Climate continues to change.

[KingOrfeo]

I'll send one to you. I'll bet your temp soars all the way up to 72F.

What, phrodeau is dead?

 

[phrodeau]

I learned about sig-figs in high school physics, that's not the problem. But you have yet to explain, anywhere in this thread that I can recall, how they apply to the climate change question.

It has to do with how many decimal points to include, and whether you're a socialist or not.

 

[Conager]

I learned about sig-figs in high school physics, that's not the problem. But you have yet to explain, anywhere in this thread that I can recall, how they apply to the climate change question.

...All of this “hottest year on record” nonsense is absurd, we are talking about very small changes in the average temperature. The surface temperature records are only accurate to +-0.2°C at best and almost all of the last 35 years of satellite and weather balloon data fit between -.2°C and +.2°C...

-Andy May, Ph.D.​

​

You obviously did not learn how to apply what it is that you think you learned.

As I keep explaining, you CANNOT know the average temperature to a greater degree of certainty than the individual data points that went into the calculation.

The scientists that report the actual numbers know this. They report along with the data in the abstract all assumptions used, all adjustments made. Most often, they do the work for you and state outright the degree of confidence one should have in the number by listing the margin for error; generally expressed as a range of values.

If the change in temperature is not outside that range THERE WAS NO CHANGE. Because math.

Yet, the headlines are written, "Highest recorded temperature in all of (recorded) history."

. . .and this assumes that the actual data points as originally recorded were not altered. Which they were. Because reasons. This was disclosed, and as they knew it would be, ignored. Because innumercy.

Those adjustments alone account for even greater margin for error, and smacks of working the problem backwards to arrive at a pre-desired number.

You will blithely gloss over this, (or outright ignore) this, as you do everything anyone bothers to elucidate for you.

 

[Conager]

. . .if that does not suffice, feel free to contact Bill Nye, Al Gore, Thomas Karl, or the "climatologist" of your preference.

 

[KingOrfeo]

You obviously did not learn how to apply what it is that you think you learned.

As I keep explaining, you CANNOT know the average temperature to a greater degree of certainty than the individual data points that went into the calculation.

The scientists that report the actual numbers know this. They report along with the data in the abstract all assumptions used, all adjustments made. Most often, they do the work for you and state outright the degree of confidence one should have in the number by listing the margin for error; generally expressed as a range of values.

If the change in temperature is not outside that range THERE WAS NO CHANGE. Because math.

Yet, the headlines are written, "Highest recorded temperature in all of (recorded) history."

. . .and this assumes that the actual data points as originally recorded were not altered. Which they were. Because reasons. This was disclosed, and as they knew it would be, ignored. Because innumercy.

Those adjustments alone account for even greater margin for error, and smacks of working the problem backwards to arrive at a pre-desired number.

You will blithely gloss over this, (or outright ignore) this, as you do everything anyone bothers to elucidate for you.

Well, you're talking about how media headlines are formed. That's not the issue. The climate scientists know at least as much as you do about sig figs and know how to base their conclusions on them and that's what they do. Any failure on that point would be identified and corrected at the peer-review stage.

 

[phrodeau]

You obviously did not learn how to apply what it is that you think you learned.

As I keep explaining, you CANNOT know the average temperature to a greater degree of certainty than the individual data points that went into the calculation.

The scientists that report the actual numbers know this. They report along with the data in the abstract all assumptions used, all adjustments made. Most often, they do the work for you and state outright the degree of confidence one should have in the number by listing the margin for error; generally expressed as a range of values.

If the change in temperature is not outside that range THERE WAS NO CHANGE. Because math.

Yet, the headlines are written, "Highest recorded temperature in all of (recorded) history."

. . .and this assumes that the actual data points as originally recorded were not altered. Which they were. Because reasons. This was disclosed, and as they knew it would be, ignored. Because innumercy.

Those adjustments alone account for even greater margin for error, and smacks of working the problem backwards to arrive at a pre-desired number.

You will blithely gloss over this, (or outright ignore) this, as you do everything anyone bothers to elucidate for you.

We've been all over this. The ranges of uncertainty are clearly defined.

If you disagree, then show us a data set that supports your hypothesis.

 

[thør]

Should we be concerned?

