Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by Rgbeard, Aug 10, 2019.
The funny thing is, this statement is misleading, and well, moronic.
[Said without ad hominem attack]
I've posted what actually drives global warming and cooling before. It's sun spots that cause global warming, and the lack of them that cause global cooling. The Little Ice Age corresponds to the Maunder Minimum, which had minimal sun spots.
This is the mechanism. Sun spots throw off charged particles which charge up the Van Allen Radiation Belts. The charged belts reduce the number of cosmic rays that hit the atmosphere, so there are fewer condensation centers for water vapor to condense on and cause clouds. Thus, less sunlight is reflected and more radiation hits the earth, and the temperature rises.
When there are fewer sun spots, the radiation belts are less ionized, and more cosmic rays get through, so there are more condensation centers and more clouds form. Thus, more sun light is reflected into space, and less hits the earth, so the temperature reduces.
CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is a result of temperature change, not a cause. If you look at a plot of temperature vs. CO2 concentration, you will see the CO2 concentration follow, not lead, the earth's temperature.
You can check this at home. Let an unopened can of soda sit on the counter until it assumes room temperature, and other unopened can sit in the refrigerator until it is the refrigerator's temperature. Then open each at the same time. Guaranteed the soda on the counter will go flat first, as the higher the temperature, the faster CO2 outgasses from a liquid.
Also, NASA satellite data says the earth's temperature hasn't risen in at least the last ten years, despite the rise in CO2 concentration levels. That alone gives lie to the contention that CO2 causes global warming.
Global warming is a hoax, concocted by the Soviet Union to try to destroy Western economies.
The money goes to Goldman Sachs ;-)
There also is the accumulation of how we do things. Disposable culture (vs. The old days when you could either repair things yourself, or it paid to have a repair done), plastic water bottles (shipped across the oceans) etc,
There are so many things we do now that make it so much worse.
I recently read of a scientific study that indicates that a global tree planting initiative would be the quickest and most efficient step to take right now. Turns out hemp is also the most effective “tree” to plant as it grows more quickly, and converts co2 to oxygen, and has the added benefit of renewing the soil between planting and harvest.
It probably is not the one solution, but it is doable, and would help a lot apparently.
At the risk of being labeled as 'anti tree' and 'anti science', thats the kind of 'solution' grad students come up with. That tree planting study forgot about some minor issues like global fresh water supply, the role of water vapor and the fact that we also need to supply 6 billion people with protein and calories. Maybe it works if we all switch to tofurkey and kill all the cows and piggies so they stop farting away the ozone layer.
None of this is easy.
Why do you, or your sources, think that the scientists have neglected the effects of the sunspot cycle?
We at at, or near, a sunspot minimum now. Yet the past 5 years are the warmest recorded in the past 139 years, this includes NASA data.
Not what I’ve read after the data was was correctly stated. We are actually cooler.
Remember when a group of climatologists got caught manipulating the data??
Dick or Burt Rutan wrote a interesting paper on this subject.
Folks can believe what they want to about GW, just don’t “shove it down my throat”. If people want to stop taking showers and believe that toilet paper is destroying the world, we’ll ok.....have at it. But don’t involve me in the delusion.
I don’t want to keep people from thinking they’re making a difference, live and let live. But it never stops there. I can’t even get a get a decent gas can anymore, that’s annoying.
Edit: gas can
The climate has been changing since the beginning of time when evil man wasn’t even on the face of the earth and it will keep changing no matter what we do. Our influence over this change is miniscule.
When I was in high school scientists said man was causing an ice age, years later global warming, now it is just change.
Time to go to the airport and burn some petro, sunny and 70*, can’t beat it.
We aren't at, or near, a sunspot minimum now?
I guess the 2009 meeting of the Illuminati under KDEN managed to get that satellite launched that covers the sun and hides the sunspot count. NASA is in on the conspiracy: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
It's their satellites doing the measurement. </sarcasm>
I'm not sure of your sources but I'm sure mine are at least as credible. NOAA is in on the conspiracy: https://www.noaa.gov/news/2018-was-4th-hottest-year-on-record-for-globe
NASA sayy that the past five years were the warmest: https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...ontinued-warming-trend-according-to-nasa-noaa
The way I see it, environmentalism has two huge problems.
1. There are a lot of folks injecting political positions that really have nothing to do with the environment and clouding the issue. People who just hate anything capitalist and hate all corporations. It muddies the waters and pulls the discussion away from science and makes it about other things. It leads to environmental policy that may not make sense and gives people who might otherwise not care reason to be opposed to it.
