patrick.net

SpecialSnowflake says

Have you checked the price of helium recently?

Hydrogen baby! If you're gonna go go all the way!

Onvacation says

SpecialSnowflake says

Have you checked the price of helium recently?

Hydrogen baby! If you're gonna go go all the way!

Oh, the Humanity!

beershrine says

You read that right 1%. you can google these facts up fast.

That would depend on how you count the emissions. Are you counting emissions from producing all of the crap that people in CA buy? Are you counting emissions from power plants in other states that export power to CA? Onvacation says

Onvacation says

Where do you suppose all that heat is coming from?

IT'S THE SUN.

Onvacation sounds a bit like Ironman.
Step 1: The sun provides radiation that warms the earth.
Step 2: The earth radiates energy back into space (to other objects in space).
Step 3: CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere traps some of that radiation and sends energy back to earth.

Some people get trapped in Step 1, and cannot see any further.

YesYNot says

Some people get trapped in Step 1, and cannot see any further.

Some people get caught up in the propaganda and think co2 will cause a nuclear meltdown like runaway effect. They neglect or willfully ignore all of the other factors that create climate.

Onvacation says

and think co2 will cause a nuclear meltdown like runaway effect

This is your straw man. Nobody is using those terms. My comment and many many others like it show how stupid your "It's the sun" proclamation is. The real question is why anybody would make such a statement, and then run away when somebody points out how flawed it is. You cannot defend the indefensible so you just accuse unnamed others of making statements that they never made.

YesYNot says

My comment and many many others like it show how stupid your "It's the sun" proclamation is. The real question is why anybody would make such a statement, and then run away when somebody points out how flawed it is.

So if it is not the sun what does heat the earth?

Gentle Reader,

Humans proved that the atmosphere can change by releasing CFC refrigerant. We were dumping quite a bit, but not THAT much. Still, it damaged the ozone layer. Humans are dumping a huge amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. Many, many times more CO2 than CFC. CO2 prevents all of the daytime heat from radiating back into space. Now, this is warming the planet, but it is not the only risk. Once the atmospheric H2O content begins to rise, and it seems to be doing that, then we are really screwed. Bad, bad stuff. Water is the primary greenhouse gas for our planet, and we really don't want the concentration of gaseous H2O to increase. We may be already be committed to 2 degrees C at the dawn of the 22nd century. 80 years.

We don't have long to fix this. 80 years.

Regards,
Roidy
P.S. I have children, nephews, and nieces, and I wish them to grow up to live a long and healthy lives. We must begin using more nuclear and renewables. Now.

If the chinese and indians arnt on board the game is futile.
Might as well go out in style rather than poorass trying to repair the impossible
Roidy says

We may be already be committed to 2 degrees C at the dawn of the 22nd century. 80 years

If co2 was the cause of cataclysmic AGW wouldn't there be more correlation between co2 levels and temperature?

I started this thread because I think that AGW has been way overblown. The world and humanity has a lot of problems but AGW is down the list in importance. One degree of temperature and a foot of water over the last 150 years is not a big deal. Quadrupling of the population over the same time period is a bigger problem.

I thought you started it to rehash a conversation that you've had under a different screen name.Onvacation says

Quadrupling of the population over the same time period is a bigger problem.

Quadrupling the population isn't a problem in an of itself. It's only a problem when it causes an increased demand for resources, leads to increased pollution, and potentially more disease. The pollution leads to definite environmental problems, one of which is global warming, which itself can cause increased disease.

Onvacation says

I think that AGW has been way overblown

In this entire thread, you've provided no convincing evidence for that statement.

Are you a reincarnation of 'Hater'?

YesYNot says

Quadrupling the population isn't a problem in an of itself. It's only a problem when it causes an increased demand for resources

How could it not?

YesYNot says

In this entire thread, you've provided no convincing evidence for that statement.

You can't convince fanatics.

This thread is for all the people that are not aware of the lies and manipulation of the alarmists.

Onvacation says

This thread is for all the people that are not aware of the lies and manipulation of the alarmists.

When you write that 'all the heat is coming from the sun' as if it were important, all you are doing is advertising ignorance. Everybody knows that the sun is the source of heat in our planet. Nobody is denying that. It just doesn't mean what you are pretending it means. The net heat depends on more than how active the sun is, and anybody who has read anything about how our planet, atmosphere, and sun interact knows that.
Onvacation says

Can you address the lack of correlation between co2 and arctic temperatures?

It's called the theory of global warming. The average temperature of the globe is warming. It's not called - the theory of everything warms at the same rate and there will be no local fluctuations. Go ahead and cherry pick regions that are not warming if that convinces you of something. But, you will be more convincing to the rest of us if you find something that actually contradicts global warming theory.

YesYNot says

When you write that 'all the heat is coming from the sun' as if it were important,

That is where the heat comes from.

Some people are amazingly dense sometimes. There are way more factors to climate than just co2 which is a byproduct of breathing and a necessity for plant growth.

Do you think the planet would cool if man disappeared? By how much?

YesYNot says

you will be more convincing to the rest of us if you find something that actually contradicts global warming theory.

Because the alarmists dire warnings of doom from flooding, catastrophic storms, and rapidly rising heat for the last couple of decades have not come true.

YesYNot says

The average temperature of the globe is warming.

One degree over a century is hardly measurable over natural variation.

"The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for May 2016 was the highest for May in the 137-year period of record, at 0.87°C (1.57°F) above the 20th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F), besting the previous record set in 2015 by 0.02°C (0.04°F).
Global Climate Report - May 2016 | State of the Climate | National ...
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov › sotc › global

Can you even measure four hundredths of a degree Fahrenheit over the entire world?

Onvacation says

That is where the heat comes from.

Speaking of density, you might as well ask why the sky is blue or sunsets are red. That has as much to do with global warming as the sun.

Onvacation says

One degree over a century is hardly measurable over natural variation.

Not true.

Onvacation says

alarmists

Try to contradict the science, not a straw man mythical alarmist.

YesYNot says

Onvacation says

One degree over a century is hardly measurable over natural variation.

Not true.

So what is the margin of error in these worldwide temperature measurements?

What's more important for this, precision or accuracy? And why?

Onvacation says

So what is the margin of error in these worldwide temperature measurements?

YesYNot says

What's more important for this, precision or accuracy?

I don't know is a valid answer.

Unless you do know. Do you?

So it's actually 1/1000 of a degree accuracy and they had a super calibrated thermometer that allowed us to know KNOW the worlds average temperature at the turn of the 20th century.

That was sarcasm.

Any source I give you will reject so do your own research and get back to us with YOUR results.

Thanks for helping me illustrate the ridiculousness of the cataclysmic AGW alarmists

Onvacation says

YesYNot says

What's more important for this, precision or accuracy?

I don't know is a valid answer.

Unless you do know. Do you?

Yes. Precision is easier to come by and more important when comparing two years. Do you know the difference between precision and accuracy.

Does anyone have an answer for the margin of error for the one degrree rise of global temp over the last century? I am thinking that 1/10 of 1 percent seems way too low.

Onvacation says

margin of error

I'm trying to see if you have much of an understanding of error before proceeding. You don't answer any questions about it, though. Not much point in discussing if we cannot establish some vocabulary.

Onvacation says

Even if each one could measure down to a thousandth of a degree there would still be some inaccuracy. These inaccuracies accumulate.

Inaccuracies do not accumulate when you take more and more measurements. If the error is random and normal, then the error of the mean decreases as you take more measurements in a very well known manner. It decreases with the square root of the number of measurements you take. So, if you take 100 measurements, you decrease the error by roughly 10 times. That means 100 thermometers with 0.01 degrees of accuracy will give you an average to 0.001 degrees accuracy. If you have 10,000 measurements, you can get 0.0001 degrees accuracy.
Measuring global average temperature with 10,000 spots doesn't produce this accuracy, because you are measuring different values in different places. However, the random error in each thermometer will decrease as I described.
Non-random error will often produce problems with accuracy, but not precision. Precision has to do with repeatability, not absolute accuracy. You are saying that it is not possible to know that one year is hotter than another year. Knowing this doesn't require knowing the absolute accuracy. It requires knowing how precise the method is (that is, how repeatable it is). That's why I asked the question to see what your knowledge of the subject was.
Further, a scientist will not say that one year was hotter than another with 100% accuracy. They will calculate the probability that one year was hotter. If that probability is greater than 95%, they will typically say that the result is significant. You will often find this expressed as p less than 0.05 in journals. That means that the probability of the opposite is less than 0.05 (5%). That is still not 100% proof, but it is an arbitrary cutoff that scientists use to communicate significance. In any case, you are trying to discredit an idea based on the way that something was communicated in the news, which is kind of silly in my opinion. Further, it doesn't really matter if we are 100% sure that 2016 was 0.04 degrees warmer than 2015. What we know is that 2015 and 2016 were the hottest years on record to the best of our knowledge. That is what is most important to know. Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge 2016 was warmer than 2015. But that is not really all that important. Global warming theory does not predict that each year will be successively warmer than the previous. It just means that we are on a long term trend where the globe is getting warmer much faster than the earth generally warms or cools. Furthermore, we know why this is happening.

Gentle Reader,

I'm from New Orleans. Flooding has always been a problem. Katrina should not have been a surprise. No, I won't live there anymore because of the risk. Yes, they replaced the older levees with huge new ones. I'm not sure they will help, since the real problem is the salt marsh depletion between NOLA and the sea.

Again, this is nothing new.

