Science is Never Settled

I'm sure that any number of members can dredge up many articles that prove your pet "science" theories are junk science, if they wanted to go to the bother.

I've always gone directly to You Tube when I had a difficult scientific point to prove.

Problem is, nothing will sway you and we won't live long enough to know the real answer whichever way it leans.

So, keep putting up these meaningless "feel-good" posts.

How's your air these days?

Deadly air: Thousands killed in Southern California each year by ...

Oh, here's a little You Tube- like documentary to amuse yourself with.

The Right To Breathe - A documentary about air qualty‎

Fortunately california and it's hugely self inflicted and isolated issues does not represent the majority of the world and the world is rapidly waking up to that fact.

The fact is the skeptics are not the side who has been caught in lies, cover ups, misdirections and scandals from top to bottom multiple times over on the whole issue since day one.

So if you're gonna whine about who's cherry-picking their reference data, as obvious faked/isolated case proofs of everything they wish the whole world to be, take a step back and have a good hard look at yourself, hillary.

Pretty sure all of his have been chewed down to a nub by now.

I've often wondered how much effect the source of grant funds has on some of the conclusions of climate study. Anything associated with politics I take with a giant grain of salt.

I would speculate, it carrys quite a bit of weight on the final results. Especially when politics are even remotely involved.

I have a grain of salt I found: Is it big enough?

Toss that one over your left shoulder.

..and hope the Ranger is not behind you! "When your in danger, look behind you, 'cause where the Ranger will be." - from Walker, Texas Ranger theme song.

Meaning: The Ranger may have your back, but not if you mistreat him.

You know what you get when you toss salt over your shoulder while walking the dog?

Ans: (Salty dog!)

I'm confused. You, Fredski, have me at a loss here. I don't understand what you are trying to tell me.

Are you really telling me that because this analysis shows that the Earth is actually warming at a 30% slower rate than some models claimed it would that global warming doesn't exist at all. That idea is just as insulting as me dismissing your post for not capitalizing your sentences. (Just to be clear, I am not trying to insult you.)

I'd like to remind you of that great quote of George E. P. Box, "All models are wrong, but some are useful."

Maybe you are telling me that this approved measurement analysis is only 30% less than AGW predictions of the past. No prediction is expected to be 100% accurate but by golly AGW got it mostly right. You now admit that there has to be something correct with AGW studies. We may have more time to possibly prevent this slow moving disaster than radical AGW doomsayers have been predicting but they certainly did recognize a problem exists. Now what other options to burning fossil fuels can we explore before we use up even this extra time?

He's saying the trends now fall right inline with the expected norms of the planet being in a state of still coming out of an ice age thus showing our human influences are negligible not substantial as some have claimed.

That's not what the article says. The article does not mention anything about an ice age. You are again forcing your own preconceptions into a thread.

The conclusionary paragraph by Ronald Bailey at the end of the article says this:

These rough temperature increase calculations imply an even larger carbon budget. That might mean that humanity could burn significantly more carbon dioxide-emitting fossil fuels without necessarily crossing the 2 C above preindustrial average temperature threshold set out in the Paris Agreement.

Before you speak for somebody else you really should read what they are saying.

I am referring to the larger context of the supposed AGW climate change claim issue. That should be obvious by now given the general contexts of such things.

The planet has been warming for ~10,000 years now since the last ice age ended to which if the new projections are accurate that puts the present rate of change far closer and well with in known limits of the long term global trends.

Actyually it has been cooling for 8000.

CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=466269

It's good for discussion, I guess.

Caveats:

1. A typical modern temperature construction involves tens or hundreds of records to ensure reasonable global coverage. Because the average shown here involves only 8 records, it is entirely plausible that significant contributions to temperature variation are being overlooked because certain large regions (e.g. Asia) are not being sampled.
2. Different regions have different sensitivity to global temperature variations, so one can reasonably argue that a true global average reconstruction requires scaling the different records to match local sensitivity. Since no scientific consensus exists for how to do this, no attempt was made to do this.
3. Given the limited spatial sampling, it is unclear whether the slightly warmer period during the Holocene climatic optimum corresponds to a statistically significant difference.
4. Because the Davis et al. pollen reconstruction is based on measurements across many sites in Europe, it is more reasonably described as a regional rather than a local temperature measurement. Similarly, it shows considerably less short-term variability than most other sites.
5. A small number of records, not used in this study, have been interpreted as indicating much larger temperature variation during the Holocene (5+ °C) than the records represented here. In many cases, critics have interpreted these changes to reflect seasonal, rather than annual variations in temperature, or very unusual local changes. However, the possibility exists that the current reconstruction underestimates long-term variability.
6. During the earliest parts of this record, the timing uncertainty on some records may become substantial, potentially exceeding a couple hundred years. This could have the result of causing correlated features to fall out of alignment.
7. And the most important caveat: Though all of this data is published, and the methodology is similar to previously published methodology, and resulting average is similar to previously published interpretations of the Holocene, even so, no peer reviewed scientific publication has ever combined precisely these data in precisely this way. Hence, any interpretation of that average must be regarded with skepticism.