2. The way we approach it is too draconian. I don't know about everyone else but when I think of environmentalism the first things to come to mind is stuff I use being banned in favor of products that cost more and don't work as well, small crappy cars that are miserable to drive, and just stuff generally getting more expensive and/or not being as good. I always hear the stories of people who have the old high flow toilets horded away, old banned paint that lasts longer than the new, etc. A lot of people associate environmentally unfriendly with better and it's often been the case. However, it doesn't always have to go that way. I have geothermal heating/cooling in my house- the tax credit combined with the energy bill savings made it a good deal. I've got most of my lighting converted to LED- it actually works better/lasts longer while using 1/10 the energy, that didn't need a mandate.
I get so tired of seeing certain parties bemoaning the fact that big bad climate change is coming for us and we're doing nothing. There's plenty of stuff we could do that wouldn't be contentious if you'd just stop trying to force people to live a certain way and instead give them options that are not only better for the environment but better for one's quality of life. If it was really the cataclysmic disaster they say it is, why aren't we building nuclear power plants? The designs and technologies available now are exponentially safer than the old 60's era reactors everyone's afraid of. Why aren't we subsidizing putting geothermal systems in every household? Why aren't we making a HUGE investment in the development of new tech like fusion reactors and new forms of energy storage(batteries)? Why aren't we ditching legislation that forces people who want to live off-grid using renewable energy/resources to connect to the grid or have their home deemed uninhabitable? These are just some things that could be done and yes I know there are issues, there are always going to be issues. But it seems to me if this is as much of an emergency as they're claiming they ought to be at least implementing the stuff people can agree on. The way it gets approached in practice- doing stuff like complaining that people like to fly places is just dumb. It makes me think that it's more about forcing people to live the way certain people want than it is about a real and urgent need.
<---- might know someone that's 'imported' a toilet.
Wasn’t commenting on sun spots, but if you look at your data the last few years there has been a decrease in temps..
I’m not saying things aren’t changing, I’m saying scientists have been wrong in the past and aren’t 100% sure why we are having this change.. Cutting our own throats economically while others don’t is no way run a country.
From your links.. See the word likely......Same thing they said about man causing an ice age years ago. A century is a blink of the eye when looking at the earths changes in the atmosphere.
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
But have you taken a train LATELY? A few years ago, I would have agreed with you that I’d prefer trains over airlines...but traveling by Amtrak from Chicago last year, they had they’re own BS-security-theater that rivaled TSA. Guess I now choose either my own plane or driving my own car.
I think this lady should mind her own business and consider getting a life.
Sorry, got you confused with someone else about sunspots. The temps have been generally rising, with some year-to-year variation. It's called "weather", and is why I didn't mention this past July was the hottest yet- a single month doesn't make a climate.
I'm pretty sure they didn't claim people were causing an ice-age, please cite your references?
I'm sorry scientists don't deal in absolutes, but if numerous credible sources told me there was a 97% chance a horse would win the Kentucky Derby, I'd put money down on it.
As was mentioned earlier in the thread, "I'd dig where the 'taters are growing"
My only problem with the "science" behind global warming, or climate change, or whatever it is being called today, is that the science has been corrupted by politics and money. If you are a scientist and the government gives you money to research climate change, you aren't going to come back and say nope, no sign of it, end of story. You come back with a few statistics, but say more research is needed, give me another grant. Then you have the politicians that stand to profit from all the hysteria.
Its just bad science.
Okaaay. Just ignore the information that is out there and say "it's all tainted". Likewise, that's why we haven't cured cancer, and why we have new infectious disease. There's more money made in medicine than cures.
Back in the 1970s (yes, I was around then, graduated from college in 1975) the same folks that were screaming "global warming!" were screaming that we were headed for another ice age and it was all our fault. I can't cite any specific references, but it was readily available in the "news".
Ah yes, the same news you don't believe now. Even then, those scientists were in the minority.
This is a load of BS. The scientists I've met aren't in it for the money. They are in it for the love of science and finding truth. They aren't driving Ferraris. They're driving crappy old civics so it will take them to a job they love. Two big issues 1- people are getting their news from CNN or Fox News, 2- people think the world is too big for them to impact it.
Go talk to a scientist that studies this stuff that isn't funded by a special interest group. You might just learn something.
True or false?
The earth has been warmer in the past prior to the rise of man.
The earth has been cooler in the past prior to the rise of man.
Time scales as small as 150 years can be measured geologically in the rocks.
Exactly, that is why I refuse to blame it all on mankind and commit economic suicide. I also feel in the future our energy needs will be taken care of through new, better and clean technologies.
<sarcasm>I'm sure this is news to the climate scientists. You should write a paper and tell them.</sarcasm>
Maybe the ones you have met, but some have been caught lying and manipulating the data. That means they are agenda driven and not driven by science.
