on a wild investigation that involved advanced statistics and big data, along with early 20th century shipbuilding norms and Asian maritime history.

"I sometimes joke with my friends, 'I'm not only a climate scientist, I'm a detective!' " says Duo Chan, a graduate student who led much of the analysis for an influential study published early this year. The underlying problem Chan and Huybers were dealing with is that different countries used buckets made of different materials, in different sizes, on different lengths of rope — all things that could change a temperature reading.


For example, the water in a midsize canvas bucket can lose up to 0.5 degree Celsius over the course of just a couple of minutes, says Chan.

"Half a degree doesn't sound like a big deal, right? However, if you look at the whole global warming, it's only, like, 1 degree," Chan explains. "Every 0.1 degree matters a lot."
..."








The accuracy of the historic global temperature record is a fucking joke.

 


Up 'til 1980, temperatures for 70% of the earth's surface:


by Rebecca Hersher
NPR




"(NPR)...To know how ocean temperature is changing today, scientists rely on more than a century's worth of temperature data gathered by sailors who used buckets to gather samples of water.

It's the best information available about how hot the oceans were before the middle of the 20th century, but it's full of errors and biases. Making the historical data more reliable led researchers on a wild investigation that involved advanced statistics and big data, along with early 20th century shipbuilding norms and Asian maritime history.

"I sometimes joke with my friends, 'I'm not only a climate scientist, I'm a detective!' " says Duo Chan, a graduate student who led much of the analysis for an influential study published early this year. The underlying problem Chan and Huybers were dealing with is that different countries used buckets made of different materials, in different sizes, on different lengths of rope — all things that could change a temperature reading.


For example, the water in a midsize canvas bucket can lose up to 0.5 degree Celsius over the course of just a couple of minutes, says Chan.

"Half a degree doesn't sound like a big deal, right? However, if you look at the whole global warming, it's only, like, 1 degree," Chan explains. "Every 0.1 degree matters a lot."
..."








The accuracy of the historic global temperature record is a fucking joke.

The water could also gain heat in a bucket. Depends on the surface air temperature.

Is the surface air temperature usually higher or lower than the surface water temperature? Think about it.
 
The global energy transition is happening faster than the models predicted, according to a report released today by the Rocky Mountain Institute, thanks to massive investments in the advanced-battery technology ecosystem.

...

“These changes are already contributing to cancellations of planned natural-gas power generation,” states the report. “The need for these new natural-gas plants can be offset through clean-energy portfolios (CEPs) of energy storage, efficiency, renewable energy, and demand response.”


Forbes: Huge Battery Investments Drop Energy-Storage Costs Faster Than Expected, Threatening Natural Gas.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmc...-storage-costs-threaten-natural-gas-industry/
 
I wonder how the scripture, sorry, I mean "media narrative", will change when all this energy technology is actually put in place and the climate continues to change LOL
 


Climate Science's Myth-Buster
It’s time to be scientific about global warming, says climatologist Judith Curry.


by Guy Sarman



"...[Dr.] Curry is a scholar, not a pundit. Unlike many political and journalistic oracles, she never opines without proof. And she has data at her command. She tells me, for example, that between 1910 and 1940, the planet warmed during a climatic episode that resembles our own, down to the degree. The warming can’t be blamed on industry, she argues, because back then, most of the carbon-dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels were small. In fact, Curry says, “almost half of the warming observed in the twentieth century came about in the first half of the century, before carbon-dioxide emissions became large.” Natural factors thus had to be the cause. None of the climate models used by scientists now working for the United Nations can explain this older trend. Nor can these models explain why the climate suddenly cooled between 1950 and 1970, giving rise to widespread warnings about the onset of a new ice age. I recall magazine covers of the late 1960s or early 1970s depicting the planet in the grip of an annihilating deep freeze. According to a group of scientists, we faced an apocalyptic environmental scenario—but the opposite of the current one.