I don't think the cavemen had peer reviewed publications, and they forgot to install temperature sensors everywhere.

The ruling on the field still stands: Paris Accord vastly overestimates the effect of CO2 on the environment, and also does little or nothing to actually reduce emissions, especially from some of the larger source countries. If I were you, I would not bury my head in the sand, while expecting all the fire prophesies to suddenly come to fruition.

If you want more renewable energy - help make it happen. I still believe that government subsidy is still not the way to success in any field (including NFL).

So you admit that did not read the article I was commenting about. The very same article that Fredski presented to the group and that he hoped I would read. I did read it. You did not.

tcmtech, it is obvious that you are a trolling, selfish denier that cannot accept anything outside of your delusions. Give it a rest, please.

How do you know I didn't read it?

Claiming to know others thought and actions because they didn't give you the answer you wanted to hear, in order to justify your false claims and assumptions, isn't much of credibility builder on your part.

I expect blatant ego driven half wit assumption fails like that from lyn (too many sort of do now) but if you want hop on his liberal half-wit troll wagon and start playing his false witness game feel free to, I won't stop you. It's your credibility and ego that suffers for it not mine.

Since he's "hillary' should I start calling you 'bill' or maybe 'bernie'?

You are acting exactly as I predicted. You only want to start a quarrel.

Okay? Point out specifically what I posted that shows I am looking to quarrel by your standards.

As I see it, I made generalized comments that I felt are relevant to the overall topic at hand in reply you and lyn where then you two ran off at at mouth trying to make things personal about me because I called the both of you out for false/biased claims on your part.

Now if it's because you simply do not like someone disagreeing without by bringing in data that either refutes or dismiss the value and or validity of your claims that's too damn bad for the both of you because if you think someone disagreeing with you 'is looking for a quarrel' then I suggest you at sign out and go finish grade school before rejoining the forum because here is where adults who can act/interact professionally set the standard. Not petty easily butthurt little boys with empty heads and big mouths.

Especially you. With lyn, most of us pretty much expect him to half ass things then act like an ass followed by running away, in now his well understood cowardly liberal fashion, when he gets refuted beyond his ability to defend.

Or if you just want to keep on making petty cowardly attacks on my personally by claiming irrelevant stupid stuff about me personally, go right ahead. Everyone here, besides lyn, should have no trouble picking out who's acting like a adult and trying to stay on topic and who's attacking people personally with petty childish false accusations because they have their heads up their asses.

And BTW, You and I, and pretty much everyone else who's a regular on this forum, got along well the whole time lyn was gone and everyone, and you yourself damn well knows it. So if you want to place blame for the growing discourse and petty trolling in the forum then place it where it's rightfully due with him, not me or anyone else.

So you can either grow up and act like an adult and come up with solid information that either counters the validity of my or anyone else's claims, leave, or join lyn in being a petty cowardly troll that prefers to attack people personally whenever you can't support your own views and accept that, like him, you're going to be on the receiving end of ever growing dislike for how you act here for willingly having adopted his childish butthurt game play.

Good to see that there are no personal insults here.

Don't act like a cowardly ignorant ass and people won't call you out for being one.

There is no such thing as a personal insult, as any insult affects all those in ear shot.

It would be nice if the adults in the room would continue to act as if they were.

Last time I checked, science is not an emotional issue, it is usually hard, cold, and to the point. Best not to be caught stuck between the hard pointy end of that stick and a brick wall.

Politics on the other hand has no place here or in science in any fashion. This is not a political science forum. It is an engineering forum.

You want some cooling? Go build up several sections of greenhouses in Arizona, and watch the local area cool off, especially if the plastic membranes over them are somewhat white reflective.

There, there. You are doing what 911 calls projecting.

You are a real piece of work.

Lyn... I hope your not 'projecting', projecting again....

you know,... like the diffinition of the word 'is' is.

50% over-estimated somehow comes out as 30% in your post? Care to explain for us "slow-learners?"

Then once correction is made for the falsified warming data, it seems we have a failed hypothesis for the effect of human activity. This is far from a "fait accompli", rather it is the opposite.

You can't make this stuff up....well OK, I guess one could make it up, but that bears no relation to actual science, now does it?

