Global Warming

[JoeJester]

ronv

There wasn't a sudden increase. As the area built up around some, with heat emitting devices (AC, asphalt, etc), the change may not be noticed. Some reporting stations send in the forms on a monthly basis. There is evidence that on the older style wooden houses, different paint would cause a different reading.

Here is my point concerning there are many more "poor" weather stations contributing to the record than "good" weather stations, by that chart. Making a prediction with a variation less than the maximum error from the vast majority of your reporting stations just can't be taken too seriously.

In itself, you wouldn't notice an degree difference from one year to the next as we are talking about the weather. I been at a place where the weather would change multiple times a day, yet the data was reported once a day. Even if it were at the same time every day, your data is intermixed with other data taken at "different times".

I can remember going out to one of the older stations to take a wet bulb and dry bulb reading, even in a foot of snow with the wind blowing 40 kts. Of course, there were readings that were missed because of high winds. The "smart" scientists you described, "filled in" the missing data, in a language I would call, falsifying the record, something I would have been court martialed for or at minimum, an Article 15 Non-Judicial Punishment.

There were zero maintenance records on those weather stations. So, one would not know when someone painted it vice whitewashed it.

I am a cynic on this topic.

When mother earth fights back, humanity has slightly better than zero chance of survival.

I believe the climate is changing. It has changed a lot over time. We went from global cooling to global warming to climate change. The names were changed to increase their chances at continued funding.

I agree the science is interesting.

 

[Tony Stewart]

Hi Spec,
My view is that the source of the problem is that the world population is greater than the earth is capable of supporting with the amount of energy used per person to live the type of life we expect. (Cars, heated houses etc.) The only country that seems to be tackling the cause at the moment is China.

Les.

THe country that needs to do the most is China because they are the biggest polluters because the rest of the world are the biggest consumers.
There is a delicate balance going out of control with rising CO2 + C + NO + O3 with deforestation that absorbs CO2 with solar conversion.
CO2 hotspots are factories in CHina, INdia and massive unregulated wining smelters in Africa which are melting the Himalayian snow cap which feeds all the farming around their via major rivers. ( in addition to the polar caps)

The serpentine ocean belts have shifted rapidly as a result weather patterns are drastically changed /

When you think about Carbon footprint, remember that each person generates about 2.3 tons of CO2 per year which needs 100 trees to absorb.and with photosynthesis makes them stronger plants. **broken link removed**

But if out of balance with pollution and you get CO2 emissions like the richest Copper refineries in Zambia in south left central part of Africa. This video of Africa 9 yrs ago when the Chinese started massive mining pollution with no controls and toxic acid to workers both native and Chinese.

svs.gsfc.nasa.gov

 

[Tony Stewart]

Source: **broken link removed**

Anyone see a pattern? Solar, perhaps? Anyway, notable peaks (and valleys) that certainly preclude human influence. Or, to my way of thinking, pre-"Chicken Little" would be experts, politicians and media enablers... .

The Solar pattern is modulated by the planetary tidal effects, which in addition to local volcanic & meteoric effects on dust levels cause imbalance on absorption, reflection and insulation of solar energy in the atmosphere.

But this does not deny the effects of our over-consumption from China causing them to build a coal fired plant every week. Note also their their toxic mining methods in Africa, like Copper smelting in Zambia.
I try not to be a disposable consumer junky. Have you seen the pollution levels in China lately?, THe daily CO2 maps are a strong indicator. Below in a time laps of daily shots.

svs.gsfc.nasa.gov

more https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=4402

 

[spec]

The real problem is the population biology problem, there are just too many people on this planet.

Genuine question, not rhetorical... why?

Is it because there is not enough food

Or perhaps water

Even oxygen in the atmosphere

Not enough energy of all sorts (fossil, nuclear, hydro)

Not enough land surface area

Too much pollution (that is killing the flora and fauna)

 

[nsaspook]

Genuine question, not rhetorical... why?

Is it because there is not enough food

Or perhaps water

Even oxygen in the atmosphere

Not enough energy of all sorts (fossil, nuclear, hydro)

Not enough land surface area

Too much pollution (that is killing the flora and fauna)

All of the above. As a species we are inefficient net consumers of energy and have usually solved the local population problem with conquest and war. Today we are seeing that on a global scale. There is a direct relationship between population densities increase, the loss of Freedom and restrictions on freedom will increase to manage large populations. Democracy is threatened due to overpopulation and could give rise to totalitarian style governments similar to China in the west if current trends continue.
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/overpopulation-is-main-threat-to-planet-521925.html

"It is the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about" Professor Guillebaud said. "Unless we reduce the human population humanely through family planning, nature will do it for us through violence, epidemics or starvation."

 

[spec]

... no controls and toxic acid to workers both native and Chinese...

That is a very important point, but pollution in the traditional sense should be separated from the man-made global warming catastrophe theory being touted by governments and the media. As I mentioned in post #6, the work of the environmentalist and public health workers (food, drugs, housing etc) has radically improved the quality of life for many people in the developed countries, and in that sense I fully support and appreciate their good work. It's hard imagine anyone taking a different view, apart from those with vested interests that is. But even in this area things have got out of hand: 'This bag of peanuts contains nuts', 'This can of motor oil is not for human consumption' and so on.

 

[granddad]

I'm not sure I would shut down all the coal fired power plants either, but I did buy some LED bulbs. Really like them.

But Ron , when you dig up coal out of the ground tons of Methane are released , this fact seems to be ignored ?

 

[Tony Stewart]

You think Cali has a problem with water shortage while others experience floods, just wait until water is more expensive than gasoline ( plastic bottled excluded) The economic model is based on abundance of free water and air. Nestle and other big Corps take advantage of this. But when there is a massive shortage. Watch what happens to the economy.
with droughts, food shortage, toxic oceans , shortage of photosynthetic life in ocean which supplies 50% of our oxygen.....

The answer is Sustainability and tax the profiteering toxic dumpers .

The problem is cilviilzations who dont take this seriously or cant afford it, cant afford to ignore it.

 

[ronv]

ronv

There wasn't a sudden increase. As the area built up around some, with heat emitting devices (AC, asphalt, etc), the change may not be noticed. Some reporting stations send in the forms on a monthly basis. There is evidence that on the older style wooden houses, different paint would cause a different reading.

Here is my point concerning there are many more "poor" weather stations contributing to the record than "good" weather stations, by that chart. Making a prediction with a variation less than the maximum error from the vast majority of your reporting stations just can't be taken too seriously.

In itself, you wouldn't notice an degree difference from one year to the next as we are talking about the weather. I been at a place where the weather would change multiple times a day, yet the data was reported once a day. Even if it were at the same time every day, your data is intermixed with other data taken at "different times".

I can remember going out to one of the older stations to take a wet bulb and dry bulb reading, even in a foot of snow with the wind blowing 40 kts. Of course, there were readings that were missed because of high winds. The "smart" scientists you described, "filled in" the missing data, in a language I would call, falsifying the record, something I would have been court martialed for or at minimum, an Article 15 Non-Judicial Punishment.

There were zero maintenance records on those weather stations. So, one would not know when someone painted it vice whitewashed it.

I am a cynic on this topic.

When mother earth fights back, humanity has slightly better than zero chance of survival.

I believe the climate is changing. It has changed a lot over time. We went from global cooling to global warming to climate change. The names were changed to increase their chances at continued funding.

I agree the science is interesting.

Yes, but they get pasteurized and homogenized.
https://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/nothing-false-about-temperature-data/

 

[spec]

All of the above. As a species we are inefficient net consumers of energy and have usually solved the local population problem with conquest and war. Today we are seeing that on a global scale. There is a direct relationship between population densities increase and the loss of Freedom and restrictions on freedom will increase to manage large populations. Democracy is threatened due to overpopulation and could give rise to totalitarian style governments similar to China in the west if current trends continue.

nsaspook, your reply and link are appreciated. I'm only responding to your post because it addresses most of the other scares covered by the media in addition to man-made global warming. I have added two at the end. Are there any more? The topics are related in some cases, but perhaps it is easier to examine and discuss them individually. This is the list so far:

(1) Man-made global warming

(2) Food shortage

(3) Water shortage

(4) Low oxygen in the atmosphere

(5) Energy shortage

(6) land shortage

(7) Pollution- that is affecting health, flora and fauna

(8) Loss of freedom

(9) Increase in diseases- some new worrying types

(10) Increase in global crime, especially violent crime

 

[Tony Stewart]

ronv

There wasn't a sudden increase. As the area built up around some, with heat emitting devices (AC, asphalt, etc), the change may not be noticed. Some reporting stations send in the forms on a monthly basis. There is evidence that on the older style wooden houses, different paint would cause a different reading.

Here is my point concerning there are many more "poor" weather stations contributing to the record than "good" weather stations, by that chart. Making a prediction with a variation less than the maximum error from the vast majority of your reporting stations just can't be taken too seriously.

In itself, you wouldn't notice an degree difference from one year to the next as we are talking about the weather. I been at a place where the weather would change multiple times a day, yet the data was reported once a day. Even if it were at the same time every day, your data is intermixed with other data taken at "different times".

I can remember going out to one of the older stations to take a wet bulb and dry bulb reading, even in a foot of snow with the wind blowing 40 kts. Of course, there were readings that were missed because of high winds. The "smart" scientists you described, "filled in" the missing data, in a language I would call, falsifying the record, something I would have been court martialed for or at minimum, an Article 15 Non-Judicial Punishment.

There were zero maintenance records on those weather stations. So, one would not know when someone painted it vice whitewashed it.

I am a cynic on this topic.

When mother earth fights back, humanity has slightly better than zero chance of survival.

I believe the climate is changing. It has changed a lot over time. We went from global cooling to global warming to climate change. The names were changed to increase their chances at continued funding.

I agree the science is interesting.

I was on a small team that designed some of the first unmanned weather stations in the mid 70's in the world for the govt Weather Canada.

Even then, we knew enough to integrate the data in real-time and report the result at the required hourly intervals, not the spontaneous result. This included wind speed and direction with the resulting integrated vector.

Early one were deployed in mountains to predict avalanches. Later in '75 we deployed one in the Beaufort Sea to track ice flow from Canada to Russia before GOES historical data was available, but we did upload the data to GOES 1. It was powered by a 20m high 1Hp wind turbine. This was to service off-shore oil wells that used daily plane recon. to forecast ice flows to prevent well shear. Our world's first ocean floating weather station ended up in Siberia with polar rotating ice flows going 10 miles/day.

My 1st design out of Uni. was the 5 ch CMOS micropower VLF Navigation doppler motion tracking unit. It ended up failing once it moved out of coverage area from US Navy transmitters so it was tracked with the XY Magnetometers.

We reported with temp, rain guage, snow pillow guage, RH, temp, Pressure , wind speed/dir with stats for min/max/mean.

At that time, I understood from looking at the 1st photos of the Earth from GOES 1 and what I learnt, that Earth must stay below 0 deg C for the long term, for life ( as we know it) to be sustainable. It seems from Cowboy Bob's red graph, the global temp variance is like a relaxation oscillator, that ramps up then resets when the temp gets to too warm, perhaps from major tectonic shifts and massive plumes from Volcanoes that block heat from the sun for long periods and changes in lightning strikes per day producing Ozone. I understand from the magneto-wobble and solar flares that these are modulated from long term harmonic planetary tidal effects on the Sun-coronal activity, so humans are not the only influence.. The same effects occur on generator bearings with each ball rotation frequency introducing alias or very low intermodulation frequencies, like the ~100 yr and thousand year cycles of the sun, not just the 11 yr cycle induced by Jupiter alone.

Humans just add dirt to the bearings causing more variation. ( fuggedabout the flap of the butterfly wings, that's stoichasic noise), we're talking about major perturbations and deviations from nature.

Everything is a delicate balance with some self biased negative feedback and positive feedback like a relaxation oscillator. Now exacerbated by pollution and deforestation even worse than the Industrial Age, it is never too late, but it wont be cheap.

 

[ronsimpson]

Think about all the billions of computers on the internet, searching "global warming".
Think of the bits of data running through the wires and fiber.
This alone causes 2C of warming.

 

[cowboybob]

Anybody remember Dr Paul R. Ehrlich's book, "The Population Bomb"? And another published around the same time (early 1970s) titled "The Limits to Growth"?

The latter publication's (online at https://collections.dartmouth.edu/teitexts/meadows/diplomatic/meadows_ltg-diplomatic.html) graphs (starting at page 124 - USE "IMAGE VIEWER ONLY"), although generated by a somewhat crude computer model, showed some pretty disturbing trends, all related to unbridled human population growth. These were also published in "Playboy" magazine around that same time.

Irrespective of climate (weather, whatever), I thought then and I think now that, as nsaspook noted in post #45, too many people on the planet is the primary problem.

But how to ethically deal with that???

 

[ronsimpson]

But how to ethically deal with that?

Start a war!
It worked for many years.

 

[nsaspook]

But how to ethically deal with that???

War at this point is too inefficient with conventional weapons, I suspect Nature will almost certainly find a solution to the imbalance of humans.

 

[JoeJester]

Tony Stewart

The class 1 and 2 CRNs are the best. There just isn't a lot of them out there yet. I don't know which class you installed, but I'm assuming its a class 1 or 2 CRN. If you look at that report, you can see some newer class CRNs being influenced by Air Conditioner Exhausts to where the readings are higher because of them. There are no notes out there on what the scientists did with each of the class with respect to homogenizing the data. They probably will have a difficult time in determining when the asphalt was built or the AC's installed, especially if it's not on government property.

Yes, the newer ones can average the daily info producing a better data then the wet bulb/dry bulb and temperature in four hour increments during the pre-1975 era.

If you had an installation and were not aware of the physical changes near that installation that could influence the data, you would never know if it's accurate or not ... especially if there is no validating inspection at irregular intervals. If you did notice a slight change in temperature, by a couple of degrees, and you are studying global warming, hell, you found evidence that it's fact ... when it might not be a fact, as there was erroneous readings caused by the external man-made influences to the site plan.

There were NO inspection visits on the sites to ensure the quality of the data. Any and all biases remain in the historical record. All the massaging in the world can't remove that bias, especially if the bias supports your thesis, as you wouldn't want to apply the correction. And I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they are not aware of the bias. That being said, I am disheartened that the government, when informed of this bias, choose NOT to correct the record. That failure alone brings the cynical side to full alert.

As far as I've experienced, climate changes. The longest I spent in any one area was 19 years. I have a couple of years on the last island in the Aleutian Chain, a couple of years in Southern Italy, 14 years in NYC area, in between some other transfers, 3 years on Nantucket Island, and 10 years in the panhandle of Oklahoma, 10 years in Central Michigan, and 5 years in Texas. The widest swing of climate experienced was the two years, about a decade apart, in the Aleutian Chain. The swing I'm talking about is during my presence not the two different time periods.

Did you look at the report in the link I provided above?

 

[cowboybob]

Joe, I had not but, I have now.

Had no idea of the severity of temp data error possibilities. Serious error bars. I suspected as such (just my well honed "denier" side).

I have a couple of years on the last island in the Aleutian Chain

Attu: USCG?

 

[JoeJester]

Yes, Attu. Once as an ET3 and again as an ETC

 

[ronv]

The opposing view:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/

 

[spec]

The latest claims for global warming range between 0.5 Deg C and 0.7 Deg C (call it 0.6 Deg C), over some not too clear period. Once again, genuine question: What is the sinificance of 0.6 Deg C. Sure, any increse in temperature makes the molicules jangle around a bit more but what else? I have read about the claimed effects of temperature increase but nothing seems to be quantified.

Also, is the signficance proportional to (delta Deg C/Deg K), or is there some other denominator. If so, anybody have any idea what it is?