header pic

Area51 Board (non-moderated) at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' Scout-Tennessee a51 Crowd- Enjoy ROWDY discussion covering politics, religion, current events, and all things under the sun

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: Climate change

 (Read 68 times)

HK_Vol

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 9265
  • Liked:
Climate change
« on: November 10, 2019, 07:55:31 PM »
A few comments from friends of mine....

Heinz: 

This is in stark contrast to climate change - while it too exists (the climate is continually changing), its problem status is completely imaginary. The recent hysteria over this issue is very difficult to understand, as the credibility of  "climate models" (and that includes all of them)  should have completely crumbled by now (their predictions are light years from observed reality).  Also, everything is getting better - there are fewer hurricanes, tornadoes and cyclones, the weather has become milder (the difference between average night and daytime temperatures has decreased) and deaths from natural catastrophes are at an all time low. Pacific islands are not sinking beneath the waves either - in fact, some of them are growing. Nobody has "stolen" Gretl Thunberg's childhood and there is absolutely no need to return to the healthy life style of the stone age.  :)

I know about their data "adjustments" -  they eventually bullied the last satellite service that still showed the real data into altering them as well. Yes, it is a complete fraud (the reasoning given for the adjustments is utterly spurious).
_________________________________________________ _____

Thomas

Spot on Heinz.

I have studied climate change in detail for 12 years (have reams of data and graphs for anyone interested) and have found adjustments have been made to T data pretty much everywhere - except Japan where T records are largely untouched.

Besides satellite data adjustments, T data from individual weather stations are altered as well. the reasons given vary from time of day measurement changes,  relocating the thermometer, better thermometers, adjusting for the UHI effect etc. However NO explanation is offered as to how these adjustments are actually mathematically calculated (changing the original T by up to 1.5°C in some cases).  These 'adjustments' usually take place between 1940-1980 by lowering T readings to create the illusion of a warming trend absent in the raw data. Mysteriously most raw T data post 1980 has not been adjusted. Of course this is  to show CO2 rising causes higher T. Totally nefarious.

Also, before 1920, ~80% of the southern hemisphere had no weather stations but somehow scientists were able to reconstruct 'accurate' data from models for those areas - these being the same models that have failed so miserably in forecasting actual T.  What a joke.

In short - There is NO substitute for FF, except nuclear, as far as efficiency, dependability, cost, and instant availability.

Green energy is none of these things - in fact the opposite not just in terms of reliability, but also in terms of environmental destruction.  Also,  all renewables MUST be backed up w FF generators, or some other on demand energy source for obvious reasons.

Green liberals (some of them we know and are actually nice people, if politically misguided wrt energy policy) here in California found out recently when the utility PG &E shut off power to millions of homes intermittently for a week due to fire danger that their Tesla bank batteries and solar powered homes were completely useless and performed way below expectations.  Never mind EVs, which couldn't be driven. I just turned in my gas fired generator and life went on as usual.

The AGW agenda is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on humankind.









Cincydawg

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 14318
  • Liked:
Re: Climate change
« Reply #1 on: November 11, 2019, 06:50:08 AM »
I will look for some article I chanced to read about the problems of measuring "mean global T" over time, some of which are listed above.  Geographic averaging is also a problem given we don't get results often from the mid-Pacific etc.  In some ideal world, we'd have certified readings every 500 miles in every direction (pick a separation).

We don't have that.  I agree I don't know how the UHI factor is adjusted.  There is some separate evidence of warming in the Arctic region, but is that unrelated to the rest of the planet?  Maybe, I saw glaciers in the Alps that clearly had receded hundreds of meters since 1900 or so.  The rise in mean sea level (MSL) seems well documented, though there can be challenges in that also.

The other issue with the models is that they can only be checked against past data (which could be flawed).  You might have a model that closely conformed to the trends of t he last century and find out in 50 years it was not predictive.  I have no clue how that can be validated other than by waiting.

Anyway, it seems moot to me, humans simply are not going to make the changes some call for just because some call for it.  You also need capability and funding.  India and China are going to put lipstick on the pig and that's about it.