Does anybody read proffered links anymore. This is a direct cut and paste from Ronald Bailey's article:

But why reuse the models that have already been shown to be off by 30 percent in their projections?

Now I see where this is heading. Because AGW predictions are not 100% accurate they can be dismissed as wrong. The video claims a 50% error while the article claims a 30% error. Since neither agree on the size of the error then all are wrong.

I think most people here like me read them.

The problem is that either the topics are below their personal subjective agenda bias thresholds or they have effectively popped their bias bubbles and are reading things more objectively.

It would explain why no one but lyn is siding with you on your views to any degree. It's not that they/we havn't read anything that's been linked to but that too few find your views objectively plausible enough to agree with other than to question how you came to perceive certain things to imply what you think they do and in the contexts you are trying to present them to be in.

Fredski,

Getting back to our public discussion. You are absolutely correct that this iteration cycle of modeling and measurement comparison making new models, etc. is exactly how observation sciences improve. Using this technique in astronomy has shown us what and why things happen when galaxies collide. It has allowed us to look for telltale warning markers in the chaotic system of a storm front to say if only rain or a tornado is possible.

Will this article mandate a change to the existing climate models, no. The article is a condensed translation of a translation of a scientific analysis. The actual analysis itself might lead to a model adjustment, the analysis might be found to be faulty or some combination of the two. I certainly cannot say which.

I will repeat the idea that over predicting by just over 30% is hardly a refutation of principle. The Norden bombsight was predicted to have an accuracy of 23 meters. In actual practice it had an accuracy of 370 meters. We still used that bombsight. We even bragged about it.

How is that an apples and apples comparison, the planes, more often than not, were B-17's flying in formation bombing off the lead plane 99% of the time, or so.

Altitude was up to 32,000 ft as I recall, (9753.6 m). 370/9753.6 = 3.79%, not bad. Note that this is under instantaneous conditions of winds aloft, wind shear between layers, etc. Heck the plane holding steady at about 232 mph, actual ground speed to within 1 mile per hour was virtually impossible, not to mention holding the heading directly on target for miles coming in on target. All things considered Norton bomb sight was a complete Godsend for the allies.

It's not an apples and apples comparison at all. It is a prediction and accuracy comparison. Nobody said anything at all about fruit. Although, I am starting to wonder if a fruitcake is in the house.

add in "and then flies away.' and you have described your actions here in spades.

Pfunny you would know about pigeons. LOL

My empathy is for the pigeon.

Where is my seed?

I peck at the board but there is no seed.

I reply to Fredski and get no answer.

Where is my seed?

Ignorance is curable.

Where is my seed?

Funny you should mention that. The doves at my house, all expect to receive grain at precisely 17:00 every day, as I usually arrive home just before that, and as soon as I appear, they start tapping one wing with the other wing tip, and say "tick-tock, Mr. James, tick-tock."

With as many as 60 collared doves and white-wings, it makes sense not to aggravate my "fans".

Watch your noggin if it one of those grandma brick fruitcakes. Those things make deadly missiles.

Besides, it is hard to draw a good analogy in predictive models, especially complex ones, but then we keep finding out about NOAA cheating (fudging by "correcting" the numbers upward, and removal of rural sensors in favor of urban ones, etc.)

The whole thing is muddied beyond all recognition - as if a sophomore got ahold of someone's doctoral dissertation data, and had a "field day" with it.

There needs to be some agreement somewhere, such as how to evaluate ice cores, without fudging the numbers. I don't know too much about other temperature markers, so other than that, we are stuck with some thermometric measurements that may or may not have any integrity.

There is one big unknown that I have not heard mention much in this climate debate, and that is the advancement of technology. We can do things today that we could not dream of fifty or one hundred years ago, and technology is advancing at an increasing rate, barring some cataclysmic event such as nuclear war, etc.

It's physically possible to remove CO₂ from the air, even though the concentration is only about 0.04%. Trees do it every day while at the same time creating new trees. Perhaps a more efficient method than photosynthesis will be developed.

Just a thought...

We'd better hurry.

Here's How Many Trees Humans Cut Down Each Year | Time.com

Now, new research published in the journal Nature suggests the world is home to more than 3 trillion trees. Humans throughout history have played a key role in determining the number of living trees, researchers note. People cut down 15 billion trees each year and the global tree count has fallen by 46% since the beginning of human civilization.

"The factors driving tree density vary dramatically across the biomes," said Crowther. "But the one feature that stayed consistent across all of them was the negative impact of humans."

........................................................................................................................

The US does not fit this pattern and we are actually growing trees.