 

[OldJourno]

Should we be concerned?

I've got an old Frigidaire in the garage. If you can get someone to take it up there with a really long extension cord, we can prop the doors open and keep that glacier from melting.
It might save the world.

 

[thør]

I've got an old Frigidaire in the garage. If you can get someone to take it up there with a really long extension cord, we can prop the doors open and keep that glacier from melting.
It might save the world.

But, that won't work. More than likely, will just cause more heating.

 

[OldJourno]

But, that won't work. More than likely, will just cause more heating.

Of course. The old energy guide is still on the side. It would cost $86 a year to run it. That's a lot of coal.

 

[domroger]

Should we be concerned?

But the RWNJ believe the earth is heading for another ice age ,so that's all right then .

 

[trysail]

https://kleinefeldmausorgnz.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/the-times-headline-2.jpg

​

 

[Libsam]

Should we be concerned?

Are you worried about the measles outbreak in Minnesota?
Want to guess which communities are experiencing the most outbreaks?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

https://kleinefeldmausorgnz.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/the-times-headline-2.jpg

​

This was an excellent article on air quality. I totally agree with the author of the article, we shouldn't be using flash in the pan methods to improve air quality. Especially when there are tried and true methods, like giving tax breaks to those who walk, ride a bike, or use public transportation to get around, and let's conversely increase the tax on those who use a car to get around.

 

[phrodeau]

Are you worried about the measles outbreak in Minnesota?
Want to guess which communities are experiencing the most outbreaks?

The ones being preached to by the anti-vaxxers, that's who.

The increase in non-immunized children in Minnesota is directly traceable to Patti Carroll.

 

[MahdiTaquacoreKB]

Global Warming Solutions
realistic strategies to enclose environmental catastrophe
include networking anyone interested globally as a think tank
telepathically from the astral plane,
and inducing wild animals and pets at the pet store to achieve Nirvana,
if not sentient enough to count as invaded:
love inserted, not love extracted if niche coercion is reduced at event,
or if your pet is a child to you and ok to do to a child.

Elohim pets: kittens purchased at the store are inserted with love,
alternate emotions extracted, they become an astral computer willing to scry,
if prompted:
margin by solving global warming
margin by pet owner's selfish side
the safety of three other Buddha kittens sired in at the same time.

These Elohim pets can be induced to scry stop on fairest odds extracting all quality library wisdom, then on bribing any immortal general/prophets in the way of Buddha unless provided a fix: including even for dopamine addiction.

If an immortal prophet cannot allow resources to accomplish specific maneuvers to exist,
and such is scried to be the truth for a scientific method burden of proof fact,
selfless militaries gain tactically from never having resources sufficient to succeed
because incapable of using munitions toward those ends.

Nirvana - unconditional love perpetuating itself endlessly.

 

[OldJourno]

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/

Hottest Year in History!

 

[Hard_Rom]

What ever you are on I suggest a 20% decrease in dosage. Or buy your drugs from only people you know.

Global Warming Solutions
realistic strategies to enclose environmental catastrophe
include networking anyone interested globally as a think tank
telepathically from the astral plane,
and inducing wild animals and pets at the pet store to achieve Nirvana,
if not sentient enough to count as invaded:
love inserted, not love extracted if niche coercion is reduced at event,
or if your pet is a child to you and ok to do to a child.

Elohim pets: kittens purchased at the store are inserted with love,
alternate emotions extracted, they become an astral computer willing to scry,
if prompted:
margin by solving global warming
margin by pet owner's selfish side
the safety of three other Buddha kittens sired in at the same time.

These Elohim pets can be induced to scry stop on fairest odds extracting all quality library wisdom, then on bribing any immortal general/prophets in the way of Buddha unless provided a fix: including even for dopamine addiction.

If an immortal prophet cannot allow resources to accomplish specific maneuvers to exist,
and such is scried to be the truth for a scientific method burden of proof fact,
selfless militaries gain tactically from never having resources sufficient to succeed
because incapable of using munitions toward those ends.

Nirvana - unconditional love perpetuating itself endlessly.

 

[Bidin~Time]

retaliatory bump

 

[trysail]

...The accumulation of false and/or misleading claims is often referred to as the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for forthcoming catastrophe. Without these claims, one might legitimately ask whether there is any evidence at all.

