Jack Daw

Yeah, that's the real problem, that most of the "climate change engaged public" haven't actually seen a Meteolab that keeps/records any temperature records, nor has climatological degrees, nor scientific background. The income information for these groups of people are not peer-reviewed journals, scientific literature, but their party's propaganda (either in the form of media, or claims), paranoid showcasters and other really reliable sources (such as internet blogs,...).

Interestingly enough, it really is a matter of "belief" for most of the people, rather than science. You can't really do much about it, because faith is a subjective personal conviction of absolute truth that is not constructed on reason and defended against all reason.

Those who actually are not climate scientists, but drag "belief" into this matter could just as well be going to a surgeon to have a brain operation done, but instead of relying on his skill, knowledge and practice, they would tell him explicitly what and how to do, and do nothing else. That's the analogy. Because they would "believe" that what they heard somewhere, is better, than any scientist/surgeon would know.




Climatology is a real science, and besides the political points (that reputable scientists have nothing to do with!), it really has its own literature, fora and all this "sciency stuff".

Why not check out the only site on the internet actually run by climatologists and read what they have to say, if it's so difficult to read it in scientific journals?

RealClimate


------------------------

source: dicionary.reference.com
- the word belief used in this post has following meanings:

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

------------------------

To illustrate the point... People are smart, they can handle it.

__________________
Thnx to Marcel, Ante, Dr. Chiranjit Parmar and Francesco for the plants I've received.



Zeitgeist - Corporatocracy 101 (~2hrs)

Zeitgeist - Moving Forward (~2.5hrs)

harveyc

Jack, I've visited realclimate.org several times and have never found any information there to address why the number of reporting stations has been drastically reduced. If they're completely unbiased scientists, they should be up front and have no problem in addressing that concern.

Just reading the preface to the report I linked above should provide plenty of concern about the integrity of the data being relied upon as it quotes the people maintaining it.

__________________

Jack Daw

They answer a mail, if you contact them. Or so they say. Maybe you could ask 'em, what's the reason. I don't watch this topic in such a detail to be able to say why. It's not my scientific field of interest.

__________________
Thnx to Marcel, Ante, Dr. Chiranjit Parmar and Francesco for the plants I've received.



Zeitgeist - Corporatocracy 101 (~2hrs)

Zeitgeist - Moving Forward (~2.5hrs)

harveyc

Any stories about the "real climate scientists" addressing this NASA report?
Principia Scientific Intl | New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere

__________________

sunfish

Abnshrek

I hope my Banana's won't freeze by then, in my climate, but I wouldn't hold my breathe on that one.. :^)

__________________


I'm a Nannerhead :^)

designshark

We're all in trouble now! How about some of our tax money back we've paid over the years to help 'prevent' global warming. The list is too long to mention.

caliboy1994

Yes, climate change is a hoax. The ten warmest years ever recorded have all occurred in the past 12 years. 2012 was the warmest year on record for the contiguous 48 states, with 15,000 temperature records tied or broken in March of 2012 alone. Things have warmed up so much that hardiness zone maps have had to be redrawn to account for the warmer temperatures. Sea levels have risen 19.5 centimeters since 1870. Most of the continental United States has been in a devastating drought since 2010, which is on track to shatter the previous record-breaking drought that occurred from 1988-89. In July 2012, the Greenland ice sheet experienced the largest single melting event in recorded history.

Climate change is a hoax? Really? 97% of all scientists agree that climate change is REAL, and that human activity is the main driving force behind it. Most of the other 3 percent consists of "scientists" that have been hired by the coal, oil, and natural gas industries in a failed attempt to "disprove" climate change. Of 13,950 peer-reviewed articles on the subject of climate change, only 24 deny that it's happening. A study conducted by UC Berkeley that was funded by the Koch Brothers (two billionaires who have been pathologically denying climate change) in an attempt to disprove climate change actually ended up proving it, and pointed to humans as the main cause.

Why don't we take a look at NASA temperature records?



Based on this video, climate change is clearly a hoax. Yeah, it's some scam drawn up by 97% of the scientific community for whatever motives they have. They probably just want to scare you into treating our planet better, which is the only home that we have.

I would do some more research before automatically concluding that it's a "hoax" based on what you've heard from politicians who have absolutely no knowledge of the subject or from pseudo-journalistic media outlets like Fox News and WND. Look at the actual facts and figures, not some ignorant malarkey spewed by pundits and politicians.

__________________
"The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings."
~ Masanobu Fukuoka

Find me on linktree here as Solarpunk Farmer:
https://linktr.ee/solarpunkfarmer

harveyc

You seem to have it all figured out, hope you are teaching your instructors a thing or two.

I have some doubts as to the adequacy of the number and location of sensors to accurately measure global temperature. If earth is indeed warming, is it due to CO2 levels as those peer-reviewed journals suggest even though NASA says CO2 reflects the majority of energy from the sun away from earth? Is that just an inconcenient truth not worth addressing?

__________________

caliboy1994

The thing about climate change is that it's not just CO2 that's at fault. Other gases such as nitrous oxide and methane account for a very large portion of the perceived warming (I think almost half). Even if CO2 does reflect sunlight as well, the sunlight that isn't reflected would still get absorbed and converted into trapped thermal energy by the CO2.

__________________
"The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings."
~ Masanobu Fukuoka

Find me on linktree here as Solarpunk Farmer:
https://linktr.ee/solarpunkfarmer

Yug

You seem to WANT strongly to believe it. In that case the best-supported evidence to the contrary would be meaningless for you. I'll not waste my time...

sunfish

Amazing how full of it some people are.

caliboy1994

I live in a state where the impacts of it can be quite easily seen. Not so much where you live. I'm sure you would believe it too if almost everyday of your August was over 100 degrees, or if your bananas started growing in the middle of January when they normally are dormant during that time. There is no refuting the empirical evidence for it either. Global average temperatures are on the rise, and that's a fact. The amount of temperature records that have been broken in recent years, both high and low, points to a warming trend. It's as true as the fact that the sun is shining and trees are growing. As I said, the few scientists who still deny it are employed by the fossil fuel industry.

What evidence do you speak of? "Climategate" was debunked long ago.



"Climategate" exposed: Conservative media distort stolen emails in latest attack on global warming consensus | Research | Media Matters for America

The claim that there has been no global warming over the last 16 or 17 years is also false.

No global warming for 16 years: Debunking climate change denial.

__________________
"The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings."
~ Masanobu Fukuoka

Find me on linktree here as Solarpunk Farmer:
https://linktr.ee/solarpunkfarmer

harveyc

Besides CO2, NASA's report also indicates that NO is also the other main gas that reflects the majority of sun's energy away from earth, yet you wish to assign it as a cause of global warming.

The past three winters have been colder than normal in NorCal. Last summer was normal after three years of cool summers. Localized weather over a few years certainly doesn't equate to "climate", however.

__________________

caliboy1994

NO is nitrogen oxide. I'm talking about nitrous oxide, N2O, otherwise known as laughing gas. It's an extremely potent greenhouse gas and also an ozone depleting agent. It's mostly produced by large-scale agricultural activity. And yes, that is true, that localized weather does not equate to climate. But many of these same patterns of extreme heat have also been felt across the world. For example, the recent heat wave and drought that happened last summer in the heartland of the United States. And the record-shattering heat wave that was felt in Australia this January. The main point is this: we are having less cooler temperatures and more warmer temperatures.

__________________
"The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings."
~ Masanobu Fukuoka

Find me on linktree here as Solarpunk Farmer:
https://linktr.ee/solarpunkfarmer

caliboy1994

I just took a look at the NASA report. It turns out that this article deals with the upper atmosphere, the thermosphere, not the troposphere. So, these gases are acting in the upper atmosphere, reflecting some of the sun's rays back into space and keeping the air tens to hundreds of miles above the Earth's surface cooler. Climate change is acting on the troposphere, or lower atmosphere, where weather occurs; from the ground up to 11 miles above the Earth's surface. Down here, CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas that traps light reflected off of the Earth's surface and re-radiates it at infrared wavelengths, causing a heating effect.

In other words, this article is completely irrelevant to the subject of climate change.

__________________
"The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings."
~ Masanobu Fukuoka

Find me on linktree here as Solarpunk Farmer:
https://linktr.ee/solarpunkfarmer

harveyc

Okay on the NO and N2O, been too long since I studied that.

So where did the CO2 in the thermosphere come from? Down below, right? Where did the sunlight that is being reflected off of the earth's surface come from? If CO2 and NO is reflecting the vast majority of sunlight even before it reaches earth, that is less light to be trapped in this so-called greenhouse. The article is only completely irrelevant to the climate change discussion because it does not fit what you want to believe.

__________________

caliboy1994

The original NASA article doesn't mention a thing about climate change. Also, here, note that it says:

"'Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,' explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. 'When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up [emphasis added], these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.'
...
Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.
...
For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space."

So, here, basically what is happening is the CO2 and NO are absorbing the energy released into the upper atmosphere and then release it again as thermal radiation in the infrared wavelengths. This is exactly what greenhouse gases do. They absorb light of higher wavelengths and re-emit it as infrared rays. In the case of the upper atmosphere, the air is so thin that the vast majority of this radiation is able to escape into space. Not so in the lower atmosphere, where the weather occurs. Here, most of this energy remains trapped, leading to a warming effect. Without this greenhouse effect, the Earth would in fact be much cooler.

And CO2 has always existed in all layers of Earth's atmosphere. It's not completely man-made, just the excess that we see today is. Also, the article does not say that the majority of all sunlight is reflected back into space. It says that the majority of all of the thermal energy from solar storms is scattered back out into space. It turns out that 69% of all solar energy makes it to the Earth's surface.

Also, the article that you posted, Harvey, was from an online journal that's notorious for climate change denial. It simply distorted the original NASA article in order to fit the climate change denial narrative. Clearly there's no bias there.

__________________
"The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings."
~ Masanobu Fukuoka

Find me on linktree here as Solarpunk Farmer:
https://linktr.ee/solarpunkfarmer

Yug

Yug

Here is a link to an article where a Mr. Martin Hoerling addresses recent dry conditions in the U.S. that were blamed on (of course) Global Warming.

Article: study-last-years-major-drought-was-not-caused-by-global-warming/

-excerpts from the article - emphasis mine-

“This is one of those events that comes along once every couple hundreds of years,” said lead author Martin Hoerling, a research meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “Climate change was not a significant part, if any, of the event.”

Researchers focused on six states – Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri and Iowa – but the drought spread much farther and eventually included nearly two-thirds of the Lower 48 states. For the six states, the drought was the worst four-month period for lack of rainfall since records started being kept in 1895, Hoerling said.

"Hoerling used computer simulations to see if he could replicate the drought using man-made global warming conditions. He couldn’t. So that means it was a random event, he said."