The real climate change catastrophe

[RomCat]

Actually we are entering the beginning of a new
ice age. We should be promoting global warming
(if it does exist).
Between warming and cooling I will take warming.
During the last ice age where I live was under 5,000
feet of ice!

 

[DallasApple]

All I know is I wish someone with a big brain could figure out how not to make it NOT freezing in my bedroom and not boiling hot in my kitchen.

Love

Dallas

 

[Daemon Sophic]

All I know is I wish someone with a big brain could figure out how not to make it freezing in my bedroom and not boiling hot in my kitchen.

Love

Dallas

Actually, improved insulation and an improved heating system in your house would go a long way toward solving all three problems.
1 your bedroom
2 your kitchen
and
3 your carbon footprint

plus (at absolutely less than no cost to you)
4 your heating and cooling costs will drop

p.s. - if you already have the updated equipment.....thennnnn....
p.p.s. - my brain isn't likely more than 1500 grams.

 

[DallasApple]

Actually, improved insulation and an improved heating system in your house would go a long way toward solving all three problems.
1 your bedroom
2 your kitchen
and
3 your carbon footprint

plus (at absolutely less than no cost to you)
4 your heating and cooling costs will drop

p.s. - if you already have the updated equipment.....thennnnn....
p.p.s. - my brain isn't likely more than 1500 grams.

I have no idea about grams and carbon!

Thats why I have to wear a COAT in my bedrroom and a BATHING suit in my kitchen.

HELLO and I SWEAR its not me being hot and cold internally!

Love

Dallas

 

[sandy whitelinger]

All I know is I wish someone with a big brain could figure out how not to make it NOT freezing in my bedroom and not boiling hot in my kitchen.

Love

Dallas

Get a space heater for your bedroom and don't go into the kitchen.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Or you could take it as "your question as written is gibberish".

Keep this up and eventually I'll just ignore you.

Seriously: "Perhaps you could tell me why when the explaination for co2 rising after temperature rise, ie. co2 warming takes over, doesn't appl to co2 levels falling after temperature drops?"

Maybe you could rephrase that so it makes sense, then I'll either have a go or refer you to a relevant article.

Ok, the graphs of temperature vs. co2 levels show that temperature rose first followed by co2. The explanation is that there was a slight increase in temperature due to non-co2 related causes. The rise in co2 then took over the warming phenomena. My question is, if that is true, why did the tempertaure fall previous to the co2 fall. It would seem to me that higher co2 levels would continue to warm the atmosphere.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Global Mean Temperature data is only one of the many data sets that feed into the models used by the IPCC. I listed many of the others.

In all fairness, you're not very clear on what you want to talk about. First it was just insinuating anyone who accepts the fact of AGW is brainwashed. Now you're apparently casting about looking for a single raw data set that casts doubt on the climate predictions issued by the IPCC. (First Vostock Ice cores, now global mean temperature)

What DO you want to talk about? I'm speaking in general terms here, and have no desire (and lack the qualifications) to sit here and analyze and critique randomly selected raw data sets.

This is why I'm asking for your sources. Somebody somewhere has drawn your attention to these particular data sets for some reason, and it would be helpful to read their claims (and the relevant counter-claims by actual climatologists).

You really should stop trying to surmise what I'm doing or where I'm going. You suck at it and tend to negative (maybe it's a personal problem).

I've explained this already and, again, you failed to follow the thread very well, but I'll be your nanny this once. I asked if people looked at the studies and data to find out two things. One, do they really know what they are talking about, and two, if they do, I'd like them to share their knowledge.

You seem to have some idea of what you are talking about but share it with the equivalent of a kick in the a--, along with incorrect surmising, which is tiresome.


What I'm focusing on now is how scientists arrived at the "fact" of global warming. The "anti-global warming" sites seem to be a bit inbred, using the same data over and over again. What I'm looking into now is whether the "pro-GW" sites and scientists show the same inbreeding, ie. using the same global warming temperature statistics. It appears they do.
The current analysis uses surface air temperatures measurements from the following data sets: the unadjusted data of the Global Historical Climatology Network (Peterson and Vose, 1997 and 1998), United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) data, and SCAR (Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research) data from Antarctic stations.

