A Safe Haven for Humanity?

On Saturday, 11 March 2017 05:20:34 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
Here's an interesting article about the global warming issue:

http://www.vox.com/science-and-healt...climate-denial

It brings up a point that has been danced around in the
discussions here.

John Savard

You can't execute a GREAT corrupt idiot for treason against the human race long after he's dead. His crimes of personal profit over mankind's demise is not yet a crime against humanity. And, even if it were today, he is far too GREAT an administrator, in a far too self-important, GREAT land, to be hauled before any tin-pot-corporal's judge in The Hague. History will be this administration's only true judge and only when they have taken their ill-gotten wealth and power to their 22 carat, Louis 14th embellished, massed graves.

On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 7:43:17 AM UTC-7, Mike Collins wrote:

Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 6:26:03 AM UTC-7, Mike Collins wrote:

Your link is just another rant by an anti-AGW nutter.

If you just research this it's easy to find the truth.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/not...perature-data/

"Over time, the thousands of weather stations around the world have
undergone changes that often result in sudden or unrealistic
discrepancies in observed temperatures requiring a correction."

Don't you think this refutes Peterson's assertion of "many sigma of
certainty" when such "unrealistic discrepancies" are erased from the
dataset?

No

REAL scientists don't throw out data because it doesn't fit their agenda.
Many years ago I worked in the Physics Group at General Dynamics, Pomona
Division. The bosses there published many papers in the respectable
journals that were carefully massaged. They looked at each outlier data
point and came up with an excuse to throw it out. It made their plots look
great :-|

We had a saying there that you could determine a person's IQ by dividing
200 by the number of years they stayed there. One guy bailed after two
weeks.

http://berkeleyearth.org/understandi...perature-data/

These are just the top two from an internet search. You don't do your case
any good by accepting articles by unqualified rangers like this while
refusing to accept data from reputable sources.

I would take the NASA satellite data as a reputable source, wouldn't you?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...ry_2017_v6.jpg

The correlation between temperature and CO2 levels is not very good.

Do you expect a simple correlation in such a complex system?

I don't expect anyone making a judgment based on the data from such a
complex system to say the science is settled and attack anyone who doesn't
fall in line.

And there is a correlation. CO2 higher temperature higher.

Correlation does not confirm causation.

It's just not simple. The mechanism of IR interaction with CO2 is well
known and can be demonstrated in the lab. It was part of my university
practicals in spectroscopy in 1970.

Su in the lab. As you say, things are a LOT more complex in the real
world. For example, water vapor in the atmosphere has a much larger effect
than CO2. As I understand it, many of the models exaggerate the effect of
CO2 to account for this. That's not a good approach, IMHO.

Arrhenius warned against warming due to atmospheric CO2 decades before.

It's an easy prediction given the lab data. As you say though, the real
world is more complex.

Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 7:43:17 AM UTC-7, Mike Collins wrote:

Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 6:26:03 AM UTC-7, Mike Collins wrote:

Your link is just another rant by an anti-AGW nutter.

If you just research this it's easy to find the truth.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/not...perature-data/

"Over time, the thousands of weather stations around the world have
undergone changes that often result in sudden or unrealistic
discrepancies in observed temperatures requiring a correction."

Don't you think this refutes Peterson's assertion of "many sigma of
certainty" when such "unrealistic discrepancies" are erased from the
dataset?

No

REAL scientists don't throw out data because it doesn't fit their agenda.

The original data is still there.


Many years ago I worked in the Physics Group at General Dynamics, Pomona
Division. The bosses there published many papers in the respectable
journals that were carefully massaged. They looked at each outlier data
point and came up with an excuse to throw it out.

So they were driven by the commercial nature of their work and future job
prospects.

We had a saying there that you could determine a person's IQ by dividing
200 by the number of years they stayed there. One guy bailed after two
weeks.

http://berkeleyearth.org/understandi...perature-data/

These are just the top two from an internet search. You don't do your case
any good by accepting articles by unqualified rangers like this while
refusing to accept data from reputable sources.

I would take the NASA satellite data as a reputable source, wouldn't you?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...ry_2017_v6.jpg

The correlation between temperature and CO2 levels is not very good.

Do you expect a simple correlation in such a complex system?

I don't expect anyone making a judgment based on the data from such a
complex system to say the science is settled and attack anyone who doesn't
fall in line.

And there is a correlation. CO2 higher temperature higher.

Correlation does not confirm causation.


Correlation suggests causation. Without correlation you would be saying
there is no causation.
Correlation plus a sound physical basis (IR properties of CO2) suggest
causation even more strongly.

It's just not simple. The mechanism of IR interaction with CO2 is well
known and can be demonstrated in the lab. It was part of my university
practicals in spectroscopy in 1970.

Su in the lab. As you say, things are a LOT more complex in the real
world. For example, water vapor in the atmosphere has a much larger effect
than CO2. As I understand it, many of the models exaggerate the effect of
CO2 to account for this. That's not a good approach, IMHO.

No there is a much smaller percentage change in atmospheric water. But it
acts as a multiplier since increased temperatures push up the water vapour
and lock in more heat.

Arrhenius warned against warming due to atmospheric CO2 decades before.

It's an easy prediction given the lab data. As you say though, the real
world is more complex.

Anything to do with clockwork or timekeeping is built on the calendar framework which formats observations in blocks of three cycles of 365 days/rotations and one block of 366 days/rotations. This clockwork solar system is an attempt to force RA/Dec over the Latitude/Longitude system , the latter containing the assertion that daily rotation is constant at a rate of 4 minutes for each degree of rotation or 15 degrees per hour.

Believing that there are more rotations than 24 hour weekdays as RA/Dec proponents absolutely insist by virtue of their ideology that a rotating sphere of stars bounded within the distance of Polaris is easily the beginning and end of science and indeed much else, at least where basically faculties of judgement are concerned .

The presence of joy in humanity should crack apart the wordplays that have surrounded the celestial arena for so long and turned it into a junkyard for theorists. It starts with a sunrise or sunset and its rotational cause and then expands out to the different type of sunrise and sunset which happens in less than 2 weeks.

On Saturday, 11 March 2017 17:32:18 UTC+1, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
Anything to do with clockwork or timekeeping is built on the calendar framework...


Cuckoo clocks are two floors down.

On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 7:16:24 AM UTC-7, Mike Collins wrote:

Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 7:43:17 AM UTC-7, Mike Collins wrote:

Gary Harnagel wrote:

If you just research this it's easy to find the truth.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/not...perature-data/

"Over time, the thousands of weather stations around the world have
undergone changes that often result in sudden or unrealistic
discrepancies in observed temperatures requiring a correction."

Don't you think this refutes Peterson's assertion of "many sigma of
certainty" when such "unrealistic discrepancies" are erased from the
dataset?

No

REAL scientists don't throw out data because it doesn't fit their agenda.

The original data is still there.

yEAH, SOMEPLACE, I GUESS. I HAVEN'T SEEN IT.

Many years ago I worked in the Physics Group at General Dynamics, Pomona
Division. The bosses there published many papers in the respectable
journals that were carefully massaged. They looked at each outlier data
point and came up with an excuse to throw it out.

So they were driven by the commercial nature of their work and future job
prospects.

I would say it was driven by prestige in the scientific and local
communities which contributed to their ability to extract contracts from
the company and from the government. What makes you think "climate"
scientists aren't doing the same?

We had a saying there that you could determine a person's IQ by dividing
200 by the number of years they stayed there. One guy bailed after two
weeks.

http://berkeleyearth.org/understandi...perature-data/

These are just the top two from an internet search. You don't do
your case any good by accepting articles by unqualified rangers
like this while refusing to accept data from reputable sources.

I would take the NASA satellite data as a reputable source, wouldn't
you?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...ry_2017_v6.jpg

The correlation between temperature and CO2 levels is not very good..

Do you expect a simple correlation in such a complex system?

I don't expect anyone making a judgment based on the data from such a
complex system to say the science is settled and attack anyone who doesn't
fall in line.

And there is a correlation. CO2 higher temperature higher.

Correlation does not confirm causation.

Correlation suggests causation. Without correlation you would be saying
there is no causation.

Correlation is necessary but not sufficient.

Correlation plus a sound physical basis (IR properties of CO2) suggest
causation even more strongly.

"Suggest" is the operative word.

It's just not simple. The mechanism of IR interaction with CO2 is well
known and can be demonstrated in the lab. It was part of my university
practicals in spectroscopy in 1970.

Su in the lab. As you say, things are a LOT more complex in the real
world. For example, water vapor in the atmosphere has a much larger effect
than CO2. As I understand it, many of the models exaggerate the effect of
CO2 to account for this. That's not a good approach, IMHO.

No there is a much smaller percentage change in atmospheric water.

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fe...r_warming.html

"Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the
extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent
NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever
the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the
gas as a critical component of climate change."

Also note that humidity is not evenly distributed and varies widely from
location to location. And:

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbe...39_667-694.pdf

"There is firm evidence that moisture in the atmosphere is increasing in
many places, as noted in the introduction. In particular, in the Western
Hemisphere north of the equator, precipitable water amounts below 500 mb
are increasing over the United States, Caribbean and Hawaii by about 5% per
decade as a statistically significant trend from 1973 to 1993 (Ross and
Elliott, 1996), and these correspond to significant increases in relative
humidities of 2 to 3% per decade over the Southeast, Caribbean and
subtropical Pacific."

But it acts as a multiplier since increased temperatures push up the water
vapour and lock in more heat.

That's exactly what the NASA link says:

"Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station
confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough
to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere."

And the NCAR link says H2O in the atmosphere is increasing.

And the assertion that GW is confirmed to "many sigma" is belied by excerpts
from the links:

"the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated."

"researchers have estimated"

"New estimates of the moistening of the atmosphere"

The operative words being "debated" and "estimate" means to me that the
proper attitude should be concerned but wait-and-see. IOW, a healthy
degree of skepticism.

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:32:30 -0600, Mark Storkamp
wrote:
CO2 concentrations have been many times higher in the past than
they are
today. If a small change today can cause a runaway global warming
catastrophe that will turn us into another Venus, it would have
already
happened.

True, but that was before the age of mankind. What is special today
is not just the presence of humans but also the vast number of
humans. In the past people could relocate elsewhere in response to
climate changes. Today that's hardly possible anymore because
virtually every inhabitatable place in the world is already
inhabitated. If people are forced to relocate anyway by e.g. climate
changes, that will cause conflicts and wars.

So mankind has made itself very vulnerable to climate changes, in
particular by the popularity to settle down right at coastal areas.

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 11:22:22 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
He isn't _doing_ science. But he is _using_ science, for certain
dictionary
definitions of the word "using".


Misusing would be more accurate. He isn't himself applying
scientific
methodology to his analyses. Indeed, that's pretty much the
definition
of pseudoscience- framing arguments in scientific language without
actually using any science.

He is using scientific data, but not the scientific method.