climate crisis disrupting life for millions

[Terryj]

So I take it the answer is no?

Do you understand what Paleoclimatology is?

Do yourself a favor and go on your favorite browser and do a search on paleoclimatology papers, you will find hundreds of them addressing the climate in the past. This will give you an idea of what you can expect the climate to be in the future, remember climate comes in cycles, we are no talking about weather but climate.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yeah. Just like the bigfoot researchers!!!!

Why do you go off into silly tangents?

 

[vegas giants]

Do you understand what Paleoclimatology is?

Do yourself a favor and go on your favorite browser and do a search on paleoclimatology papers, you will find hundreds of them addressing the climate in the past. This will give you an idea of what you can expect the climate to be in the future, remember climate comes in cycles, we are no talking about weather but climate.

Yes I do. So does nasa and every other science agency on the planet. Yet they still believe in agw.


Why?

 

[longview]

As someone who lives on the east cost I thank God that summer temps have been a little cooler. Cannot recall last time we had a 100+ day which is just peachy since they usually come with 97% humidity.

It just feels like it, but 100F combined with 100% relative humidity is quite rare anywhere on earth.
It can happen for a few minuets after a short rainstorm on a very hot day, but is short lived.
If you take some place like Savanna, GA, in August, it is plain to see.
Savannah, GA Weather History | Weather Underground
Drilling down on August 10 2019, we see that the Humidity drops as the daily temperature increases.
Savannah, GA Weather History | Weather Underground
While the humidity was at 94% in the early morning, when the daily high was hit at 1:53pm(94F), the humidity was at 58%.

 

[vegas giants]

Why do you go off into silly tangents?

You are in with the CT crowd

 

[Lord of Planar]

You are in with the CT crowd

I was just offering some comedy.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Yes I do. So does nasa and every other science agency on the planet. Yet they still believe in agw.


Why?

Jesus christ. Panic man. Simply panic.

 

[vegas giants]

Jesus christ. Panic man. Simply panic.

You are panicking?

Oh dear. Lol

 

[Robertinfremont]

You are panicking?

Oh dear. Lol

You have panicked for years now. And how has it helped you?

 

[vegas giants]

You have panicked for years now. And how has it helped you?

Oh dear oh dear. Lol

 

[Terryj]

Yes I do. So does nasa and every other science agency on the planet. Yet they still believe in agw.


Why?

As far as NASA goes, it's hog wash. This is a letter that 49 former NASA scientist and astronauts sent to NASA administrator Charles Bolden, Jr.
“We believe the claims by NASA and GISS [NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies], that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data,” the group wrote. “With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.”

 

[vegas giants]

As far as NASA goes, it's hog wash. This is a letter that 49 former NASA scientist and astronauts sent to NASA administrator Charles Bolden, Jr.
“We believe the claims by NASA and GISS [NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies], that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data,” the group wrote. “With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.”

I see no reference for your claim.

Here is the official position of NASA


NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

 

[code1211]

Can you name a science agency that agrees with you?

Can YOU name two science agencies that agree EXACTLY with each other on this gobbledygook?

In measuring the role played by gravity on falling objects at the equator at sea level, ALL science agencies agree with each other precisely.

Climastrologers from various agencies disagree on what the global temperature is, what the rate of warming is, what the rate of warming will be and what the precise impacts and feed backs are PRECISELY from each of the various drivers.

If this was science, it would be a heck of lot more "sciencey". What it is in the real world is a lot of supposition, guesswork, implication and data omission.

There are apparently too many variables and interactions for our Climastrologers to incorporate to gain a good understanding of planetary climate. Maybe sometime, but, obviously, not yet.

When they do understand this, there might be a formula like the one described in this link to calculate outcomes on a thing that scientists actually DO understand.

https://sciencing.com/calculate-velocity-falling-object-8138746.html

 

[longview]

Can YOU name two science agencies that agree EXACTLY with each other on this gobbledygook?

In measuring the role played by gravity on falling objects at the equator at sea level, ALL science agencies agree with each other precisely.