"The greatest gains have been seen on the East Coast (with average volumes of wood per acre almost doubling since the '50s) which was the area most heavily logged by European settlers beginning in the 1600s, soon after their arrival."

Of course you "scientists" won't by this propaganda, since this was in Mother Jones.

We can go both ways with that. Here is an article on how many trees are planted in the U.S. each year.

This talks about how there are more trees than there were 100 years ago.

There is no doubt that we as a species are cutting trees down, but there is no doubt that we as a species are planting trees.

A link from the paper industry. https://www.ppec-paper.com/thousand-new-tree-seedlings-planted-every-minute-canada/

Are we still cutting down more than we plant, I believe yes, but I also think we are getting better at that percentage.

I am one of about 7 billion people on this planet, my meager lot of 100' x 60' foot contains 6 trees which I planted my self, or let grow. I have cut down one living tree because it posed an electrical hazard with the neighbors incoming power. I have probably planted around 50 trees in my life and am by no means a tree hugger or anything like that. More or less like a hobby. If all us as a species planted a couple of trees, this would be a non issue.

When it comes to trees I have worked directly with planting thousands while only having took down dozens of live ones.

In a way that's why I find the tree hugger causes so absurd here in the US. By far we are on a gaining ecological responsibility trend opposed to the proclaimed destructive one.

Since the ~ 1960 we have not increased our gross pollution output volumes by any measurable degree and have enve reduced many despite having near doubled the nation's population.

Same with farming practices . We are now feeding more people on less land than we used 30 - 40 years ago thanks to better land and natural resource management.

Yet those types of postive ecological impact information never get presented for the mass population of the country and world to see.

Ok, we are both conservative in our views, not that it matters, but we both are doing our part when it comes to planting trees. Lyn's post said except in the U.S., we are gaining trees. If everyone took a little part like we have, would there be an issue?

The deforestation in South America is appalling, but what can you or I do about that?

Although unlike you, I respect Lyn, like I respect you. His political views don't bother me. I will not degrade or fight with either of you. I wish we could all come together.

If a liberal or conservative can give me a viable choice on what can I do to help with deforestation, I will stand arm in arm with either or them.

I can only do what I think is right.

And I plan on planting 5 more white pine seedlings on my lot....

Bully for you! Well said, although it seems harder to accomplish (left working with right), that squeezing blood from a turnip!

I wish we all would just go along, get along, and stop with the polarization.

Like on Dragnet: just give me facts, ma'am.

I will try to do a much better job of that myself, as I am just as guilty as anyone for spouting out without hard links.

It is hard James, everybody in my family is conservative except my mother and my youngest sister, a Muslim convert. So maybe I have been forced to be tolerant.

I believe we can all (should all) get along, regardless of political views, race, religion or anything else.

This bickering on CR4 when it comes to political views is getting old, racism is old, bias of religion is old.....

It will only take us to discover an intelligent species from outside this planet for us all to come together....

You seem to be all over the place with your views but you are also someone I have come to respect.

I wish everybody peace, being conservative I am not overly religious, in fact I have issues with organized religion. Too many people have died in the name of somebody else's God.

I am closest to my God when I am out in nature, alone or with my kids, camping in a national forest or watching the sun come up over Lake Huron with nobody around, that is my church.

Sounds like a pristine (maybe), and serene sanctuary from stress to me. As good a place to worship and pray as anywhere else, IMHO.

It is a good thing I do not come up with national policy, or things would really be confused, most likely.

Most of the time, usually at the grocery store, I can run into someone I never met before and strike up a conversation, and get solid agreement on the "state of the world". The people I talk to are all types, races, and various religions. Lubbock is a college town, after all, so there is a wide diversity of peoples here.

As in any relationship, love conquers evil. Spread kind, loving words (your bread) on the water, and in many days it will return to you.

Doing our part is where the overall US based and perceived world problems issue breakdown.

What we have done here has worked well for us and we have lad much of the world by our example to a point. However everywhere else has its own issues to deal with that are not ours and us doing things here regarding them serves no purpose in anything but wasting our time and effort and money on a noting problem.

If your neighbor's yard is a mess cleaning your yard doesn't solve his problems. If his electric bill is too high putting in high end LED bulbs at your house doesn't fix his issue.

If your other neighbor has too high of heating bill you triple insulating your house for an outrageous personal time, effort and money investment doesn't fix his issue. IF his vehicle is a fuel efficient piece of junk you going in debt for years to buy yourself a high end hybrid doesn't fix his issue as well.

And above all no matter how you legislate your life and actions at all expense to yourself to the point of misery and bankruptcy and beyond and nothing you do for and to yourself will do anything to fix any of their issues.