 

[Yerda]

Charlie Booker, Ian Pilmer and The Daily Mail. There's three sources you can trust. Cheers, Kai.

 

[kai]

Charlie Booker, Ian Pilmer and The Daily Mail. There's three sources you can trust. Cheers, Kai.

to be honest i dont trust them or distrust them , i know very little about it and just kind of threw it out there to follow the thread.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What I don't get, we know for a fact that pollution is bad, and not only that, fossil fuels will be depleted one day. We have smog, poor air quality, and entire nations dependent upon energy sources that will not last much longer. One day there will be no more coal, no more coal, and then what? A desperate scramble to find new sources of energy. We know that many problems come from being dependent on fossil fuels, so why not begin a gradual shift from coal and oil to wind, geothermal, solar, or other sources that are clean, and cannot be depleted before our civilizations collapse because there is very little energy left to spread around. Take care of an inevitable problem before it becomes a major issue.
Even when Global Warming and climate change are taken out of the equation, there is still not one valid reason to not transition to alternative sources of energy.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

What I don't get, we know for a fact that pollution is bad, and not only that, fossil fuels will be depleted one day. We have smog, poor air quality, and entire nations dependent upon energy sources that will not last much longer. One day there will be no more coal, no more coal, and then what? A desperate scramble to find new sources of energy. We know that many problems come from being dependent on fossil fuels, so why not begin a gradual shift from coal and oil to wind, geothermal, solar, or other sources that are clean, and cannot be depleted before our civilizations collapse because there is very little energy left to spread around. Take care of an inevitable problem before it becomes a major issue.
Even when Global Warming and climate change are taken out of the equation, there is still not one valid reason to not transition to alternative sources of energy.

There are already alternative sources of energy. It's a matter of economics not supply.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There are already alternative sources of energy. It's a matter of economics not supply.

What makes it alarming, some people and certain media outlets seem to suggest there is no reason to be worried, and we will be just fine with continued usage of fossil fuels.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

What makes it alarming, some people and certain media outlets seem to suggest there is no reason to be worried, and we will be just fine with continued usage of fossil fuels.

We probably will be as long as the free market is allowed to operate. I believe it will come up with the alternatives as needed. Pedicting doom and fear mongering is a hobby for many though.

 

[Alceste]

You really should stop trying to surmise what I'm doing or where I'm going. You suck at it and tend to negative (maybe it's a personal problem).

I asked if people looked at the studies and data to find out two things. One, do they really know what they are talking about, and two, if they do, I'd like them to share their knowledge.

Then you need themadhair. Haven't seen him around lately though.

What I'm focusing on now is how scientists arrived at the "fact" of global warming. The "anti-global warming" sites seem to be a bit inbred, using the same data over and over again. What I'm looking into now is whether the "pro-GW" sites and scientists show the same inbreeding, ie. using the same global warming temperature statistics. It appears they do.

There is a reason for the inbreeding in the anti-GW crowd: they are propagandists. I mean literally, not in some half-arsed "they have strong opinions and a particular world view" kind of way. I mean they are paid huge sums of money by large industry players to advance a particular political agenda (deregulation) by all possible means, including cherry picking data from complex climate research that appear (to unqualified people like you and I) to cast doubt on the fact of AGW. But because AGW is a fact, there isn't very much of that kind of data. That's why they have to "recycle".

I recommend Trust Us, We're Experts to get an idea of how common the distribution of anti-scientific propaganda using scientific language as a means of communication actually is.

The current analysis uses surface air temperatures measurements from the following data sets: the unadjusted data of the Global Historical Climatology Network (Peterson and Vose, 1997 and 1998), United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) data, and SCAR (Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research) data from Antarctic stations.

Global Surface Temperature is not the only data set used in climate modelling. I honestly don't know how many there are, but this little tool might give you some idea of how inaccurate it is to propose that there is a similarly limited amount of raw data being circulated among the 97% of climatologists who agree about the fact of AGW.

http://www.ipcc-data.org/maps/

Select a Dataset and subcategory, and each of the titles represents a research centre contributing data to the IPCC. Over on the right under "Selection Notes", if you click "more info" under the code for the dataset, you can look at the details for the modelling team that provided the data (example).

