Jump to content

We need to take Climate Change seriously


Dibya

Recommended Posts


4 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Using a 14yr window presents a statistical bias.  Every statistician knows how to define their window to make their case instead of break their case.

You aren't being polite in the conversation, you asked for "a SCIENTIFIC APPROACH", I gave you one, now you didn't like the truth, so it looks like you're a simple climate change denier rather than someone who supposed to be neutral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

My neutrality is that Global Warming is *NOT* caused be ENGINE HEAT, it's caused by EMISSIONS not "heat transfer".

All man made objects that use heating or result in heating are the cause of the warming, including the phosphorous blasts you chose to ignore (why?), of course in addition to emissions, there's no argument here.

For example, we've got plenty of (don't know how to call them politely) that make floors with heating in our already warm Vichy climate so "their dogs feel cosy".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

You lost me.

Does not the link above (this page, not previous page) fully indicate a case to be made for Global Warming?

I gave you the links for comparison our climate in 2009 vs 2023, which added almost + 10 degrees in my city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not choose to ignore, btw, I'm not going to be baited into political discussions that have no merit and are forbidden at MSFN.

Heck, as far as that goes, this topic itself probably toes that line as close as you can get but it is General Stuff -> General Discussion and we don't need the forum to be 100% about web browsers and Start Menu apps and graphics cards.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, D.Draker said:

I gave you the links for comparison

How much will you pay me if I can find a list of TEN cities where their temperature DECREASED for 2009 versus 2023?

Again, I'm not a denier.  But this IS a topic where EVERYBODY throws out "half truths" and "statistical bias" to present "their side".

This most certainly is NOT a topic that MSFN is going to solve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I did not choose to ignore, btw, I'm not going to be baited into political discussions that have no merit and are forbidden at MSFN.

Nonsense! You can, and there's nothing in the rules about it, talk about the direct consequences (economical and environmental), just exclude the political part. We all know who's to blame and what country is the source of evil anyways.

Just omit that part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

But this IS a topic where EVERYBODY throws out "half truths"

No, that comparison is 100% legit, I can confirm that myself.

Now, let's talk years. In 1979, when I was small, I couldn't allow myself to freely roam the balcony just in briefs/underwear, not because I was shy, no, but because it was still cold in the winters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/18/2024 at 3:06 AM, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Begging your pardon, but NOAA are climate shysters. In 2024, they announced it as the hottest year ever, and when one noted the fine print hidden out of plain view, it turned out they meant 2014 was probably the hottest year ever, based on a 48% average.  The next Shyster in line, NASA GISS, had 2014 rate hottest based on 38% probability. I mean, what serious scientists would make such claims based on such ridiculous probabilities?. Meantime, UAH (University of Alabama, Huntsville), based on the satellite temperature record, had 2014 significantly down the list, well behind the hottest year of 1998, at the time, produced by a strong El Nino.

Speaking of 1998, in 2013, the IPCC admitted that the 15 years between 1998 and 2012 showed no significant warming trend. They called it a hiatus. UAH showed an 18 year flat trend. The fudgers at NOAA, who showed the same flat trend, went back and re-calculated the SST (Sea Surface Temperature), to show a slight trend. Why? NOAA. GISS, and Hadcrut, the three premier surface station record keepers have all engaged in retroactively rewriting historical temperatures to make them better fit the anthropogenic warming meme.

GISS were caught quietly trying to replace 1934 with 1998 as the hottest year in North America. The current leader of GISS, Gavin Schmidt, runs an uber-alarmist site, realclimate, with his buddy Michael Mann, of hockey stick fame. In the emails of the Climatgate scandal, Mann was revealed as the author of 'the Trick', a scheme aimed at hiding declining temperatures. Schmidt tried to cover up for him but anyone in the know is aware that Mann et al's proxy temperatures were showing a decline in the 1960s and Mann solved it by clipping off the proxy temps and replacing them with real warming temps. The Trick!!!

In the Climatgate emails, Phil Jones, leader of Hadcrut at the time, bragged that he had used Mann's trick to good effect. These are the high and mighty alarmists crowd talking about matters they dare nor reveal in public, They justify cheating for the better good. Jones was a Coordinating Lead Author at the time making him high and mighty at IPCC reviews since he got to elect and oversea Lead Authors. He was caught in the Climategate emails bragging that he would ensure that certain skeptic's papers would not make it to the review.

The partner of Jones at IPCC reviews is Kevin Trenberth of NCAR or UCAR, not sure which. In the Climategate emails, Trenberth lamented circa 2007 that the warming had stopped and it was a travesty that no one knew why. Here he is secretly admitting what the IPCC announced in 2013 yet it never reached the mainstream public, When the emails were released, Trenbrth rushed into damage control mode and came up with the cockamamey theory that the missing heat is being stored in the ocean.

You can see that drivel in the link above from NOAA. We know the oceans store heat, that's what keeps the planet warmer than it should be, not a greenhouse effect. Also, the atmosphere itself keeps the planet warmer because the primary components, oxygen and nitrogen, absorb heat from the surface and cannot release it radiatively at terrestrial temperatures. So, those gases tend to store heat.

The point is, if CO2 is causing greater warming as it increases why would there be a sudden flat trend? In 2016 we had another strong El Nino followed by a 6 year flat trend. Therefore the trend has been flat 24 year out of the past 26 years . So, why the general trend from 1998 - present? In 1977, a very mysterious 0.2C warming appeared. No one knew what to make of it and some scientists were in favour of erasing it as a mistake. Some began to investigate and that lead to the discovery of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which is associated with a controls the frequency of another oscillation, ENSO.

I have found evidence of at least two more unexplained sudden warmings, both of them following major El Ninos. Following the ENs, temperatures remained a few tenths of a degree C higher than expected.

There are several ocean oscillations throughout the planet: the AMO (Atlantic), AO (Arctic Ocean), PDO (Pacific), ENSO (tropical Pacific) and a couple more. Each oscillation affects weather and climate in different ways. Tsonis et al studied them back a century and discovered that the planet warmed when the oscillations worked together and cooled when they were opposed. This offers a far better and more realistic explanation for warming and cooling over the past century. However, the IPCC won't accept papers on this because their mandate is only to discover evidence of anthropogenic warming, even if they have to mislead people to do it.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/18/2024 at 5:13 AM, NotHereToPlayGames said:

You lost me.

My neutrality is that Global Warming is *NOT* caused be ENGINE HEAT, it's caused by EMISSIONS not "heat transfer".

There is evidence that modern cities contribute heat through an Urban Heat Island Effect. I am sure automobile engines contribute a good amount of that heat, at least on working days. The truth is that cities are contributing heat through their concrete structures and blacktopped roads.

A critical mistake is thinking that infrared radiation is heat. It's actually a byproduct of heat dissipation at a surface although it can be used to warm a cooler object, where it is transferred back to heat. In considering that, we must be aware of the inverse square law whereby electromagnetic energy rapidly loses its intensity as it spreads out from a source. A 1500 watts ring on an electric stove, glowing red, can barely be felt a couple of feet away.

Radiation is a very poor mechanism for cooling a surface. That's another reason the planet is warmer than it should be. Radiation simply cannot get rid of similar heating as quickly as it enters the Earth system. Shula has written a paper on that, comparing cooling by radiation and conduction.convection. Here's a reference to it....

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/18/a-novel-perspective-on-the-greenhouse-effect/

Basically, the Pirani gauge is a tube with a filament in it that can be electrically heated. The tube can be evacuated as well, and with it evacuated there is obviously no air in the tube. If the filament is heated then the current is stopped, it takes a long time for the filament to cool by radiation along. If a gas like air is introduced the filament cool quickly.  In fact, the filament cools 260 times faster in air than in a vacuum.

The earth energy budget diagram shown on the page has that backwards. It shows radiation as the main factor cooling the surface an it is conduction.convection that cools it better. It is estimated in the article at the link that radiation accounts for only about 1% of heat dissipation at the Earth's surface.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...