That's the problem I see here in America. We have our environmental act together now to the point there is very litte more we can do that won't cost us a unrealistically huge amount without giving us an exponentially decreasing return on investment or without sacrificing that which we need to have and use in order to live ourselves.

Like I said, I can only do what I think is right, as you do what you think is right. Is it enough for all of us, no!

The answer I wait for is what we can all do.

But it is enough for me and anyone else can go and do as much more as they want just so long as they don't try and force me to do things I find pointless or even counter productive to my causes and belief systems.

Accountable science, that which can readily demonstrate and account for all the data (with a verifiable pedigree), is at the minimum standard, acceptable at face value.

Any scientific data (especially where large government grants are involved) should be viewed with a jaundiced eye, without the accountability tracking (like a chain of custody for court) readily at hand.

It is one thing to say, "We have scattered these thousands of temperature sensors out over the oceans", and quite another to state, " We have these 3423 temperature sensors, of which 3418 are still transmitting, that were released into the world's oceans in 2001, and we have followed their drift in currents, and we have in document xyz123.42.42 the calibration records of each sensor."

I am sure others could take this pedigree even further. I think science, especially any science done in the public interest, should have as strong a chain of custody, as any other evidence that could be submitted in court. Do not assume the data is not for court, because you never know where things may lead.

But if you sat down and tried to educate your neighbor, it MIGHT help.

But what if he's a liberal and everything in his views is obviously my fault because my 'white privilege' (he's white too 'but that's different for him' since he has less than me.) gave me something he doesn't have like morals, a work ethic and basic sense above the average rock?

No matter what I do or say it's going to be all my fault and I am clearly not doing enough on my part to save the world and those like him in it and clearly I am not virtue signalling my efforts hard enough to count anyway. Not that it would matter being if I did publicly acknowledge doing any of the massive amount of anonymous charity work I would just be 'flaunting my white privilege and affluence' over everyone else anyway.

I can't educate him to see the world my way (he knows everything anyway despite never being able show it in any measurable and meaningful way shape or form) because by his views I am wrong in everything i think act and say anyway.

I can't hire him to work for me because I would be subjugating him under my 'wealthy white privilege' as well. Not that he would work for me because it would screw up his welfare payments, that he sees as coming from me and my taxes that he thinks he should have even more of, because it would make us 'even more equal and fair' in his views.

See the problem? His life is all my fault and there's nothing anyone of us can do about it.

Educating him does not mean getting him to see things your way! It's just telling him some facts about the world. If he chooses to ignore that, then you've done what you could, but sitting back and bitching about him without trying does nothing. I'm beginning to understand how you think.

" I'm beginning to understand how you think."

Given how some people take things here out of the implied context, just so they can feel butthurt and justify attacking me personally rather than rationally and logically defend their stance, I would be tempted to doubt that.

My whole neighbor' thing was all based on sarchasm on how too many liberals play the holier than thou/subjugated/false virtue signalling cards to self justify their or others lesser lots in life not being their own fault even when it's painfully obvious it is all their fault and for a multitude of reasons.

BTW, my real neighbors are wonderful people, but then none of them are angry/jealous of the world liberal leftists either.

Natures already taking advantage of the added CO2 by making everything greener!

NASA. 35 years of greening of the planet.

More from NASA

Dozens more studies and references available on the subject with a basic search.

From NASA. 35 years of greening of the planet.

"However, carbon dioxide fertilization isn’t the only cause of increased plant growth—nitrogen, land cover change and climate change by way of global temperature, precipitation and sunlight changes all contribute to the greening effect."

You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own "facts".

I have heard... do not recall the source, that trees don't absorb as much CO2 as first thought... could find any data on it, but found this,... where and acre of 50 yo oak stand sequesters about 30,000 lbs of co2 while producing about 22,000 lbs of oxygen... sounds impressive.

while Business Insider reports, that tree can now long save us... unfortunately... with today's media, how much weight can one put in it.

I found it,... this basically answers question and reference the processes.

Where basically plants absorb CO2 during the day for photosynthesis, but during the night with no light for photosynthesis, the plants do what is basically a cellular respiratory and without the light expels CO2,

some things I took from it.

This process is light-independent, and more formally known as the Calvin cycle. Pretty interesting read.

What a lot of people don’t understand is that plants do both cellular respiration ( sugar + oxygen → carbon dioxide + water) and photosynthesis (carbon dioxide + water → sugar + oxygen).

But the bottom line, plants do make more oxygen than CO2

Then add to that, as kids (and with too many adults) too many are taught now that everyone is absolutely equal on all terms and that no one's views and or beliefs (especially/specifically if they're liberalistically defined and based), no matter how ignorant or outrightly stupid and provably so, are to be treated and respected as the gospel truth and acted on as such in order that their holders feelings of embarrassment and or self perceived rejection may be spared.

