Remember me
▼ Content

I'm not sure what to make of this


I'm not sure what to make of this11-03-2018 23:12
CoolCucumber
☆☆☆☆☆
(27)
20,000 scientists give dire warning about the future in 'letter to humanity' – and the world is listening
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/letter-to-humanity-scientists-warning-climate-change-global-warming-experts-a8243606.html
12-03-2018 01:43
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(206)
"I'm not sure what to make of this"

Not sure to make of what?

The article you linked to? It's deficient in several ways, one of which is that it doesn't say where the "letter to humanity can be found.

Try http://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/sites/sw/files/Warning_article_with_supp_11-13-17.pdf

The original article came out in 1992 and by now lots of folks have been exposed to the ideas presented in the letter/article.

That several thousand scientists have endorsed the article/letter is fine, but I don't think that'll change much. If several thousand politicians and businessmen endorsed it'd mean more.
12-03-2018 02:26
CoolCucumber
☆☆☆☆☆
(27)
still learning wrote:
"I'm not sure what to make of this"

Not sure to make of what?

The article you linked to? It's deficient in several ways, one of which is that it doesn't say where the "letter to humanity can be found.

Try http://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/sites/sw/files/Warning_article_with_supp_11-13-17.pdf

The original article came out in 1992 and by now lots of folks have been exposed to the ideas presented in the letter/article.

That several thousand scientists have endorsed the article/letter is fine, but I don't think that'll change much. If several thousand politicians and businessmen endorsed it'd mean more.


why's that?
12-03-2018 08:10
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(206)
CoolCucumber wrote:

....why's that?


Why is what?
Do you mean the bit about politicians and businessmen?

Did you look at the original letter/article that I linked to?

The ideas and views presented in the original 1992 letter/article weren't new then and aren't any newer now. Some of the warnings have been expressed since before 1800: Read about Thomas Malthus. Anyway, heeding the warnings expressed in the article/letter doesn't really require more work from scientists doing science, but requires changing the views and actions and livelihoods and even reproductive habits of billions of people.

Using the example of climate change, to address that issue doesn't require more science, but requires political change and economic activity change and changes in what hundreds of millions of people do.
12-03-2018 14:21
CoolCucumber
☆☆☆☆☆
(27)
Well yes the politicians and business leaders not sure they are the ones to listen too.
Still it sounds like things are serious even in your letter it mentions time is running out.
I skimmed through its a long read.
I've seen other headlines like this here's one

We Have 3 Years To Act On Climate Change Before It's Too Late, Say Researchers
https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/06/29/we-have-3-years-to-act-on-climate-change-before-its-too-late-s_a_23007680/
Edited on 12-03-2018 14:24
12-03-2018 22:23
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(206)
CoolCucumber wrote:

...I've seen other headlines like this here's one....
We Have 3 Years To Act On Climate Change Before It's Too Late, Say Researchers....


Get past the headlines. Get past the shallow articles like the one you linked to in HuffPost.

Go to the longer article that HuffPost referred to and tried to synopsize (but poorly), the one in Nature. (It's not a short read, so save it for when you are not in a hurry)

See https://www.nature.com/news/three-years-to-safeguard-our-climate-1.22201

Note that the signatories to the Nature article does include some politicians and business leaders.

Also note that the Nature article is at least somewhat upbeat in tone, not all doom-and-gloom.
13-03-2018 23:27
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
still learning wrote:
CoolCucumber wrote:

...I've seen other headlines like this here's one....
We Have 3 Years To Act On Climate Change Before It's Too Late, Say Researchers....


Get past the headlines. Get past the shallow articles like the one you linked to in HuffPost.

Go to the longer article that HuffPost referred to and tried to synopsize (but poorly), the one in Nature. (It's not a short read, so save it for when you are not in a hurry)

See https://www.nature.com/news/three-years-to-safeguard-our-climate-1.22201

Note that the signatories to the Nature article does include some politicians and business leaders.