I'm going to be honest with you though - I don't understand the data. I rely on climatologists to interpret it for me.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

@ Sandy Whitelinger
Regardless of what/where you believe your posts are directing thoughts on this topic, it seems abundantly clear that you are asking the people of this forum to double check all the work and all the sources of thousands of Climatology PhD's from around the globe and over the decades.
In the process of your posts, you are (knowingly or unknowingly) basically saying "All the scientists are idiots, and we cannot trust them. We should all just look at the raw data and work it out on our own." "P.S. - When in doubt, an unregulated libertarian free market will provide humanity with the best answers."
Seriously, you are.

Frankly, I don't have the time or the skills set to critically analyze all of their works; and I doubt that anyone else here does either (including yourself). I also don't have the time or skills to analyze the scientific concensus that molecules exist and are made up of things called "atoms". Or that the engineering of airplane wings and car chassis frames are optimal for safety and efficiency. Do you?
In all these cases, I (we all) must consider (assume) that the scientific community to not be a pack of drooling, money-grubbing, conspiring fiends; but instead that they are what they seem. i.e. Intelligent, thoughtful, hard-working people who actually take pride in their work, and work to provide the correct answers regardless of where those answers lead.
We can also safely assume that there will always be a few outliers who will challenge the base; a few outliers who will say anything for the right amount of money; and that corporations are in business to make money, not to spread happiness and cheer to the greatest number of humans, regardless of cost to themselves. This last statement also logically conveys the fact that many (if not all) multibillion-dollar corporations will take whatever steps are necessary to control political power in order to protect their economic interests (e.g. unregulated free-market).

If you disagree with those last two paragraphs, then tell us now. Tell us what YOUR thoughts/opinions/research findings are on global warming. Exactly how are YOU interpretting the raw data? Can you show your work?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

@ Sandy Whitelinger
Regardless of what/where you believe your posts are directing thoughts on this topic, it seems abundantly clear that you are asking the people of this forum to double check all the work and all the sources of thousands of Climatology PhD's from around the globe and over the decades.
In the process of your posts, you are (knowingly or unknowingly) basically saying "All the scientists are idiots, and we cannot trust them. We should all just look at the raw data and work it out on our own." "P.S. - When in doubt, an unregulated libertarian free market will provide humanity with the best answers."
Seriously, you are.

Frankly, I don't have the time or the skills set to critically analyze all of their works; and I doubt that anyone else here does either (including yourself). I also don't have the time or skills to analyze the scientific concensus that molecules exist and are made up of things called "atoms". Or that the engineering of airplane wings and car chassis frames are optimal for safety and efficiency. Do you?
In all these cases, I (we all) must consider (assume) that the scientific community to not be a pack of drooling, money-grubbing, conspiring fiends; but instead that they are what they seem. i.e. Intelligent, thoughtful, hard-working people who actually take pride in their work, and work to provide the correct answers regardless of where those answers lead.
We can also safely assume that there will always be a few outliers who will challenge the base; a few outliers who will say anything for the right amount of money; and that corporations are in business to make money, not to spread happiness and cheer to the greatest number of humans, regardless of cost to themselves. This last statement also logically conveys the fact that many (if not all) multibillion-dollar corporations will take whatever steps are necessary to control political power in order to protect their economic interests (e.g. unregulated free-market).

If you disagree with those last two paragraphs, then tell us now. Tell us what YOUR thoughts/opinions/research findings are on global warming. Exactly how are YOU interpretting the raw data? Can you show your work?

I think I can sum up your and some others sentiments as, "Trust the scientists, and all the others are fools." I'm a fool then. I've already posted some examples of scientists being wrong and the public opinion that followed.

I've already posted my position in this more than once in this thread. Go read it.I'm not your nanny, I won't keep posting it to satisfy everyone who picks up a thread in the middle. If you've read it and think I'm lying or something like that...well, you're entitled to your opinion.

Overall though it looks as if you have nothing to add other than ad hominems directed at me. Not very good debating skills.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I didn't start it, but am more than happy to respond in kind. I'll stop if you stop.

I recommend Trust Us, We're Experts to get an idea of how common the distribution of anti-scientific propaganda using scientific language as a means of communication actually is.

If it's in my library I'll find it, if not I'm a cheap bast--d and won't buy it.