The laws of science and nature bow to no one and see no one and nothing as unequivocally equal unless they have ordained it so, which they rarely do.

Spot on assessment. 'WE' are to blame.

I'm sorry... you let me after the words it is....

in all seriousness, in other words, the one that basically screams the loudest... wins.

You lost me at the words 'it is'

I am fairly sure the majority of us are doing our part in whatever practically applicable way we can.

As I read things the majority of the civilized world is actively pursuing more efficient and cleaner energy production methods and have enve cu their personal pollution output substantially from wehr they sere just 20 - 30 years ago.

The biggest issue isn't the real pollution any more but the blatant politicized envro-hype and the absurd claims and outright lies that have been used to self justify those claims and the real agendas behind them.

The reality is we have been listening to that crap for 20 - 40 years depending on what part of the world you are in and so far not one of those over the top doom and gloom predictions has proven itself to be remotely true. In fact too many have went on to have totally opposite and life plus socio economic systems benefiting outcomes.

No one has ever shown up or down in nuclear atmospheric detonations have had any effect on climate. Surely something as turbulent as that, with a disruption of ionospheric currents would have a directly measureable effect. Has anyone seen such a report?

I find the ones that preach and make money off of this, are the biggest abusers.

here is the home of one of the preachers.

Seems to go hand in hand with the poltical affiliation.

Do as they say not as they do and accept they will accuse you of their own worst actions even if you have never done any of it in your life.

That is very true, but we have ask, "At what cost?"

Some changes will create economic benefits, others may have significant costs.

I do my part as well. Why wouldn't I want to save money?

(But you won't find me buying PV panels for my roof. The ROI for my situation can't justify it. And I refuse to cut all the shade trees over my house because it cuts my A/C by almost half compared to an identical house in the neighborhood with no shade.)

That "at what Cost" aspect is where all of the corruption, greed and poltical/pseudo moral self justification through using fake information, false associative claims, and mathematical sleight of hand (and too often outright lies) to make lesser things look like they're a lot more and a lot worse than they really are comes in.

That's where 100% of my issue with environmentalism and those who make the biggest stinks about any part of it by any pseudo-justifications they come up with comes from.

If they have to lie and manipulate everything and everyone they can in order to falsely justify their cause, because reality continues to show nothing they claim is happening or having the effect they say it should, they are the real source of the problems.

That is very interesting, and timely informative post, GA if I could.

I was shocked and appalled to learn that solar variability was not properly factored into the model until about now. I am confident and comfortable with the re-assessment of the CO2 induced temperature rise, that it was over estimated by 50%.

With increases in renewable energy hitting the grid in the coming decades, and reductions of the fossil-fuel powered fleet (for aesthetic reasons more than practical ones I feel), I expect any further warming to drop out of sight, and for the planet to experience net cooling as the solar cycle continues to develop.

That not factoring in a multitude of major contributors is what has always irritated me as it has pretty much every skeptic.

It's also largely where my views that now that they are going to be factored in, and hopefully with the correct min/max values, is where the present climate trends will start to show a very solid correlation with the long term post ice age warming and related climate shifts thusly showing our own personal influences to being minor aggregate grade contributor values in the overall grand equations, not major players as some so wish to portray us as.

Here is where NASA is trying to say that the average person is not smart enough to know if it is getting warmer or not.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_17/

The only thing I cannot agree with on that NASA link you presented, it never did go further back in time at all, and rather capriciously decided that 1950 time slot was the "average" year upon which to base all further observations as to "normal" or "anomaly".

Is that good science, you tell me? I think it is "cherry picked", but maybe NASA only wanted to report on data from NASA sensors (in orbit???), so they may have a solid reason why they report as they do.

Next question: using non-NASA data on temperature distributions in New Hampshire (and other places), how variable is each decade? Each twenty years?

If the distribution they are basing the anomalies on shifts around in a cyclic or chaotic pattern, shouldn't we know about it by being presented with that data in the same paragraph?

"No, Matilda, the average person might not know what day of the week it is, much less if it hotter this year than least year"

Fire and smoke, writhing and gnashing of teeth. It just isn't that hot here yet, but it could get that way, about one billion years from now.

Good catch. I believe your concerns are valid or at least NASA should have done a better job explaining WHY they chose the data sets they did.

I fear that both NASA and NOAA have both lost their objectivity on this topic since it has become such a politicized subject since the High Priest of the Global Church of AGW was Vice President.

That's why I appreciate the hard work that so many die hard third party independent research people and watchdog agencies do to put a hard peer/vetting review (fact check) on everything that gets claimed these days.