Climastrologers from various agencies disagree on what the global temperature is, what the rate of warming is, what the rate of warming will be and what the precise impacts and feed backs are PRECISELY from each of the various drivers.

If this was science, it would be a heck of lot more "sciencey". What it is in the real world is a lot of supposition, guesswork, implication and data omission.

There are apparently too many variables and interactions for our Climastrologers to incorporate to gain a good understanding of planetary climate. Maybe sometime, but, obviously, not yet.

When they do understand this, there might be a formula like the one described in this link to calculate outcomes on a thing that scientists actually DO understand.

How to Calculate Velocity of Falling Object | Sciencing

There is such a formula for both forcing and feedback, but the forcing formula starts with unknown assumptions,
and the feedback formula does not work with the observed data for high levels of ECS.
This are detailed by ACS,
Climate Sensitivity - American Chemical Society

To apply this approximation for climate sensitivity due to CO2 and CH4, we can examine a case for which the change in concentration
of greenhouse gases is reasonably well known and whose temperature change from an initial constant temperature state to a
higher constant temperature is also known.

They then go on to show,

The increase in CO2 from about 185 to about 265 ppm gives a radiative forcing of

ΔFCO2 = (5.35 W·m–2) ln(265/185) = 1.9 W·m–2

Without explaining where the 5.35 come from, (It is from the assumed 2XCO2 forcing of 3.71 Wm-2).
3.71/ln(2)=5.35
CO2 forcing alone is of little concern, which even at the assumed level, would produce a 2XCO2 warming of 1.1C,
it is the feedbacks that would push warming to dangerous levels.
The feedbacks for a predicted 2CO2 ECS of 3C, are simple.
The input is the 1.1C of forcing warming, and the output is 3 C after equalization,
so 3/1.1=2.72. For an ECS of 3C to be real, past warming perturbations, would have to be multiplied by 2.72,
and still match observed warming.
Herein lies the problem, for the decade average ending in 1950, the Harcrut4 data set had warming of .288 C,
Total warming (decade average ending in 2018) was .89C, leaving a difference of .602C.
The forcing of all the greenhouse over that time (CO2-eq) based on NOAA,
NOAA/ESRL Global Monitoring Division - THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI)
was (5.35 X ln(496/337) X .3)=.620C.
The forcing plus the earlier warming perturbation, is almost equal to the observed warming!
There is simply no room for any amplified feedbacks, even after 70 years of equalization.
But for fun, let's calculate how much feedback an ECS of 3C should show.
James Hansen wrote that 60% of equalization should be complete within 25 to 50 years,
so .288 X 2.72 X.6=.47C! We clearly do not have room in the observed record for an additional .47C.

 

[vegas giants]

Can YOU name two science agencies that agree EXACTLY with each other on this gobbledygook?

In measuring the role played by gravity on falling objects at the equator at sea level, ALL science agencies agree with each other precisely.

Climastrologers from various agencies disagree on what the global temperature is, what the rate of warming is, what the rate of warming will be and what the precise impacts and feed backs are PRECISELY from each of the various drivers.

If this was science, it would be a heck of lot more "sciencey". What it is in the real world is a lot of supposition, guesswork, implication and data omission.

There are apparently too many variables and interactions for our Climastrologers to incorporate to gain a good understanding of planetary climate. Maybe sometime, but, obviously, not yet.

When they do understand this, there might be a formula like the one described in this link to calculate outcomes on a thing that scientists actually DO understand.

How to Calculate Velocity of Falling Object | Sciencing

So you can not name a single science agency that agrees with you. I can name hundreds that agree with me that AGW is real and a problem for man.


Hundreds.