Global Surface Temperature is not the only data set used in climate modelling. I honestly don't know how many there are, but this little tool might give you some idea of how inaccurate it is to propose that there is a similarly limited amount of raw data being circulated among the 97% of climatologists who agree about the fact of AGW.

IPCC Data Distribution Centre Visualisation

Select a Dataset and subcategory, and each of the titles represents a research centre contributing data to the IPCC. Over on the right under "Selection Notes", if you click "more info" under the code for the dataset, you can look at the details for the modelling team that provided the data (example).

Right now I'm just looking at GMT.

I'm going to be honest with you though - I don't understand the data. I rely on climatologists to interpret it for me.

I'll follow the trail backward as far as my understanding will go. It's winter, I have time. I probably won't understand the fine details but I do understand general principles. I'm also not as stupid as I look.

 

[Alceste]

I think I can sum up your and some others sentiments as, "Trust the scientists, and all the others are fools."

Thus demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that engaging with you has been a complete waste of time.

I'm not your nanny

If I'd known you were going to get such mileage out of that phrase I'd have slapped a copyright on it so I could bill you a flat fee per use.

 

[Alceste]

I didn't start it, but am more than happy to respond in kind. I'll stop if you stop.

I found the tone of the OP and your subsequent posts to be rather insulting. You seem to think nobody has ever really thought about this stuff except for you. Considering your premise is insulting in and of itself, it's hard for me to believe you can stop.

If it's in my library I'll find it, if not I'm a cheap bast--d and won't buy it.

Century of the Self is a documentary covering the history of propaganda if not the abuse of science specifically. It's free on :: Download Free Political Documentaries And Watch Many Interesting, Controversial Free Documentary Films On That You Wont Find On The TV! ::.

Right now I'm just looking at GMT.

Why only that?

I'll follow the trail backward as far as my understanding will go. It's winter, I have time. I probably won't understand the fine details but I do understand general principles. I'm also not as stupid as I look.

Sandy, it's not a simple case of deductive reasoning. You need to know quite a lot of field-specific lingo and what the various abbreviations and symbollic representations used by climatologists mean before you can even get a toe in the door as far as interpreting the data is concerned. The whole "show me the raw data" approach is simply not going to work for you, or for anybody else without a relevant degree (or the equivalent amount of free time on their hands to learn the field independently).

But, anyway, good luck with that. It will be interesting to see what you come up with.

 

[Copernicus]

There are already alternative sources of energy. It's a matter of economics not supply.

But supply is a key component of economics. The problem is that we have ample supplies of carbon-emitting "dirty" energy, and the alternatives cost too much in the short run to develop to the point where they can compete. So dirty energy can meet the demand unless we create an artificial demand for clean energy. That is what the climate change debate is all about--the need to reduce demand for dirty energy and increase it for clean energy.

But here you are with the position that dirty energy isn't really "dirty", so there is no need to suppress demand for it. You doubt the scientific consensus.

We probably will be as long as the free market is allowed to operate. I believe it will come up with the alternatives as needed...."

Right there is the disconnect I have with you--"as needed". The alternative to famine is not always more food, and the alternative to epidemics is not always a cure. Sometimes death cures the problem by making the market go away. That is not producing "alternatives as needed".

...Pedicting doom and fear mongering is a hobby for many though.

So is downplaying and ignoring impending disaster. It does not advance the discussion for either side to attack the motives of the other, although we all fall victim to making easy cheap shots.

Sandy, I think that you vastly underestimate the availability of alternative clean energy. Markets are very short term instruments for social planning. They do not have long range perspective on supply and demand. Their curative powers are easily overwhelmed by disastrous changes. When we survive disasters, they snap back. But we don't always survive. Right now, the short term energy markets are fighting tooth and nail to prevent us from taking steps to prevent an impending global disaster. We still need to do far more basic research than our market-dominated legislatures are willing to fund. Once we find viable solutions, it takes years (if not decades) to engineer and manufacture on a large scale. Unfortunately, research is one of the first things to get cut when free marketeers get turned loose on an enterprise. So the only solution here is for government to intervene in the marketplace. That is the only human agency that looks further down the road than short term budget cycles. I just wish that our current government structure did not buy so heavily into the Hoover-era mentality that government needs to be run just like a business. Sometimes it is a really bad idea to follow market-driven strategies blindly, and this is one of those times.