It's what has brought out the details that have lead to every questionable to outright crooked politically driven climate change scandal and attempted cover up that has been brought to light and not just in climate studies but politics and big business and MSM reporting plus many other areas of life too.

Theres few things I enjoy more in life than seeing the corrupt, crooked, manipulative and outright idiotic liars get called out in public and held accountable for their actions.

I dare say it one of the few things I am thankful for the liberal left's influences in today. Without the revelation of their constant crooked lying idiotic asses in the world trying to make everything look like it's not while trying to pass the blame for their questionable actions off on others we would have never created such all encompassing counter movement of honesty integrity and all around deep skeptical distrust of anything anyone in the scientific and media claims as we have today.

Fredski,

Here is my take on this subject. When I sit in my car during a sunny day, and close all the doors and windows, it gets very uncomfortably hot in a short time. That makes sense because I exhale CO2. But it still gets hot inside when I park in the sun and stay outside. Now when I open the sun roof, the temperature becomes moderately warm. What gives? I conclude that the temperature rise is caused by lack of convection, not a "greenhouse" gas. A floral greenhouse does not contain a lot of CO2 because the plants will use it up. But the glass, not the CO2, prevents the air from convecting the heat to the outside. Gases like CO2 and methane should not be called greenhouse gases. They should instead be called insulating gases.

The atmosphere contains 0.04% CO2. The atmosphere water vapor varies from 0% in the Gobi and Sahara Deserts to 4% in the warm tropical seas. Taking an average of 2%, gives a water vapor concentration of 50 times that of CO2. And, water vapor has a higher insulating value than CO2. So that means we have to remove a large part of the water vapor to reduce the insulating gases. Good luck with that project.

Fortunately we don't have to worry about insulating gases. The clouds are shading the Earth from the Sun's heat radiation. The formation of clouds is facilitated by ionizing cosmic rays which turn the water vapor into condensed water and make clouds. You can see this happening in a cloud chamber. The Sun periodically spews out atomic sized particles called the solar wind. You can observe the Northern Lights and know that the solar wind is causing that display. The solar wind also blocks out the cosmic rays, so fewer clouds form and more heat gets through to Earth. So it is the Sun which controls the temperature, and nothing we can do will affect the temperature unless we can control the Sun.

So why is there a big fixation on CO2. Think of all the money in the form of study grants, carbon taxes, endowed chairs at universities, prestigious papers, and controlling bureaucracies that are linked to beating up CO2. It has been a warmer and cooler in the past. During the industrial Ice Age many millennia ago, the ice finally melted. Where did the CO2 come from back then? If the CO2 is higher today than it was a while back, it is because the Earth is warmer now and the CO2 is being released from the oceans. In other words, the increase of CO2 is the effect and not the cause.

Ratch

Could be the human race is somewhat preoccupied with being anthropocentric.

It is possible to make greenhouses using a type of plastic that increases the solar albedo (reflectivity back into space). Look at Almeria, Spain, on the Andalusian coast.

The greenhouses of Almeria

Very interesting indeed, virtual Terra-forming taking place, almost on accident.

I can’t believe we’re still debating this on this forum. Sure, I’ve been away for a while – but this is the last thread I expected to see upon my return. How about we acknowledge a few key things here:

First – due to the size of the data set, let’s all agree that I, or anyone, can pick and choose any set of ‘facts’ to support any position.

Second – let’s all agree that by the time there is evidence of such quality and quantity to be indisputable – we’ve hit critical mass and it’s too late to effect change.

Third – let’s all agree that mankind can, has the potential to, negatively impact the environment by its actions.

Then, let us all just admit since we have the potential to, through unmitigated activity, negatively impact and even destroy the plant – let’s mitigate our activity as best we can based on what we know today for no other reason than because we’re the stewards of this plant and it is the right thing to do.

Don’t NOT do it because no one has proven to your cynical @$$ beyond a reasonable doubt – because that’s never going to happen, and you should rue the day we would be able to anyway. DO IT – because you have a soul, and a heart, and a conscious and, because you CAN.

Oh, and hello all… long time no see.

_{(edit: Also, we're hiring - see my post in the commercial section if you're seeking)}

... and you should rue the day we would be able to anyway. DO IT – because you have a soul, and a heart, and a conscious and, because you CAN.

for one thing,..

I don't know if you read through the posts,... for the most part,... the responses through out this thread presented itself to be responsible...

secondly,..

And if the earth ever enters into a cloud of space dust that wondered in our solar system,... well,... we'll think of something...

