• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The difference between "climate change" and "Global Warming"

I've never done the calculations before. I wonder if this waste heat has any significance.

Anyone?

Anyone do the calculations or see a paper on it?

Clue: Waste heat from coal, gas, oil, biomass, propane, LNG, butane, Nukes, etc. Calculate the World-wide usage by type. Convert to BTUs. Consider usable shaft power to be 25% (optimistic, because of mining, drilling, etc.), that leaves 75% of all fuels to be waste heat to the atmosphere. That will give you BTUs to 10exp23 or 24. Calculate how much the weight of the atmosphere would be increased by that number of BTUs all on an annual basis. Simple. My results say one tenth of a degree per year, but you should do your own.
/
 
Storms and droughts worse in intensity.
Well, the worse storm in the Pacific Northwast was 1962. There were worse Hurricanes in the Gulf Coast than modern times too. If you go buy the costs of destruction, need to compensate for inflation and population density too.

Have any actual storm examples?

Migration due to drought-created problems, with security issues being a problem.
Drought is incorrectly used as a goalpost too. We can have more precipitation than the worse times in history, and have less water. Two primary reasons. With land use, more water is being channeled to storm sewers and is waste water, rather than making its way to creeks and rivers. Many creeks are now gone too, fro land use.then the increase in population, and irrigation places a demand on water, making a drought worse, than an equal drought wold have been, say 50 years ago.

Not to say that all migration or any specific weather incident is brought on by warming, but I go by what the scientists suggest may be problematic, and assume that steps taken to reduce use of fossil fuels are useful, that subsidies to alternatives are appropriate, etc.
Wouldn't land use changes affect migrator patterns more than an assumed 1 degree increase? Where do the migrate to, and through?

You guys are so easily duped.
 
Admitting for the sake of argument that the problem is overstated or non-existent, I suggested ways to correct the record and change policy. If you had the power and all the money going from "world nations to alarmist scientists," what would you do to change things? It seems you would have to commission studies to counter the bad science out there, hold hearings, etc. Here's your chance.

It's better to light a candle (are candles fossil fuels?) than curse the darkness, as the man said. Light up.

Or maybe reduce the powers of agencies like the EPA, NASA Climate, etc.
 
Or maybe reduce the powers of agencies like the EPA, NASA Climate, etc.

You gotta do better than that. We are talking about a major miscalculation by many scientists who are cowed into going along with the herd, just about all the countries in the world buying into a phony theory, and you have all the power and wealth you need to change things. Why not appoint different scientists to the EPA and NASA, call their leadership on the Congressional carpet to answer for their misleading us. Florida's gov had the idea of prohibiting certain words and that backfired. Solving this problem needs more than the weak tea you are offering.
 
Well, I get paid well for my abilities in engineering and the sciences. The people who actually know me have a different viewpoint than you.

You think that being an expert in engineering makes you in expert in climate science? :lol:

This is why I say follow the money. Bringing up the Koch Brothers proves your ignorance, confirmation bias, and hypocrisy.

So what. They donate money to think tanks they agree with, and part of that money goes to a very small number of climate papers. Their large contributions, are a drop I the bucket compared to the grant money given by world nations to the alarmist climate scientists. Yo are a relatively now name to me. Am I going to find repeated examples of your ignorance, speaking of one side and not knowing what the other side does it too, and by a factor of 100 times or more?

Continue your hypocrisy. You are willing to cite the Koch Bothers money, but not the money going t research opposing what you say they pay for.

Stick with your confirmation bias, and people will see it and not take you serious at all, except those with the same confirmation bias.

Do you realize the idiocy of what you are doing? No relevance to the climate sciences.

The aggregate of doctors have seen millions of patients for their understanding of medicine, and the climate sciences are in their infancy.
What should she do? A third opinion of course, since she probably didn't know the credentials of either of the other two.

You know it's funny. How many times do people refer to Skeptical Science, Real Climate, Climate dot Nasa, etc. Look at the credentials of the people writing the entries. They are no better than your first doctor.

I'm so sorry you feel this way.
 