Also note that the Nature article is at least somewhat upbeat in tone, not all doom-and-gloom.


Let's use another example: http://www.petitionproject.org/

Now let's make a few facts clear:

1. There is no such thing as a "climate scientist." There are no degrees issued for this make-believe subject. There are a few classes here and there about it because scientist should know what the hell these people are talking about.

2. The science of climate has virtually every science subject involved in it in one manner or another. Climatology is little more than meteorology. Long term movements of heat in the atmosphere requires astrophysics, physics, chemistry, spectometry and even the space sciences since this is now how it is monitored.

3. Climatology is almost entirely studied by computer modeling. This is so notoriously inaccurate that if you look into the past 100 years instead of the coming 100 years it cannot even predict the temperature records that already occurred. In other words - it's a hoax. And because of the spectacular complexity of the Earth's atmosphere and how it responds to heating we are highly unlikely to get much if any better. We can't even reliably predict a day it's going to rain for 5 days into the future. What would lead you to believe that they can tell you with 50 times the accuracy what is going to happen 80 years in the future.

Take for instance the claims about CO2. Increasing CO2 does not increase atmospheric heating. This was known as far back as the 1920's or so. Here is an paper from 1979: http://nov79.com/gbwm/ntyg.html

Observation of that curve "Transmissions" shows that there isn't any additional energy for CO2 to absorb. Increasing the amount of CO2 can't have any effect.

Virtually all of the energy in the Troposphere is carried by H2O in it's three phases. So any energy at all is carried by H2O and the world-wide average is 4% making it a hundred times more common than CO2. Probably more important if man were to make a great deal of heat, which he doesn't, (Man is responsible for 0.000007 parts of the heat the Sun shows on this Earth each day. And this calculation probably FAR overstates the production of energy by man.) man's greatest cities, the users of the largest amount of energy, are all placed around waterways with levels of H20 as much as 100 times larger than the average.

The upshot of all this is that almost all of the energy absorbed into this planet Earth is moved from the Troposphere to the Stratosphere via conduction and convection. In terms of conduction CO2 has no more value than any other gas.

In the Stratosphere the gases release their energy into outer space via radiation. This is an extremely complex and repetitive process that uses more of the Sun's emissions. This is generally termed as "reflections in the upper atmosphere" but in fact is not.

The much thinner gases in the Stratosphere absorb additional energy from the Sun until they reach the point of radiation. Since radiation is a 360 degree process this means that some of it is pointed back towards Earth. So this process repeats until it gets high enough that virtually none of the "returning" energy strikes the Earth.

https://www.cwb.gov.tw/V7e/knowledge/encyclopedia/me006.htm

You can see with the vertical temperature profile that the troposphere has temperature falling at about .65 degrees C for each 100 meters and then it reverses itself for reasons I just explained.

Because a special interest group has managed to use fear as a tool to gain power and money isn't any reason for us to follow their idiotic claims.
Edited on 14-03-2018 00:14
14-03-2018 01:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5738)
Wake wrote:
still learning wrote:
CoolCucumber wrote:

...I've seen other headlines like this here's one....
We Have 3 Years To Act On Climate Change Before It's Too Late, Say Researchers....


Get past the headlines. Get past the shallow articles like the one you linked to in HuffPost.

Go to the longer article that HuffPost referred to and tried to synopsize (but poorly), the one in Nature. (It's not a short read, so save it for when you are not in a hurry)

See https://www.nature.com/news/three-years-to-safeguard-our-climate-1.22201

Note that the signatories to the Nature article does include some politicians and business leaders.

Also note that the Nature article is at least somewhat upbeat in tone, not all doom-and-gloom.


Let's use another example: http://www.petitionproject.org/

Now let's make a few facts clear:

1. There is no such thing as a "climate scientist." There are no degrees issued for this make-believe subject. There are a few classes here and there about it because scientist should know what the hell these people are talking about.