But aren’t oceans rising today, I counter, eroding shorelines and threatening to flood lower-lying population centers and entire inhabited islands? “Yes,” Curry replies. “Sea level is rising, but this has been gradually happening since the 1860s; we don’t yet observe any significant acceleration of this process in our time.” Here again, one must consider the possibility that the causes for rising sea levels are partly or mostly natural, which isn’t surprising, says Curry, for “climate change is a complex and poorly understood phenomenon, with so many processes involved.” To blame human-emitted carbon dioxide entirely may not be scientific, she continues, but “some find it reassuring to believe that we have mastered the subject.” She says that “nothing upsets many scientists like uncertainty.”..."



more...



 
Trysail - for years you've been posting that there is no warming. You've posted graphs that show exactly the opposite. Now you post this:

In fact, Curry says, “almost half of the warming observed in the twentieth century came about in the first half of the century, before carbon-dioxide emissions became large.”

Are you disagreeing with Curry, or conceding that there is warming?
 
Trysail - for years you've been posting that there is no warming. You've posted graphs that show exactly the opposite. Now you post this:

In fact, Curry says, “almost half of the warming observed in the twentieth century came about in the first half of the century, before carbon-dioxide emissions became large.”

Are you disagreeing with Curry, or conceding that there is warming?

 
Trysail - for years you've been posting that there is no warming. You've posted graphs that show exactly the opposite. Now you post this:

In fact, Curry says, “almost half of the warming observed in the twentieth century came about in the first half of the century, before carbon-dioxide emissions became large.”

Are you disagreeing with Curry, or conceding that there is warming?




Over what time period?







I dunno. Maybe the first half of the century? I'm not Judith. I'm Johnny.​
 
The global energy transition is happening faster than the models predicted, according to a report released today by the Rocky Mountain Institute, thanks to massive investments in the advanced-battery technology ecosystem.

...

“These changes are already contributing to cancellations of planned natural-gas power generation,” states the report. “The need for these new natural-gas plants can be offset through clean-energy portfolios (CEPs) of energy storage, efficiency, renewable energy, and demand response.”


Forbes: Huge Battery Investments Drop Energy-Storage Costs Faster Than Expected, Threatening Natural Gas.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmc...-storage-costs-threaten-natural-gas-industry/

Invest in oil then. Mining trucks run on diesel and we are going to have to move a lot of overburden to build those batteries
 
French and UK nuclear are having cost and technical issues.

“We hear every year that there’s a new problem,” Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said on Monday. “It is not acceptable that one of the most prestigious and strategic sectors for our country is facing so many difficulties.”

The Flamanville plant is now slated to be completed in 2022 at a price tag of 12.4 billion euros ($13.8 billion), with the latest glitch costing a whopping 1.5 billion euros. Bemoaning the loss of France’s edge in the sector because of a 15-year gap between the start of construction at the plant and that of the previous reactor, Le Maire has given EDF a month to come up with an action plan to restore the industry’s know-how before the country can determine whether it will build any new atomic plants.

For the world’s largest nuclear power producer, Flamanville is just one of many challenges. Across the channel, delays at two U.K. reactors have upped the cost to as much as 22.5 billion pounds ($28.9 billion), 2.9 billion pounds more than previously estimated. EDF also faces mounting costs of maintaining 58 domestic nuclear plants that provide more than 70% of France’s power.


Bloomberg: The World’s Largest Nuclear Power Producer Is Melting Down.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...argest-nuclear-power-producer-is-melting-down
 
This graph confirms the warming trend, and shows an increase of over 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the last century.

Jesus.

A degree and half in 100 years? I had no idea things were this bad.

Wait a sec.

In the 70's they were predicting an ice age, variously in days, years or centuries.

https://www.nytimes.com/1978/01/05/...cialists-finds-no-end-in-sight-to-30year.html

https://s1.nyt.com/timesmachine/pages/1/1978/01/05/110749387_360W.png

Of course, that's from a notoriously conservative newspaper, so it's probably bogus.

It's almost like we can't trust ANY media (or "scientists" either) these days.
 
It is that bad, and it is a huge concern.

It’s evidence of warming and not evidence of a coming ice age. Get the idea now?


Let us know when all the genius climate doom purveyors actually act like there's a problem, and do something, other than whine, and bitch, and tell us peasants we must freeze in the dark to save the planet......while they fly around in private jets, and buy million dollar homes on the beach, that consume more energy in a month than any one of us do in 10 years.

Then.....maybe I'll look into your man made theory a little more.
Until then.....no thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top