You gotta do better than that. We are talking about a major miscalculation by many scientists who are cowed into going along with the herd, just about all the countries in the world buying into a phony theory, and you have all the power and wealth you need to change things.
How many papers have you read? The scientists write papers to make extra money. They commission themselves for an available study. In the end, they select criteria to meet the goals of that study.

Miscalculation? No.

Just self interest.

Follow the money.

Why not appoint different scientists to the EPA and NASA, call their leadership on the Congressional carpet to answer for their misleading us. Florida's gov had the idea of prohibiting certain words and that backfired. Solving this problem needs more than the weak tea you are offering.
Good luck accomplishing that with partisan politics.
 
The scientists write papers to make extra money. They commission themselves for an available study. In the end, they select criteria to meet the goals of that study.

Miscalculation? No.

Just self interest.

Follow the money.

CT vs science

Ludicrous.
 
You think that being an expert in engineering makes you in expert in climate science? :lol:

Not by itself.

I don't claim to be an expert, but I probably know more than everyone in this forum debating the topic.

The mix of silences I understand allow me to comprehend what read in the climate journals. I do not need to believe what others tell me to believe like you do. I see the obvious misapplication of the sciences in this field. This is why I remind people of the factors like evapotranspiration, soot on ice, and the differences of how longwave vs. shortwave affect solid vs. liquid and opaque vs. transparent.

The AGW alarmists will not let go of CO2. It is politically driven, for power and money. To acknowledge the greater effects of solar, soot, and evapotranspiration, means that CO2 can no be as dominant as they want s to believe.
 
CT vs science

Ludicrous.

Self interest is a conspiracy?

Wow... Just how am I linking this as multiple people colluding?

There are several levels of individuals, doing what is in their self interest. this does not make a conspiracy. People see a band wagon, and they jump o it.
 
Self interest is a conspiracy?

Wow... Just how am I linking this as multiple people colluding?

There are several levels of individuals, doing what is in their self interest. this does not make a conspiracy. People see a band wagon, and they jump o it.

One can claim that about anything. Medicine, UFO, democracy, media, a/ll religion... literally anything.

"They're just in it for themselves, they thus we don't know anything; we were totally deceived, we're screwed. They got us!"

Laughable. Paranoid lunacy. Is your self worth vested in that victim fantasy? Give it up.
 
Last edited:
One can claim that about anything. Medicine, UFO, democracy, media, a/ll religion... literally anything.

"They're just in it for themselves, they thus we don't know anything; we were totally deceived, we're screwed. They got us!"

Laughable. Paranoid lunacy. Is your self worth vested in that victim fantasy? Give it up.

Except you are applying a thought process on me that is false. Are you trying to create a strawman to tear down? Is this intellectual dishonesty I see from you, or ignorance to what a conspiracy is?
 
Except you are applying a thought process on me that is false. Are you trying to create a strawman to tear down? Is this intellectual dishonesty I see from you, or ignorance to what a conspiracy is?

You don't believe you've lost the debate.
 
How many papers have you read? The scientists write papers to make extra money. They commission themselves for an available study. In the end, they select criteria to meet the goals of that study.

Miscalculation? No.

Just self interest.

Follow the money.


Good luck accomplishing that with partisan politics.

Gotta put up or shut up. Inhofe has the power. So far his proof is a snowball.
 
Why did they get it wrong, do you think?
They did not, the actual Science is saying there is a large range of ECS,
and the GISS admits that a consistent methodology in data collection is not used,
and that could result in drastically different results.
But please check for your self, pick any city and any date, download the hourly, temperatures,
Average the high and low, and average the hourly temps, is there a difference?
 
Admitting for the sake of argument that the problem is overstated or non-existent, I suggested ways to correct the record and change policy. If you had the power and all the money going from "world nations to alarmist scientists," what would you do to change things? It seems you would have to commission studies to counter the bad science out there, hold hearings, etc. Here's your chance.

It's better to light a candle (are candles fossil fuels?) than curse the darkness, as the man said. Light up.