Despite this, climate change has been the alleged motivation for numerous policies, which, for the most part, seem to have done more harm than the purported climate change, and have the obvious capacity to do much more. Perhaps the best that can be said for these efforts is that they are acknowledged to have little impact on either CO2 levels or temperatures despite their immense cost. This is relatively good news since there is ample evidence that both changes are likely to be beneficial although the immense waste of money is not.

I haven’t spent much time on the details of the science [in this address], but there is one thing that should spark skepticism in any intelligent reader. The system we are looking at consists in two turbulent fluids interacting with each other. They are on a rotating planet that is differentially heated by the sun. A vital constituent of the atmospheric component is water in the liquid, solid and vapor phases, and the changes in phase have vast energetic ramifications. The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and reemission of about 200 watts per square meter. Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure.”

–Richard H. Lindzen, Ph.D.
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences (emeritus)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Fellow American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS
Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Member National Academy of Sciences
​

​

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)

I haven’t spent much time on the details of the science…​

Nooooooo shit.

 

[trysail]

...The accumulation of false and/or misleading claims is often referred to as the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for forthcoming catastrophe. Without these claims, one might legitimately ask whether there is any evidence at all.

Despite this, climate change has been the alleged motivation for numerous policies, which, for the most part, seem to have done more harm than the purported climate change, and have the obvious capacity to do much more. Perhaps the best that can be said for these efforts is that they are acknowledged to have little impact on either CO2 levels or temperatures despite their immense cost. This is relatively good news since there is ample evidence that both changes are likely to be beneficial although the immense waste of money is not.

I haven’t spent much time on the details of the science [in this presentation], but there is one thing that should spark skepticism in any intelligent reader. The system we are looking at consists in two turbulent fluids interacting with each other. They are on a rotating planet that is differentially heated by the sun. A vital constituent of the atmospheric component is water in the liquid, solid and vapor phases, and the changes in phase have vast energetic ramifications. The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and reemission of about 200 watts per square meter. Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure.”

–Richard H. Lindzen, Ph.D.
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences (emeritus)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Fellow American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS
Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Member National Academy of Sciences
​

ht tp://merionwest.com/2017/04/25/richard-lindzen-thoughts-on-the-public-discourse-over-climate-change/

http://merionwest.com/2017/04/25/ri...-on-the-public-discourse-over-climate-change/



​

 

[Hard_Rom]

But the RWNJ believe the earth is heading for another ice age ,so that's all right then .

That is still a possible outcome. Melting Greenland ice cap could shutdown the Gulf stream. Resulting in colder temps across much of northern Europe. Without the Gulf stream the UK would have a climate like Labrador. Norway could become snow and ice bound all year. Increased snow and ice coverage increase albedo of Earth's surface reflecting more light back reversing glacier melt.

With humans you can never tell. A big war or disease outbreak could effect population. There is a theory that the Black Death caused much land to revert to woodland and increased CO2 absorption resulting in colder temps. Wiping out 40% of world population could reverse global warming. With human's grip on this planet there can be no doubt that we affect the climate. Used to be a shtye load more trees many many years ago. SW Ontario was all first growth forest and wetlands. Now is farmland and cities.

 

[KingOrfeo]

That is still a possible outcome. Melting Greenland ice cap could shutdown the Gulf stream. Resulting in colder temps across much of northern Europe. Without the Gulf stream the UK would have a climate like Labrador.

But that effect would be mostly localized to Western Europe. Russia, being too far from the Gulf Stream to be warmed by it now (which is why they get such long cold winters), would not be affected. Meanwhile, the average global temperature would continue to rise.

 

[domroger]

That is still a possible outcome. Melting Greenland ice cap could shutdown the Gulf stream. Resulting in colder temps across much of northern Europe. Without the Gulf stream the UK would have a climate like Labrador. Norway could become snow and ice bound all year. Increased snow and ice coverage increase albedo of Earth's surface reflecting more light back reversing glacier melt.
.

Of course if the Gulf Stream is affected that could happen ,but the rise in sea temperature could offset it .
However I believe the world outside of the USA can and will do something about it ,leaving the USA as a global pariah .