Just think about that

 

[code1211]

There is such a formula for both forcing and feedback, but the forcing formula starts with unknown assumptions,
and the feedback formula does not work with the observed data for high levels of ECS.
This are detailed by ACS,
Climate Sensitivity - American Chemical Society

They then go on to show,

Without explaining where the 5.35 come from, (It is from the assumed 2XCO2 forcing of 3.71 Wm-2).
3.71/ln(2)=5.35
CO2 forcing alone is of little concern, which even at the assumed level, would produce a 2XCO2 warming of 1.1C,
it is the feedbacks that would push warming to dangerous levels.
The feedbacks for a predicted 2CO2 ECS of 3C, are simple.
The input is the 1.1C of forcing warming, and the output is 3 C after equalization,
so 3/1.1=2.72. For an ECS of 3C to be real, past warming perturbations, would have to be multiplied by 2.72,
and still match observed warming.
Herein lies the problem, for the decade average ending in 1950, the Harcrut4 data set had warming of .288 C,
Total warming (decade average ending in 2018) was .89C, leaving a difference of .602C.
The forcing of all the greenhouse over that time (CO2-eq) based on NOAA,
NOAA/ESRL Global Monitoring Division - THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI)
was (5.35 X ln(496/337) X .3)=.620C.
The forcing plus the earlier warming perturbation, is almost equal to the observed warming!
There is simply no room for any amplified feedbacks, even after 70 years of equalization.
But for fun, let's calculate how much feedback an ECS of 3C should show.
James Hansen wrote that 60% of equalization should be complete within 25 to 50 years,
so .288 X 2.72 X.6=.47C! We clearly do not have room in the observed record for an additional .47C.

Liberal Arts Degrees here. :2wave:

I'm flattered that you think I might understand anything you just posted, but, sadly, I'm not equipped by education or talent to grasp what you are saying.

Out of curiosity, when applied to the actual climate at any random point 30 or more years in the past,

as might be represented by the homogenized, adjusted temperatures averaged between all agencies' climate products,

does this formula calculate precisely the current homogenized, adjusted temperature averaged between all agencies' climate products?

Sorry about that word salad... This discipline seems to demand that word salads be used to state the idea in question.

 

[longview]

Liberal Arts Degrees here. :2wave:

I'm flattered that you think I might understand anything you just posted, but, sadly, I'm not equipped by education or talent to grasp what you are saying.

Out of curiosity, when applied to the actual climate at any random point 30 or more years in the past,

as might be represented by the homogenized, adjusted temperatures averaged between all agencies' climate products,

does this formula calculate precisely the current homogenized, adjusted temperature averaged between all agencies' climate products?

Sorry about that word salad... This discipline seems to demand that word salads be used to state the idea in question.

Never give up on expanding your understanding! We app possess the capability of learning new things,
That is what a liberal arts education is about after all!
As for the random point beyond 30 years, I have not tried, but any point would have the warming up to that point,
as the warming perturbation, and then the total observed warming, I have the Hadcrut4 in a spreadsheet, and will try 1960 and 1970 as an example
when I have time.

 

[code1211]

So you can not name a single science agency that agrees with you. I can name hundreds that agree with me that AGW is real and a problem for man.


Hundreds.


Just think about that

NASA has adjusted its climate product product routinely about every 5 years since 1988. NASA today disagrees with NASA of 1988.

Would you like for me to go through EVERY SINGLE CLIMATE AGANCY ON THE PLANET AND NAME THEM ALL FOR YOU?

Every climate agency has a different climate product today than they had 5 years ago.

EVERY assessment from the IPCC disagrees with every previous assessment.

Just think about that.

This is not science. It's a public relations campaign.

 

[vegas giants]

NASA has adjusted its climate product product routinely about every 5 years since 1988. NASA today disagrees with NASA of 1988.

Would you like for me to go through EVERY SINGLE CLIMATE AGANCY ON THE PLANET AND NAME THEM ALL FOR YOU?

Every climate agency has a different climate product today than they had 5 years ago.

EVERY assessment from the IPCC disagrees with every previous assessment.

Just think about that.

This is not science. It's a public relations campaign.

And yet none of them agree with you.


None.


Interesting

 

[code1211]

And yet none of them agree with you.


None.


Interesting

In point of fact, they DO agree with me in that they DISAGREE with each other today and with their own predictions made previously that they continuously discard in favor of predictions they now like better.

They have adjusted their own climate products over time. This is true of the data collection agencies. NASA actually cooled temps before 1970 and warmed temps afterward. They have all adjusted their warming predictions over time.

By so doing, they have rejected their own calculations from previous assertions. Of course, in light of their wildly overstated warming predictions, they needed to reduce the magnitude of the warming and actually adjust their own collected data.

Every time you post an objection to what I have observed from our scientists, you only reinforce the foundation for my conclusions.

Seriously. Are you really missing that?

 

[vegas giants]

In point of fact, they DO agree with me in that they DISAGREE with each other today and with their own predictions made previously that they continuously discard in favor of predictions they now like better.

They have adjusted their own climate products over time. This is true of the data collection agencies. NASA actually cooled temps before 1970 and warmed temps afterward. They have all adjusted their warming predictions over time.

By so doing, they have rejected their own calculations from previous assertions. Of course, in light of their wildly overstated warming predictions, they needed to reduce the magnitude of the warming and actually adjust their own collected data.

Every time you post an objection to what I have observed from our scientists, you only reinforce the foundation for my conclusions.

Seriously. Are you really missing that?

Of course scientists update their data. And their predictions get better and better. Doctors change their opinions about cancer all the time.


But the base opinions stay the same.


Same for AGW

 

[code1211]

Of course scientists update their data. And their predictions get better and better. Doctors change their opinions about cancer all the time.


But the base opinions stay the same.


Same for AGW

Do doctors revise the number of victims or types of cancer recorded in the past to better conform to the predictions they have made about the spread or severity of cancer?

In a great many disciplines, the data is the foundation of the disciplines. In accounting, if an accountant changes the actual data in favor of data he prefers, he goes to jail.

Not so much in CAGW.

This might be justified since the stations available from which to draw data were, by today's standards, non-existent in 1880.

There has, additionally, always been a huge bias in favor of the US and Europe with vast areas of the globe "estimated".

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Station Data

Data Tampering At USHCN/GISS | Real Science
<snip>
The next blink comparator shows changes in the US temperature record from GISS. It alternates between their 1999 graph and the 2012 version of the same graph. The past is cooled and the present is warmed.

<snip>

 

[vegas giants]

Do doctors revise the number of victims or types of cancer recorded in the past to better conform to the predictions they have made about the spread or severity of cancer?

In a great many disciplines, the data is the foundation of the disciplines. In accounting, if an accountant changes the actual data in favor of data he prefers, he goes to jail.

Not so much in CAGW.

This might be justified since the stations available from which to draw data were, by today's standards, non-existent in 1880.

There has, additionally, always been a huge bias in favor of the US and Europe with vast areas of the globe "estimated".

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Station Data

Data Tampering At USHCN/GISS | Real Science
<snip>
The next blink comparator shows changes in the US temperature record from GISS. It alternates between their 1999 graph and the 2012 version of the same graph. The past is cooled and the present is warmed.

<snip>

Scientists always update their data. In many many fields. It is only in AGW that you complain. I find that very suspicious. If you are saying they are lying you are claiming that every science agency on the planet is in on it. And that I find absurd.


Can scientists use the data as is? – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

 

[Tim the plumber]

Do doctors revise the number of victims or types of cancer recorded in the past to better conform to the predictions they have made about the spread or severity of cancer?

In a great many disciplines, the data is the foundation of the disciplines. In accounting, if an accountant changes the actual data in favor of data he prefers, he goes to jail.

Not so much in CAGW.

This might be justified since the stations available from which to draw data were, by today's standards, non-existent in 1880.

There has, additionally, always been a huge bias in favor of the US and Europe with vast areas of the globe "estimated".

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Station Data

Data Tampering At USHCN/GISS | Real Science
<snip>
The next blink comparator shows changes in the US temperature record from GISS. It alternates between their 1999 graph and the 2012 version of the same graph. The past is cooled and the present is warmed.

<snip>

Yep, that is what we need for science.

 

[vegas giants]

Yep, that is what we need for science.

It's what we have for science