If you look at many of the catastrophic predictions, they are predicated on the ECS being at the mid to high end of the range.
Pick any story you like, somewhere in it, or it's source you find statements like this,
Unchecked climate change is going to be stupendously expensive
Furthermore, the amount of damage will depend greatly on what humans do in the future,
and there have been few studies on what damage would be like under higher warming scenarios of 3 degrees or above.
The reality is that the ECS would likely be at the low end of the range, if we ever could actually achieve
a doubling of CO2.
 
They did not, the actual Science is saying there is a large range of ECS,
and the GISS admits that a consistent methodology in data collection is not used,
and that could result in drastically different results.
But please check for your self, pick any city and any date, download the hourly, temperatures,
Average the high and low, and average the hourly temps, is there a difference?

I have already explained this to you. This is not an "admission" by GISS; it is (or should be!) self-evident that temperature data has not been collected using a globally consistent methodology for the last 150 years or so. Rather, it is an explanation of the need to adjust old readings to account for such discrepancies. This adjustment, referred to as data homogenisation, is an essential part of the construction of a global temperature record.
 
I have already explained this to you. This is not an "admission" by GISS; it is (or should be!) self-evident that temperature data has not been collected using a globally consistent methodology for the last 150 years or so. Rather, it is an explanation of the need to adjust old readings to account for such discrepancies. This adjustment, referred to as data homogenisation, is an essential part of the construction of a global temperature record.
You are free to think what you want, but let's look at the GISS statement again.
Q. What do we mean by daily mean SAT?
A. Again, there is no universally accepted correct answer. Should we note the temperature every 6 hours and report the mean, should we do it every 2 hours, hourly, have a machine record it every second, or simply take the average of the highest and lowest temperature of the day? On some days the various methods may lead to drastically different results.
They do not look like they are using past tense! Terms like "Should we" is a future tense.
No the statement is that we currently do not have a consistent collection methodology.
 
You are free to think what you want, but let's look at the GISS statement again.

They do not look like they are using past tense! Terms like "Should we" is a future tense.
No the statement is that we currently do not have a consistent collection methodology.

Why don't you read and absorb all of the GISS FAQs instead of determinedly misinterpreting one particular section?
 
Why don't you read and absorb all of the GISS FAQs instead of determinedly misinterpreting one particular section?
The particular section deal with the question at hand, the methodology of the collection of the daily surface air temperature.
Which of the FAQ's would you choose to address their collection methodology?
 
Clue: Waste heat from coal, gas, oil, biomass, propane, LNG, butane, Nukes, etc. Calculate the World-wide usage by type. Convert to BTUs. Consider usable shaft power to be 25% (optimistic, because of mining, drilling, etc.), that leaves 75% of all fuels to be waste heat to the atmosphere. That will give you BTUs to 10exp23 or 24. Calculate how much the weight of the atmosphere would be increased by that number of BTUs all on an annual basis. Simple. My results say one tenth of a degree per year, but you should do your own./
CORRECTION; My results say one tenth of a degree per decade, but you should do your own.
 
The particular section deal with the question at hand, the methodology of the collection of the daily surface air temperature.
Which of the FAQ's would you choose to address their collection methodology?

GISS doesn't even collect temperature data. They are reliant on other organisations for their data:

Q. Does GISS deal directly with raw (observed) data?
A. No. GISS has neither the personnel nor the funding to visit weather stations or deal directly with data observations from weather stations. GISS relies on data collected by other organizations, specifically, NOAA/NCEI's Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) v3 adjusted monthly mean data as augmented by Antarctic data collated by UK Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) and also NOAA/NCEI's Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST) v5 data.
 
GISS doesn't even collect temperature data. They are reliant on other organisations for their data:
Which is not news, but they do analyze the raw data, and state that there is
" there is no universally accepted correct answer." to What do we mean by daily mean SAT?
This means the input data has a very large error range.
 
Which is not news, but they do analyze the raw data, and state that there is
" there is no universally accepted correct answer." to What do we mean by daily mean SAT?
This means the input data has a very large error range.

No, they do not analyze the raw data, as they specifically state in the FAQ reply that I just quoted. The temperature data have already been processed beforehand. NOAA, for example, provides adjusted monthly mean data.
 
Back
Top Bottom