There are some eighty-seven universities that offer a degree in 'climate science', 'Earth science with a climate endorsement', or other such similarly worded degrees.
Wake wrote:
2. The science of climate has virtually every science subject involved in it in one manner or another.

There is no science of climate. Climate scientists neither use nor create any theory of science.
Wake wrote:
Climatology is little more than meteorology.

It has nothing to do with meteorology.
Wake wrote:
Long term movements of heat in the atmosphere

Heat doesn't move. It's either there or it isn't.
Wake wrote:
requires astrophysics, physics, chemistry, spectometry and even the space sciences since this is now how it is monitored.

It is not monitored. Some heating is is monitored by meteorologists, but only some.
Wake wrote:
3. Climatology is almost entirely studied by computer modeling.

I wouldn't call that a study of anything except programming a computer to produce rows and rows of random numbers.
Wake wrote:
This is so notoriously inaccurate that if you look into the past 100 years instead of the coming 100 years it cannot even predict the temperature records that already occurred.

Computer models don't predict. They are not capable of prediction at all.
Wake wrote:
In other words - it's a hoax.

Agreed. It is also a religion.
Wake wrote:
And because of the spectacular complexity of the Earth's atmosphere

Not that complex, dude.
Wake wrote:
and how it responds to heating

Even simpler.
Wake wrote:
we are highly unlikely to get much if any better.

How does one get 'better' and producing rows and rows of random numbers?
Wake wrote:
We can't even reliably predict a day it's going to rain for 5 days into the future.

Meteorology is actually getting pretty good at this. It's like watching waves on the sea approach.
Wake wrote:
What would lead you to believe that they can tell you with 50 times the accuracy what is going to happen 80 years in the future.

A reasonable argument, since it's not possible to watch waves on the sea that don't exist yet.
Wake wrote:
Take for instance the claims about CO2. Increasing CO2 does not increase atmospheric heating.
...deleted Holy Link...

The usual claim by the Church of Global Warming is that CO2 reduces atmospheric heating. It's not capable of that either.
Wake wrote:
Observation of that curve "Transmissions" shows that there isn't any additional energy for CO2 to absorb. Increasing the amount of CO2 can't have any effect.

It doesn't matter the amount of CO2 or the thermal energy. It doesn't have any effect.
Wake wrote:
Virtually all of the energy in the Troposphere is carried by H2O in it's three phases.

WRONG. All gases in the troposphere have energy. All gases in the atmosphere are very close to the same temperature at any point in the atmosphere (not just the troposphere).
Wake wrote:
So any energy at all is carried by H2O and the world-wide average is 4% making it a hundred times more common than CO2.

WRONG. Energy is not 'carried'. All gases are generally the same temperature at any point in the atmosphere.
Wake wrote:
Probably more important if man were to make a great deal of heat,

Man DOES make a great deal of heat. His body temperature is 98.6 deg F. That is usually warmer than his surroundings, so there is heat...even if he wears a coat.
Wake wrote:
which he doesn't,

He does.
Wake wrote:
(Man is responsible for 0.000007 parts of the heat the Sun shows on this Earth each day.

No one knows how much of the Sun's energy is heat. No one knows the emissivity (or absorbtivity, which is the same value) of Earth.
Wake wrote:
And this calculation probably FAR overstates the production of energy by man.)

This is not a calculation. This is an argument from randU...a fallacy.
Wake wrote:
man's greatest cities, the users of the largest amount of energy, are all placed around waterways with levels of H20 as much as 100 times larger than the average.

No sentence makes no sense.
Wake wrote:
The upshot of all this is that almost all of the energy absorbed into this planet Earth is moved from the Troposphere to the Stratosphere via conduction and convection. In terms of conduction CO2 has no more value than any other gas.

WRONG. Most of the energy is radiated by the surface itself. It has the highest temperature and is the most dense material. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Do you want to deny it again?
Wake wrote:
In the Stratosphere the gases release their energy into outer space via radiation.