Regards,
Roidy

YesYNot says

Global warming theory does not predict that each year will be successively warmer than the previous. It just means that we are on a long term trend where the globe is getting warmer much faster than the earth generally warms or cools. Furthermore, we know why this is happening.

Thanks I knew you would have a well thought out explanation.

I still question the basic premise of catastrophic AGW and the calculations that the alarmist used to arrive at the conclusion that the the world is heating out of control.

How accurate were the readings taken with bucket and thermometer last century? I find it hard to believe that they were accurate within a few degrees much less a fraction of a degree.

I also question the way the old data is adjusted long after the fact of measurement. If the measurements were not accurate at the time of measurement how can we be sure they are accurate after fudge factors are added?

I don't think I will ever be convinced that the whole world temperature can be measured within a tiny fraction of a degree but I appreciate your efforts at "enlightening the ignorant".

Why doesn't everyone who lives in flood prone areas do this:

Roidy says

I'm not sure they will help, since the real problem is the salt marsh depletion between NOLA and the sea.

Is there some reason why they aren't dredging up dirt from the gulf to fix this?

In a different thread Booger suggested infilling parts of New Orleans, but I suspect that dredging is the only locally available dirt in sufficient quantities and I'm not sure that that's even the type of dirt that you can readily build on (since I'm not THAT type of engineer). But I suspect that it's perfectly good dirt for recreating extra space to grow tress on between the levies and the gulf. If it's possible to do beach restoration, why not forest and swamp restoration

Onvacation says

that the alarmist used to arrive at the conclusion that the the world is heating out of control.

Stick to reading what scientists write. It really is a long term problem with no obvious and easy solutions, and it is not a conspiracy theory perpetrated by selfish scientists.

Onvacation says

How accurate were the readings taken with bucket and thermometer last century?

The measurement were not as accurate or prevalent back then. However, that isn't the biggest issue. The biggest issue is understanding and quantifying sources of systematic error that change over time, as those can have a big impact on the plots of temperature versus time. The most well known source of this type of error is the heat island effect. That is, the population has grown around places where temperatures were measured years ago. In cities, there is a lot of blacktop and perhaps for other reasons, the temperature in cities is higher than it would have been if that spot were still rural. People can measure this effect and correct for it. The thing is, the correction decreases the measured temperature increase over time. So, the scientists are correcting the data in a way that makes the temperature increase seem smaller. They are not doing it for any ulterior motive. They are doing it to offset a known measurable effect and make the data more accurate.

There are lots of obvious reasons why someone might measure something and make adjustments instead of using the measured value. For example, if I am going to cut wood to make a 2x4, I might measure the moisture content and adjust the cut width so that the 2x4 was the right size after drying. If I were going to pay for a bushel of corn, I might measure the moisture content, and correct the weight based on how wet the corn was. So, changing a measurement based on known factors is not fudging. It's just correcting for known variances.

zzyzzx says

Why doesn't everyone who lives in flood prone areas do this:

I hope those support sticks go right through the first floor uninterrupted. Otherwise, that thing is in desperate need of some cross bracing. It would also be nice if they cut those beams into the supports. You cannot even build a deck like that in the county I live in.

I wonder how much of a homeowners insurance discount they get for doing that (build on stilts)?

Onvacation says

I find it hard to believe that they were accurate within a few degrees much less a fraction of a degree

I find it hard to believe that in 1972 we knew the speed of light to be 0.2997924562 gigameters / s to an accuracy of 0.000000001 gigameters/s accuracy. But, despite the difficulty of even imagining that speed, many clever individuals found out how to do it. What's more interesting is that an astronomer named Romer estimated it to within 25% in 1676 by measuring the eclipse times of one of Jupiter's moons. Although it is hard for me to imagine making any of a huge number of giant historical scientific discoveries, I know that they in fact happened. Furthermore, when enough very bright minds are focused on a problem, we can achieve an amazing level of understanding of both what is going on and how well we understand it.

YesYNot says

So, the scientists are correcting the data

I thought scientists analyzed data? If the data is wrong shouldn't it be thrown out?

YesYNot says

So, changing a measurement based on known factors is not fudging. It's just correcting for known variances.

How can the climate scientists know what those sailors with buckets and thermometers did wrong to make their measurements inaccurate?

Onvacation says

If the data is wrong shouldn't it be thrown out?

The data are not wrong. This is just the nature of science. You learn as much as you can from the tools on hand. See the history of measuring the speed of light, which I referenced earlier. Anyway, every time you calibrate an instrument, you are adjusting the values of the measurements that you end up taking with that instrument.

Let's say you get new tires for your car that are a little bigger than the original equipment. Do you adjust the data coming from your speedometer or just throw it away and guess how fast you are going? If you are smart, you have the speedometer recalibrated or just make a mental note that the you will be going a X percent faster than the reading on the dash. If you are less industrious, you would just throw the data out. Fortunately, scientists are an industrious lot, and make use of it.