HK_Vol

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 9265
  • Liked:
Re: Climate change
« Reply #2 on: November 11, 2019, 06:52:54 AM »
India and China are going to put lipstick on the pig and that's about it.

Absolutely.
Yet Jane Fonda, Gretl Thunberg, etc. will preen in front of the UN or in DC and virtue signal.
But the real problem lies in other parts of the world - places that they would never protest - and for good reason.

Cincydawg

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 14318
  • Liked:
Re: Climate change
« Reply #3 on: November 11, 2019, 06:56:20 AM »
I personally would also not protest in China.  That is just good sense.

China sees this as a chit in the game that they play better than most.

Cincydawg

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 14318
  • Liked:
« Last Edit: November 11, 2019, 08:37:58 AM by Cincydawg »

Cincydawg

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 14318
  • Liked:
Re: Climate change
« Reply #5 on: November 11, 2019, 08:01:23 AM »
The trend in these graphs since 1950 is about 0.8°C (70 years), or about a tenth of a degree Celsius per decade.   If we stipulate that is accurate and predictive and the trend will continue, obviously by 2100 we would see an increase of another ~0.8°C.   If "we" collectively reduce the amount of CO2 being produced, that trend might be expected to be reduced (some).

When might "deniers" see evidence that would cause them to recount their denial?  By that I mean clear evidence, not someone's calculations or technical measurements?

That would be a long time off in reality.  Humans can't detect on our own that level of warming.  We might read about the Arctic ice cap melting more and more, or glaciers receding, or MSL rising some, but we personally would not notice anything to that 'degree".


IMAVOL

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 4373
  • Liked:
From One of HK`s Friends
« Reply #6 on: November 11, 2019, 08:06:21 AM »
Thomas


In short - There is NO substitute for FF, except nuclear, as far as efficiency, dependability, cost, and instant availability.

Looks like Dan was right

Cincydawg

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 14318
  • Liked:
Re: Climate change
« Reply #7 on: November 11, 2019, 08:46:23 AM »
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm

He explains that while it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate'.

If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example,  it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind.


Cincydawg

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 14318
  • Liked:
Re: Climate change
« Reply #8 on: November 11, 2019, 09:06:04 AM »
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/co2-emissions-reached-an-all-time-high-in-2018/

It confirms that the climate action pledged by nations is “inadequate to bridge the emissions gap” and that if actions are not strengthened before 2030, the 1.5 C target will slip out of reach. Overall, it suggests that current Paris commitments would need to be tripled to reach a 2 C target and increased fivefold to reach the 1.5 C target.

So, the Paris agreement, which is unlikely to be achieved anyway, is obviously insufficient to meet even the 2°C goal.  And, it is clear the targets will not be met overall except by India and China (because they don't have targets by 2030).

HK_Vol

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 9265
  • Liked:
Re: Climate change
« Reply #9 on: November 11, 2019, 09:10:46 AM »
And yet, to hear from those on the left, it is all the fault of Donald Trump.....
Why should the US sign up to an agreement where both China and India can continue to raise their emissions without limits for another decade?
But for Trump to protest this sham, it is all his fault.
Go figure.

FCVol

  • Walk On
  • *
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 44
  • Liked:
Re: Climate change
« Reply #10 on: November 11, 2019, 09:16:04 AM »
The United States should not sign any kind of climate change agreements with anybody for any reason.  There is no such thing as man made climate change.  It just goes to show you that if you repeat the lie enough times there are always people dumb enough to believe it.

Cincydawg

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 14318
  • Liked:
Re: Climate change
« Reply #11 on: November 11, 2019, 09:20:29 AM »
One can of course play "dueling web sites" all day with this topic.  I personally cannot either rule it out nor claim it's all a fake.  I spent more effort looking at what might be done about it (assuming it is real and a problem).  That left me with no plausible solutions, so it seemed to make the question as to whether it is real or not moot.


 

Please Support Site: