Also, there's no actual "flat-line" of temperature. The rate of increase has been comparatively slower (for reasons already discussed upthread). But it's still an overall increase.
Cosmos - With Neil deGrasse Tyson
- Thread starter Greylock Crescent
- Start date
It's flat if you tilt your head.
If you are going to deny climate change you might as well be advocating for a flat earth or a geocentric universe.
It demonstrates a fundamental disconnect with the scientific method and the notion that conclusions are only made with significant, and peer-reviewed, evidence ... and such conclusions are only altered upon significant, and peer-reviewed, evidence.
It's amusing that you all flatly deny that the temperature hasn't increased when even the IPCC climatologists freely admit it. You should excommunicate them for their lack of religious fervor. We have a new crop of drivers on the road and the last four years have been 0.125, 0.083, 0.044, and 0.031 C cooler than when they were born, according to HadCRUT 4 (of climategate fame). So perhaps it is warming, but in the opposite direction to conventional thermometers.
HadCRUT data (are we still allowed to link to temperature data, however massaged, or has global warming evangelism banned actual scientific evidence?)
The reason this is important to climatologists is that none of their model runs had a hiatus of this extended duration, which means the models grossly underestimated natural variability. But to fix that flaw is to admit that natural variability might have been responsible for most of the warming prior to the pause, which they can't admit or they might lose funding and be excoriated by the true believers. So for the past couple of years the alarmist climatologists have been looking for a place where the heat could be hiding, lurking like Godzilla in the deep oceans where data sampling is sparse and where surface temperatures would be unaffected. But then if that theory is true then we won't see surface warming for a couple of centuries, because the heat imbalance will be busy raising the temperature of a giant heat sink by a hundredth of a degree, and the laws of thermodynamics don't allow for magical heat amplification without doing work.
HadCRUT data (are we still allowed to link to temperature data, however massaged, or has global warming evangelism banned actual scientific evidence?)
The reason this is important to climatologists is that none of their model runs had a hiatus of this extended duration, which means the models grossly underestimated natural variability. But to fix that flaw is to admit that natural variability might have been responsible for most of the warming prior to the pause, which they can't admit or they might lose funding and be excoriated by the true believers. So for the past couple of years the alarmist climatologists have been looking for a place where the heat could be hiding, lurking like Godzilla in the deep oceans where data sampling is sparse and where surface temperatures would be unaffected. But then if that theory is true then we won't see surface warming for a couple of centuries, because the heat imbalance will be busy raising the temperature of a giant heat sink by a hundredth of a degree, and the laws of thermodynamics don't allow for magical heat amplification without doing work.
A
Amaris
Guest
When one's sole motive is to continue denying what is evident, and supported by the data, one will overlook anything inconvenient. I suggest ignoring such people, and having an enjoyable, fruitful discussion free of distraction, instead.
Sweet jeebus. Haven't we been here before? Oh yeah, we have.
I notice that you did not say "I look at such data ... and *I* learn a lot." Curious that your statement says that the more you look at data, the more J. learns (since your statement was directed at J. specifically).
It's probably nothing. But it *is* a very odd statement.
Yes, we have, and you refused to read anything, since actual data is to a warmist like holy water to a vampire.
Among the many idiocies of warming alarmism is the fundamental idea that the temperature in the disco era was perfect, and perfect everywhere, no matter what that temperature might be. So let's toss aside temperature anomalies and talk about real, physical, measurable temperature.
What should it be to best support human civilization? 7 C? 12 C? 15 C? 20 C? Perhaps the curve of bestness has more than one peak. Perhaps it has two or three. What would those be, and how can we quickly move TrekBBSer's to the areas still capable of supporting human life, because obviously if a temperature shift of 1C is catastrophic, the range of habitable temperatures must be very, very narrow, perhaps 2C, which confines civilization to two belts of latitude that are only about 200 miles wide.
So what's your answer on the permissible temperature where a TrekBBSer can remain alive?
Among the many idiocies of warming alarmism is the fundamental idea that the temperature in the disco era was perfect, and perfect everywhere, no matter what that temperature might be. So let's toss aside temperature anomalies and talk about real, physical, measurable temperature.
What should it be to best support human civilization? 7 C? 12 C? 15 C? 20 C? Perhaps the curve of bestness has more than one peak. Perhaps it has two or three. What would those be, and how can we quickly move TrekBBSer's to the areas still capable of supporting human life, because obviously if a temperature shift of 1C is catastrophic, the range of habitable temperatures must be very, very narrow, perhaps 2C, which confines civilization to two belts of latitude that are only about 200 miles wide.
So what's your answer on the permissible temperature where a TrekBBSer can remain alive?
Hee ... now there's a measured, rational, scientifically-based statement. I'll let others read through the thread and decide on its veracity for themselves.
Last edited:
I'm sure they will, and most will react like a bunch of Souther Baptists attending a lecture by Carl Sagan.
They have their narrative of good versus evil, and how mankind has sinned and how the punishment for sin and gluttony is always very, very bad. Heretics must be denounced and the most important thing is to spread the Truth to as many people as possible, because only through collective action is Salvation possible. The CO2 levels are irrelevant compared to the percentage of saved souls and the suppression of those that speak falsehoods, who must be condemned as agents of the devil.
It's simple. It's kind of cute (bless their hearts). It's eerily familiar. But it's also completely divorced from science, and quite a lot of climatologists are complaining loudly about it.
For example, the 97 percent consensus that's parroted in this thread is just made up. Even famous "denialists" had their papers counted as supporting the consensus, and the most recent 97 percent paper was withdrawn by the publisher for massive breaches of ethics that the authors refused to resolve. Most recently, someone was given the paper's raw data and shortly afterwards was given a cease and desist letter from Queensland University which forbade them from not only publishing the data, but even looking at it. Even more bizarrely, the letter also forbade them from reproducing any part of the cease and desist letter on the grounds that the letter was copyrighted by the university. Warmists live in their own bizarre world, both scientifically and legally.
In line with the warmist legal stance, I hereby notify you that having read this post, none of you may reproduce it in whole or in part because I retain the copyright. But obviously having read it, it's stored in your brain, and I retain the right to the brain cells you're using to store the information contained herein, and as owner of such information I will file suit if you abuse, mistreat, or improperly nourish those brain cells by eating food with too much sugar content, such as gummi bears, swedish fish, chocolate bars, or soda pop.
NGT and Cosmos make fun of the strange claims and bizarre lengths that the Catholic Church would go to to suppress science, and yet global warmists exceed those efforts at suppression with ease.
They have their narrative of good versus evil, and how mankind has sinned and how the punishment for sin and gluttony is always very, very bad. Heretics must be denounced and the most important thing is to spread the Truth to as many people as possible, because only through collective action is Salvation possible. The CO2 levels are irrelevant compared to the percentage of saved souls and the suppression of those that speak falsehoods, who must be condemned as agents of the devil.
It's simple. It's kind of cute (bless their hearts). It's eerily familiar. But it's also completely divorced from science, and quite a lot of climatologists are complaining loudly about it.
For example, the 97 percent consensus that's parroted in this thread is just made up. Even famous "denialists" had their papers counted as supporting the consensus, and the most recent 97 percent paper was withdrawn by the publisher for massive breaches of ethics that the authors refused to resolve. Most recently, someone was given the paper's raw data and shortly afterwards was given a cease and desist letter from Queensland University which forbade them from not only publishing the data, but even looking at it. Even more bizarrely, the letter also forbade them from reproducing any part of the cease and desist letter on the grounds that the letter was copyrighted by the university. Warmists live in their own bizarre world, both scientifically and legally.
In line with the warmist legal stance, I hereby notify you that having read this post, none of you may reproduce it in whole or in part because I retain the copyright. But obviously having read it, it's stored in your brain, and I retain the right to the brain cells you're using to store the information contained herein, and as owner of such information I will file suit if you abuse, mistreat, or improperly nourish those brain cells by eating food with too much sugar content, such as gummi bears, swedish fish, chocolate bars, or soda pop.
NGT and Cosmos make fun of the strange claims and bizarre lengths that the Catholic Church would go to to suppress science, and yet global warmists exceed those efforts at suppression with ease.
Nah. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most will react ... scientifically. Which, by the way, is not a word (scientific, I mean) that describes your posts.
Obviously they won't react scientifically or they'd cite something with a connection to science, like data. They won't. They'll talk about drowning polar bears or something, and how the coming climate apocalypse will cause mass human cannibalism.
Given that they're a bunch of wackos who can't reason logically, similar to conspiracy theorists, the tried and true method to move them along is to give them something bigger to worry about.
Did you know that just a 1 percent change in cloud cover could completely swamp the effects of CO2? Did you know that we don't accurately measure cloud cover, and that human activities can have a huge influence on it due to agriculture, changes in land use, and urban heat island effects?
What have you done to change your cloud cover footprint? Are you wasting water by flushing the yellow when you could let it mellow? Have you drastically altered your lawn watering habits, one of the leading causes of cloud cover change? Have you been covering your driveway with blankets to extend the morning dew latency time and resultant near-surface humidity levels? Have you started making your soups thicker, so as to waste less moisture, leaving more available for abatement efforts? Are you running at least six miles a day so that your sweat contributes to the global water vapor averages?
Given that they're a bunch of wackos who can't reason logically, similar to conspiracy theorists, the tried and true method to move them along is to give them something bigger to worry about.
Did you know that just a 1 percent change in cloud cover could completely swamp the effects of CO2? Did you know that we don't accurately measure cloud cover, and that human activities can have a huge influence on it due to agriculture, changes in land use, and urban heat island effects?
What have you done to change your cloud cover footprint? Are you wasting water by flushing the yellow when you could let it mellow? Have you drastically altered your lawn watering habits, one of the leading causes of cloud cover change? Have you been covering your driveway with blankets to extend the morning dew latency time and resultant near-surface humidity levels? Have you started making your soups thicker, so as to waste less moisture, leaving more available for abatement efforts? Are you running at least six miles a day so that your sweat contributes to the global water vapor averages?
I noticed you included no links to support this claim.
You mean, something like this?
As for the cloud cover canard, do you have any scientific data - meaning not just single observations or data sets, but peer reviewed aggregate data - that suggests an anthropogenic cause for said cloud cover? No? Then why make another fundamentally unscientific statement?
I'll walk you through it slowly - because you're sloooow.
The Earth receives about 1,370 Watts per square meter of sunlight at the top of atmosphere. The Earth's albedo can change radically due to the presence of clouds, and the Earthshine project measured an increase of albedo of 2 percent between 1999 and 2007, which isn't really unexpected because (surprise), warmer temperatures should increase warmth which increases evaporation and water makes clouds. A two percent change in albedo is equal to a forcing of about 27 Watts per square meter. A doubling of CO2 represents a forcing of only 3.7 Watts per square meter, which is why alarmists claimed that CO2 warming would induce a vastly larger decrease in albedo, but unfortunately for them it went the other way, as if it was a negative feedback that you'd expect in a system exhibiting long-term stability instead of the scream you get when you move a microphone next to a speaker and turn the volume up.
Clouds are a vitally important and very poorly understood component of the feedback system. Just last month a scientific paper noted that clouds tend to form over rain forests, and suggested a possible linkage mechanism whereby trees transpire moisture that forms clouds. That's but one example of how far behind that part of climatology actually is. Last year there was a groundbreaking paper on albedo that was the first in the literature to note that forests don't stay as snowy as open fields, and that climate models would have to take that into account. The whole endeavor seems to be run by people who've never actually left their basement and looked out upon the world, which might explain why Star Trek fandom is so in sync with it.
So, a one percent change in albedo should correspond to about a 3 percent change in cloud cover, as the Earth is usually about 30 percent covered in clouds. So a one percent change in cloud cover should be about a 0.33 percent change in albedo, which would be a forcing of about 4.5 Watts per square meter, which is more than the 3.7 Watts per square meter from a doubling of CO2.
It always helps if you learn how to do math. That's why they have all those math prerequisites for science courses instead of teaching them all to cite scripture, or demand scripture citations as proof.
The Earth receives about 1,370 Watts per square meter of sunlight at the top of atmosphere. The Earth's albedo can change radically due to the presence of clouds, and the Earthshine project measured an increase of albedo of 2 percent between 1999 and 2007, which isn't really unexpected because (surprise), warmer temperatures should increase warmth which increases evaporation and water makes clouds. A two percent change in albedo is equal to a forcing of about 27 Watts per square meter. A doubling of CO2 represents a forcing of only 3.7 Watts per square meter, which is why alarmists claimed that CO2 warming would induce a vastly larger decrease in albedo, but unfortunately for them it went the other way, as if it was a negative feedback that you'd expect in a system exhibiting long-term stability instead of the scream you get when you move a microphone next to a speaker and turn the volume up.
Clouds are a vitally important and very poorly understood component of the feedback system. Just last month a scientific paper noted that clouds tend to form over rain forests, and suggested a possible linkage mechanism whereby trees transpire moisture that forms clouds. That's but one example of how far behind that part of climatology actually is. Last year there was a groundbreaking paper on albedo that was the first in the literature to note that forests don't stay as snowy as open fields, and that climate models would have to take that into account. The whole endeavor seems to be run by people who've never actually left their basement and looked out upon the world, which might explain why Star Trek fandom is so in sync with it.
So, a one percent change in albedo should correspond to about a 3 percent change in cloud cover, as the Earth is usually about 30 percent covered in clouds. So a one percent change in cloud cover should be about a 0.33 percent change in albedo, which would be a forcing of about 4.5 Watts per square meter, which is more than the 3.7 Watts per square meter from a doubling of CO2.
It always helps if you learn how to do math. That's why they have all those math prerequisites for science courses instead of teaching them all to cite scripture, or demand scripture citations as proof.
Ad hominem. Stay classy, gturner.
Also, I specifically asked for: "As for the cloud cover canard, do you have any scientific data - meaning not just single observations or data sets, but peer reviewed aggregate data - that suggests an anthropogenic cause for said cloud cover?"
And you provided a link that states: "Variations in terrestrial reflectance derive primarily from changes in cloud amount, thickness and location, all of which seem to have changed over decadal and longer scales."
Your post = scientific (and logical) fail.
Um, even the Weather Channel likes to show the thunderstorm created by the city of Atlanta - in real time. Those thunderstorms exist because Atlanta creates huge clouds that form thunderstorms. A recent scientific paper on the link between rainfall and forests made the point that plants transpire moisture, which rises, pulling in moist air from the oceans (pulling more moisture over the land). Then the resultant clouds form rain, which condenses and falls, creating a second rapid low-pressure zone which again pulls moisture laden air from the ocean over the land.
This is why rain forests keep getting rain, and why deserts don't get any. Brazil is on the equator, while the Sahara is north of it. If you're wet, you stay wet, and if you're dry, you'll stay dry.
Irrigation changes that game, making once dry areas wet, so they get rainfall. But in getting more rainfall they change cloud cover, because rain comes from clouds (word).
So cutting down a rain forest and paving it, or pumping water into a desert to irrigate it, changes rainfall patterns, which must therefore be the result of changes in cloud cover.
It's both observed, measured, and explained in the scientific literature. In reply to your follow up question, all animals poop. I'm not even going to cite the literature on that one.
So ... no "scientific data - meaning not just single observations or data sets, but peer reviewed aggregate data - that suggests an anthropogenic cause for said cloud cover," then?
Gotcha.
Also, you said:
So, you *do* concede that there are warmer temperatures. Good to know.