I agree, it is the rare troll that stands on a position of irresponsibility; of which I have seen none on this thread - its just I'm enervated by the dogmatic on this topic... the 'for' states a 'fact' the 'against' states a 'fact' and on this topic it's exhausting because we seeming aren't making any progress only spinning our wheels while further entrenching the divide.

one of the issues I have with your post - "let's all agree" sounds somewhat arbitrarily so.

As to mitigating whatever damage we have done to the planet (somewhat dubiously here), we should be exercising some caution here that whatever massive correctional project we come up with does not do more harm in the long run than good. I have witnessed people seriously wanting to put up a giant reflector in space to block sunshine off the planet, seriously bad idea, concocted by those who utilize one-dimensional thinking.

Yeah, I've been gone awhile - forgot that I don't have to speak in generality here ;-). No offense intended; just out of practice.

Also, sorry if I wasn't clear - I didn't wish to imply mitigate existing damage because that is, as you said, a complex undertaking that could cause more harm than good if done incorrectly. I meant to mitigate current and future activity to reduce the impact of our existing and pending actions.

"one of the issues I have with your post - "let's all agree" sounds somewhat arbitrarily so."

And that pretty much sums it up right there. There will be no standing in unity when the subject is a complex multi faceted one where any action in any area carries both postive and negative consequences.

Fear of change is not justification to break the natural systems. Systems that have proven they are extremely complex and by far extremely resilient and self compensating for pretty much everything that has and can ever be thrown at them.

Fear of change by a certain group of humans is not justification to place unsubstantiated and undeserving burdens on others who do not agree with them over their perceived what-if's and paranoia/self serving virtue signalling feelgoods driven agendas.

As naturally pessimistic as I am it just bewilders me to find myself on the side that see's how much good has come from our human actions and influences in this world and like hell if I am going to support the undoing of that good we have done just so that a group of people I have come to see as being way too un/improperly educated and at time highly dishonest in what the feel so strongly about can create one more major life changing socio economic screw up to pat themselves setback for having made themselves at every cost to everyone else.

That is why we need to find out all we can about nature, and follow in her footpaths.

"Don’t NOT do it because no one has proven to your cynical @$$ beyond a reasonable doubt – because that’s never going to happen, and you should rue the day we would be able to anyway. DO IT – because you have a soul, and a heart, and a conscious and, because you CAN."

And therein lies the counter issue as well. Don't force people to make changes to combat something that there is no undenyable evidence to support either or that there is enough plausible data to suggest that thing are getting better, not worse.

You are saying, what-if things get worse while others are saying, what-if things are getting better so why should we stop things from getting better?

Where I live my regions climate has changed measurably and for the better over my 40+ years hear so as far as I am concerned everyone like you needs to stop trying to convince myself and everyone else to act and pay for things I believe would be detrimental to every view that I have of where things are going.

See the problem yet?

The reality is the doom and gloom what-if crowd have been failing to produce any credible evinced all while continually being caught in lies and deceit regarding achieving their goals and agenda whereas the whole other side that says either wait and see because nothing has proven unifying definitive in any way or that there is proof that things are improving has not.

For people like me I cannot follow a cause and agenda that has proven itself time and time again to be built on lies, deceit, poltical manipulation, outright greed and above all false moral and ethical feels good movements that scientific and economic process wise serve no real purpose.

That's why I side with the skeptics being so far they have never been proven outrightly wrong and nature has pretty much sided with them in giving proof of their views and expectations every time.

The believers side on the other hand has shown itself to be emotionally not scientifically driven, absurdly biased, unashamedly and repeatedly dishonest, untrustworthy in how it presents itself and disproven by nature itself time after time.

That not a set of actions or track record I can place my what-if's concerns about the future on, ever. Especially when everything I see where I am has proven to be getting better, not worse and that everywhere else is still pretty much well within the well known min and max norms of things based on well defined historical standards everywhere else.

Science is never settled.

You might want to start with a view on some basic science before we etch away the so called "climate science".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Hstum3U2zw

It should be clear by now that the oceans defining our climate in every aspect. Understanding the oceans/sun interaction is paramount for a successful climate research.

I would have given you a VGA, but there is no button for that.

My takeaway from Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille: On the Validity of Kirchhoff's Law | EU2014, if you are going to make a "black-body"radiator using aluminum oxide with a silver cavity, you better at least have some lint (cellulose) in there that will turn into a tiny speck of carbon.

Not only that, there are very strong consequences of assumptions made in mathematically constructed models of the universe. The law of equal partition, or the equipartition theorem is completely invalid when the partitions are not equally accessible to energy (translational partitions ≠ rotational partitions ≠vibrational partitions ≠ electronic partitions ≠ nuclear partitions).

Equipartition_theorem

(Wikipedia)