Usually, when scientists are caught lying, they no longer do science. It does get publicized
Lots If you’re a good BS’er and know how to write (aka grants) to those that control the purse strings specifying want they want to hear.
I have yet to get a legit answer. Ive been asking this for 20 years, and like you they avoid the question.
I have. I asked what is the ideal temperature of the earth? Couldn’t get a straight answer. Then I asked what is the ideal CO2 saturation of the earth’s atmosphere. Still couldn’t get a straight answer. I finally gave up asking as I was basically playing a game of whack-a-mole as the person of interest kept dodging my questions.
Of course they gave up. Coming from someone who holds the atmosphere is 25% water vapor, 5% hydrogen.
If the earth is only 7000 years old, there hasn't been a lot of change before this.
Wait another few years...it will get warmer, and you guys will still be spouting the same BS. "It isn't happening, the climate scientists are crooked, the data is wrong, the climate scientists are incompetent, etc, etc"
The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare
Global Warming: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration may have a boring name, but it has a very important job: It measures U.S. temperatures. Unfortunately, it seems to be a captive of the global warming religion. Its data is fraudulent.
What do we mean by fraudulent? How about this: NOAA has made repeated "adjustments" to its data, for the presumed scientific reason of making the data sets more accurate.
Nothing wrong with that. Except, all their changes point to one thing — lowering previously measured temperatures to show cooler weather in the past, and raising more recent temperatures to show warming in the recent present.
I am not a creationist. The earth is 4 billionish years old. Just keep avoiding the question like everyone else. Is that some sort of code to adhere to? Cant answer the question, so redirect redirect redirect.
Because here's how every conversation I try to have goes:
The earth is getting too warm!
Hasn't it been warmer prior to humans existing?
OK, so why is the temperature taken in the 1800's supposed to be the baseline?
Well, because it just is.
Really? That's your answer.
Well, no, but the rate of change is too much!
So going back pre ice cores, how do we know this rate of change hasn't happened before? You want to take a 150 year sample out of 4 billion years of geologic history and say that it's never happened when it is impossible to measure time scales so short over a couple billion years?
Oh, so you can't...got it.
I think my predictions would’ve been much more accurate than Algores.
Wednesday, 26 June 2019
Climate Alarmists Caught Manipulating Temperature Data Yet Again
Written by James Murphy
A belief in catastrophic man-made global warming should hinge on a couple of key factors. First, it must be shown that in the recent past the Earth was a cooler place. Second, temperatures in the present and in the future must show a dramatic increase in times of increased carbon dioxide. These facts would supply evidence that scientists could use to show that our planet is getting quickly warmer.
Such a graph would look much like a hockey stick.
But weather hasn’t always cooperated with the climate-alarmist version of events. And when temperatures don’t cooperate with climate hysteria, too often we find climate alarmists manipulating data. History — even recent history — gets changed to reflect what should be happening according to those “in the know.”
Geologist Tony Heller, however, isn’t one to rely on what the mainstream media and climate scientists tell us is happening. Being a scientist, Heller is keen on reporting facts instead of hysteria. And Heller is telling us that global temperature data is being manipulated before our very eyes.
According to Heller, NASA has manipulated historical temperature data to show a dramatic increase in temperature, especially since the year 2000.
Comparing NASA charts from the years 2000, 2017, and 2019, Heller shows data has been manipulated multiple times since the year 2000. Heller shows, with NASA’s own data, that the space agency has been adjusting temperatures from the past — temperatures from as long ago as the mid-1800s — downward, while adjusting current-day temperatures upward, and those changes are responsible for most of the claimed global warming during that time. In the year 2000, historical data showed a .5 degree Celsius increase from the mid-1800s to the year 2000. In 2017, the same agency’s historical temperature data showed a 1.5C increase and just two years later a 2.0 C increase. In each of those time frames, older temperatures are pushed slightly downward.
“If we had high temperatures when CO2 was low, that would indicate that other factors in the climate are much stronger than carbon dioxide,” Heller pointed out.
There are several examples of doctored historical temperature data. Besides NASA, we know that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has done it. We know that the HadCRUT 4 data used by the UNIPCC contained at least 70 obvious errors, according to a 2018 audit by climate-data researcher Dr. John Mclean.
I’m pretty sure it’s a written rule in the alarmists handbook. Have to ask Jack which section though.
Has to be said: It’s 1/3 of the problem. That’s pretty significant.
Other than saying that, and one more thing, I’m staying out of this crap.
My one more thing is that humans are adaptable. That’s why we even survived this long as a species. Break out the bikinis if it gets too warm. Break out the parkas if it gets too cold. Not really joking. Future generations will adapt or die.
No big deal. Plenty of other species want to be top of the food chain.