True, just like every other part of the atmosphere does.
Wake wrote:
This is an extremely complex and repetitive process that uses more of the Sun's emissions.

The Sun is not required to radiate energy. It is not a particularly complex process to convert thermal energy into electromagnetic energy. All you really have to do is shake an electron, which happens with any material that is above absolute zero.
Wake wrote:
This is generally termed as "reflections in the upper atmosphere" but in fact is not.

Buzzwords.
Wake wrote:
The much thinner gases in the Stratosphere absorb additional energy from the Sun until they reach the point of radiation.

There is no 'trigger' point of radiance. Radiance happens with ALL substances above absolute zero ALL the time. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
Since radiation is a 360 degree process this means that some of it is pointed back towards Earth.

True! However, the warmer surface is unable to absorb any of it. See quantum mechanics and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Wake wrote:
So this process repeats until it gets high enough that virtually none of the "returning" energy strikes the Earth.
...deleted Holy Link...

There is no 'trigger' point in radiance. Radiance is continuous, involves all substances, and does not require a 'trigger' point. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
You can see with the vertical temperature profile that the troposphere has temperature falling at about .65 degrees C for each 100 meters and then it reverses itself for reasons I just explained.

Not the cause for the temperature inversion in the stratosphere (or the thermosphere). See the Chapman cycle, the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the conservation of energy law, and chemistry.
Wake wrote:
Because a special interest group has managed to use fear as a tool to gain power and money isn't any reason for us to follow their idiotic claims.

Agreed. Especially since the Church of Global Warming denies science and mathematics.


The Parrot Killer
14-03-2018 11:24
CoolCucumber
☆☆☆☆☆
(27)
still learning wrote:
CoolCucumber wrote:

...I've seen other headlines like this here's one....
We Have 3 Years To Act On Climate Change Before It's Too Late, Say Researchers....


Get past the headlines. Get past the shallow articles like the one you linked to in HuffPost.

Go to the longer article that HuffPost referred to and tried to synopsize (but poorly), the one in Nature. (It's not a short read, so save it for when you are not in a hurry)

See https://www.nature.com/news/three-years-to-safeguard-our-climate-1.22201

Note that the signatories to the Nature article does include some politicians and business leaders.

Also note that the Nature article is at least somewhat upbeat in tone, not all doom-and-gloom.


I know headlines can be overblown but I look at them like a management summary where you just want a few bullet points to make quick decisions. But I did read the first link and the graphs in that look worrying but not much seems to be happening and you don't hear much in the news if its so serious.
Edited on 14-03-2018 11:25
14-03-2018 15:23
CoolCucumber
☆☆☆☆☆
(27)
here's another one this was just on reddit
Global warming puts nearly half of species in key places at risk: report
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/13/world/wwf-extinction-report-intl/index.html
14-03-2018 15:38
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
CoolCucumber wrote:
here's another one this was just on reddit
Global warming puts nearly half of species in key places at risk: report
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/13/world/wwf-extinction-report-intl/index.html


It appears that the Earth is warming. But exactly how much of this is due to normal recovery from the Little Ice Age that greatly increased the world's lower latitude and altitude glaciers?

As these glaciers retreat we are finding evidence of past farming. So the climate doesn't appear to be "changing" as much as returning to its past state.

The satellite data plainly shows that there hasn't been any warming for about the last 40 years. And the NASA ground data showed no increased for over 20 years before they doctored it for the third time in 40 years.

The threats of extinction is not from climate change since most of these species are in places that are already warm, but from encroaching civilization. In the San Francisco bay area we now have bears and mountain lions walking around on city streets because we have taken over their habitations. They are actually giving warnings on the media outlets to not let your small animals out at night.

Tell me, will you deny life and better living conditions to Africans because doing so would endanger the Black Rino?
14-03-2018 17:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5738)
CoolCucumber wrote:
here's another one this was just on reddit
Global warming puts nearly half of species in key places at risk: report
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/13/world/wwf-extinction-report-intl/index.html


Here's another Holy Link.

Oh yeah...Reddit is the definitive source of data...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


The Parrot Killer
14-03-2018 17:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5738)
Wake wrote:
CoolCucumber wrote:
here's another one this was just on reddit
Global warming puts nearly half of species in key places at risk: report
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/13/world/wwf-extinction-report-intl/index.html


It appears that the Earth is warming.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Wake wrote:
But exactly how much of this is due to normal recovery from the Little Ice Age that greatly increased the world's lower latitude and altitude glaciers?

No one is monitoring all the world glaciers.
Wake wrote:
As these glaciers retreat we are finding evidence of past farming. So the climate doesn't appear to be "changing" as much as returning to its past state.

Some are retreating, some are growing.
Wake wrote:
The satellite data plainly shows that there hasn't been any warming for about the last 40 years.

Satellites are incapable of measuring temperature. They measure light. It is not possible to measure the emissivity of Earth.
Wake wrote:
And the NASA ground data showed no increased for over 20 years before they doctored it for the third time in 40 years.

NASA has no ground data. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Wake wrote:
The threats of extinction is not from climate change since most of these species are in places that are already warm, but from encroaching civilization.

No one has catalogued all the species on Earth or where their habitats are.
Wake wrote:
In the San Francisco bay area we now have bears and mountain lions walking around on city streets because we have taken over their habitations.

Nothing new here. That sort of thing has always happened. Bears like the garbage cans people leave out, and mountain lions like the pets people leave out.
Wake wrote:
They are actually giving warnings on the media outlets to not let your small animals out at night.

That has always been a good idea in most of California. It is the same in many other parts of the country as well. It always has been.
Wake wrote:
Tell me, will you deny life and better living conditions to Africans because doing so would endanger the Black Rino?

A lot of people would love to get rid of any Rino, regardless of his skin color. Most Republicans them turncoats. What this has to do with Africa is anyone's guess.


The Parrot Killer
14-03-2018 20:02
confused about temps
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
could someone help me. I'm trying to explain climate change and have been saying temperatures are rising consistently. However, In researching this I note that in the last 80 years temperatures have increased between 30 and 40% of the time. There was no global warming between 1940 and the mid 70's, and there was no global warming between 1998-2013. Could anyone explain this please. It suggests climate change is nothing like what we are being told. Ps I know global warming is happening but again state it is not how we are being told. Wjy is it happening less than 40% of the last 80 years?
14-03-2018 20:48
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
confused about temps wrote:
could someone help me. I'm trying to explain climate change and have been saying temperatures are rising consistently. However, In researching this I note that in the last 80 years temperatures have increased between 30 and 40% of the time. There was no global warming between 1940 and the mid 70's, and there was no global warming between 1998-2013. Could anyone explain this please. It suggests climate change is nothing like what we are being told. Ps I know global warming is happening but again state it is not how we are being told. Wjy is it happening less than 40% of the last 80 years?


40 years ago the climate science at the government was taken over by environmentalists with an agenda. As you will read in many places but usually not from them this agenda included population control and when that failed re-routing it to fear of global death from environmental impact.

Here is a graph of NASA's latest manufactured data:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg

Mathematical analysis of the three changes in this raw data (raw data should NEVER be changed) shows that it simply could not have changed in the manner that NASA claims. No re-calibration of data sources could do this.
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

Furthermore even their own information has been leaked via Dr. Roy Spencer who was the head of their satellite data program at NASA.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2017_v6.jpg

While the satellite data appears to be rising slightly it isn't the 30 year running average which describes climate shows no temperature increases from between 1979 and 2017. The variations on this chart are nothing more than the normal weather variations.

This is not to say it hasn't warmed. The Little Ice Age occurred from around 1450 to some estimate as late as 1860. I suppose you could call the recovery from this as climate change and/or global warming.

But this isn't what is being used today and this hoax of today should not be accepted. We will NOT keep India without power so that American environmentalists can pretend that it is effecting the ice that polar bears sit upon.

As these lower latitude and lower altitude glaciers melt the land beneath them shows signs of having been farmed. Even homes in some areas.

So what appears to be the case is that we have nothing more than the normal climate variations that are effected more by the small variations in output from the Sun than from anything else.
14-03-2018 22:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5738)
confused about temps wrote:
could someone help me. I'm trying to explain climate change and have been saying temperatures are rising consistently. However, In researching this I note that in the last 80 years temperatures have increased between 30 and 40% of the time. There was no global warming between 1940 and the mid 70's, and there was no global warming between 1998-2013. Could anyone explain this please. It suggests climate change is nothing like what we are being told. Ps I know global warming is happening but again state it is not how we are being told. Wjy is it happening less than 40% of the last 80 years?


There is no data of the temperature of the Earth. There never has been. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

What people like NASA and NOAA are using as 'data' is based on series of math errors and computer models. The numbers actually come from the IPCC, and everyone is just copying their 'data', which is really just random numbers.


The Parrot Killer
14-03-2018 22:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5738)
Wake wrote:
confused about temps wrote:
could someone help me. I'm trying to explain climate change and have been saying temperatures are rising consistently. However, In researching this I note that in the last 80 years temperatures have increased between 30 and 40% of the time. There was no global warming between 1940 and the mid 70's, and there was no global warming between 1998-2013. Could anyone explain this please. It suggests climate change is nothing like what we are being told. Ps I know global warming is happening but again state it is not how we are being told. Wjy is it happening less than 40% of the last 80 years?


40 years ago the climate science at the government was taken over by environmentalists with an agenda. As you will read in many places but usually not from them this agenda included population control and when that failed re-routing it to fear of global death from environmental impact.

Here is a graph of NASA's latest manufactured data:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg

Mathematical analysis of the three changes in this raw data (raw data should NEVER be changed) shows that it simply could not have changed in the manner that NASA claims. No re-calibration of data sources could do this.
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

Furthermore even their own information has been leaked via Dr. Roy Spencer who was the head of their satellite data program at NASA.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2017_v6.jpg

While the satellite data appears to be rising slightly it isn't the 30 year running average which describes climate shows no temperature increases from between 1979 and 2017. The variations on this chart are nothing more than the normal weather variations.

Satellites are incapable of measure temperature. They measure light. It is not possible to measure the emissivity of Earth.
Wake wrote:
This is not to say it hasn't warmed. The Little Ice Age occurred from around 1450 to some estimate as late as 1860. I suppose you could call the recovery from this as climate change and/or global warming.

Define 'climate change' or 'global warming' without using circular definitions.
Wake wrote:
But this isn't what is being used today and this hoax of today should not be accepted. We will NOT keep India without power so that American environmentalists can pretend that it is effecting the ice that polar bears sit upon.

Polar bears LIKE sitting on the ice. That's where their food is. They'll swim quite a ways out to sea to get it.
Wake wrote:
As these lower latitude and lower altitude glaciers melt the land beneath them shows signs of having been farmed. Even homes in some areas.

No one is measuring all the glaciers on the Earth. It is not possible to measure the amount of ice on the Earth.

Some glaciers are retreating, others are advancing. Temperature is not the only factor that controls a glacier.
Wake wrote:
So what appears to be the case is that we have nothing more than the normal climate variations that are effected more by the small variations in output from the Sun than from anything else.

The ONLY thing that can affect temperatures here on Earth is a change in the output of the Sun.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate I'm not sure what to make of this:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Something To Make itn feel Good2226-07-2018 18:15
Can we make this lonely shit hole a climate war sand box for newbies?610-06-2018 07:09
Do Catalytic Converters Really make a difference?3614-03-2018 02:36
AGW will make Canada a global super power907-07-2017 23:46
Don't make a choice that your children will regret908-11-2016 20:22
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact