Commentary #6: Global Warming

[mkm5]

It gets a little cold sometimes, other times it's either too hot or somewhere in between. I'm not concerned about + or - a few degrees either way.

FFS, I've said it before, the temperature here varies around 120 degrees throughout the year.

We adapt. Kinda like strength training right?

I should add, it's an absolutely gorgeous starry night outside.

Dark blue skies, bright stars and constellations. Aurora Borealis shining and shimmering from the northern sky.

Get out and enjoy the weather, don't be afraid of it.

[golftdibrad]

From your reference:

Because we can see that global temperatures have increased in the last several decades despite solar luminosity decreasing:

Is the Sun causing global warming? - NASA Science




If I was king of the world, I'd replace all coal power plants with nuclear. That alone would make a huge difference. This probably makes me a hypocrite, but I don't want to give up my gas powered cars.

re: luminosity - link is dead. We cant have more than ~50 years of high quality data since that's about how long humans have been capable of launching satellites. 50 Years is a blink in geological history - its highly probable that something else is going on that is either an independent variable or a feedback loop we do not understand.

re: seeing temps change: We only have about 150 years of high precision temperature data from enough places on the planet to matter. "The Science" has even managed to corrupt that data in many cases. Everything else is some sort of proxy with HUGE error bars in most cases larger than the supposed 2-3 degrees C we are claiming might end the world as we know it. These proxies are useful knowledge for sure, but a far cry from stating anything more than we knew than the average for a given handful of years within a few degrees C. And obviously, the further one goes back the worse the precision gets.

re: bold. We can definitely agree on that, leave the coal in the ground. One day we might need it for conversion to liquid fuel, and that process will clean out much of the nasty stuff we'd rather not have in the air.

In response to your insinuation of some world-wide conspiracy among scientists to lie and manipulate climate data, I would say, “extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.”

are you familiar with climategate? The leaders in the field were literally caught red handed doing this very thing.

Climategate – Watts Up With That?

[Subby]

No, you wouldn’t.

It doesn’t matter if you’re choosing a local cold or hot spot. What matters is that you’re consistent with how and where you’re measuring the temperature. If a hot local spot averages 60F every year and the cold local spot averages 50F every year and there is no warming, the hot spot will still average 60F and the cold spot will still average 50F in the future.

In response to your insinuation of some world-wide conspiracy among scientists to lie and manipulate climate data, I would say, “extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.”

BOM has manipulated temperature records to show a false increase in temperature - Senator Gerard Rennick

This is a local politician here in Aus that follows this stuff closely and can occasionally get public servants into a parliamentary enquiry.

Our weather service is manipulating data both physically, with changing the temperature sensors and non physically by amending past data.

The money quote is thus:

"They lied in their reply by saying that if they didn’t homogenise their records the increase would have been bigger."

Which is an odd assertion because it implies that they are fudging data the other way. Fudging data down is still fudging data.

The Bom is the national government weather service here in Aus.

[Chadillac]

re: luminosity - link is dead. We cant have more than ~50 years of high quality data since that's about how long humans have been capable of launching satellites. 50 Years is a blink in geological history - its highly probable that something else is going on that is either an independent variable or a feedback loop we do not understand.

re: seeing temps change: We only have about 150 years of high precision temperature data from enough places on the planet to matter. "The Science" has even managed to corrupt that data in many cases. Everything else is some sort of proxy with HUGE error bars in most cases larger than the supposed 2-3 degrees C we are claiming might end the world as we know it. These proxies are useful knowledge for sure, but a far cry from stating anything more than we knew than the average for a given handful of years within a few degrees C. And obviously, the further one goes back the worse the precision gets.

re: bold. We can definitely agree on that, leave the coal in the ground. One day we might need it for conversion to liquid fuel, and that process will clean out much of the nasty stuff we'd rather not have in the air.

are you familiar with climategate? The leaders in the field were literally caught red handed doing this very thing.

Yep. Coal does a lot more than just put a bunch of CO2 in the atmosphere. I'd much rather live next to a nuclear reactor than a coal plant.

The trend over the last 50 years is very clear between global temperatures and luminosity. I don't believe it's highly probable that it's some unknown variable that is causing temperatures to increase.

Climategate – Watts Up With That?

I don't know that much about this. But doing a quick search it looks like some climate-deniers hacked into some e-mails and cherry picked a few of those without context to share with the media.

BOM has manipulated temperature records to show a false increase in temperature - Senator Gerard Rennick

This is a local politician here in Aus that follows this stuff closely and can occasionally get public servants into a parliamentary enquiry.

Our weather service is manipulating data both physically, with changing the temperature sensors and non physically by amending past data.

The money quote is thus:

"They lied in their reply by saying that if they didn’t homogenise their records the increase would have been bigger."

Which is an odd assertion because it implies that they are fudging data the other way. Fudging data down is still fudging data.

The Bom is the national government weather service here in Aus.

I had to google this guy. I don't know anything about Australian politics. It looks like he studied finance and taxation law. Here's a quote from him on climate change:

"CO2 is a gas, it cannot trap convection. This matters because convection is the process by which heat is carried away from the earth. What traps convection is gravity. It’s why the surface of the earth is warmer than say the top of Mt Everest..."

I wouldn't trust anything this guy has to say about climate change.

[Mark Rippetoe]

The trend over the last 50 years is very clear between global temperatures and luminosity. I don't believe it's highly probable that it's some unknown variable that is causing temperatures to increase.

Temperatures are not increasing. Sea levels are not increasing. The weather changes while the climate changes so slowly that it can hardly be measured. And nothing that you idiots have predicted has actually occurred when you said it would. This is what happens when all your information comes from NBC News.

I don't know that much about this. But doing a quick search it looks like some climate-deniers hacked into some e-mails and cherry picked a few of those without context to share with the media.

Right. You don't know much about this.

I had to google this guy. I don't know anything about Australian politics. It looks like he studied finance and taxation law. Here's a quote from him on climate change:

"CO2 is a gas, it cannot trap convection. This matters because convection is the process by which heat is carried away from the earth. What traps convection is gravity. It’s why the surface of the earth is warmer than say the top of Mt Everest..."

I wouldn't trust anything this guy has to say about climate change.

Any more than I would trust anything a half-wit on an internet board would say about a well-accepted pseudoscience. Here's a better question: tell us about your lifts.

[golftdibrad]

The trend over the last 50 years is very clear between global temperatures and luminosity. I don't believe it's highly probable that it's some unknown variable that is causing temperatures to increase.

Ok, cite a source that shows this, corrects for water vapor, and still manages to display a co2 signal over that period with high p values.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I'm ready with the popcorn.

Exclusive: Expert Calls Out VP Debate Moderators’ Climate Lies – PJ Media

[David Roberts]

Seems to me that every culture has origination stories that include great floods. I am most familiar with the story about Noah's flood in the Bible. Did global warming cause those floods? Did global warming cause the 1916 floods in the mountains of North Carolina? (Hat tip to Karl Denninger)

[mkm5]

I'm an old school mechanic/engineer. These guys make some good points about the EV fire issues, especially with salt water, but I don't agree with them on the hybrids; too expensive to repair and maintain. They'll all end up in the scrapyard long before my 27 year old Jeep is done.

That doesn't sound like an ecological approach to me.

https://youtu.be/-95XqBkSp8c?si=9UGv7odcEbO7CCnN

[Mark Rippetoe]

An excellent column by Denninger: The Problem Young People Refuse To Face in [Market-Ticker-Nad]

Politicians and others who seek to influence society often pander to the part of the population who never had the background information to make informed choices. One of the key points in the modern era is usually "environmentalism"; the goal itself is good but the incremental improvement available in America now is tiny and the cost astronomical. That's right -- we already did it and those who lived through that time period know it and we don't have to read about it -- we directly experienced it.

There is a basic principle that essentially-always applies: The first 80% of any problem is trivially solved at reasonable cost. The last 20% is exponentially harder as one approaches 100%, and further the resource expenditure in doing so, whether in time, month or both, goes vertical.

And this from ZeroHedge: The Green New Scam Is Dying | ZeroHedge

It’s no secret that the vast majority of the so-called elites are advocates of climate alarmism and are taken in by the Green New Scam.

Whether this preference is based on ignorance of the science, ideological zeal, a willful desire to hurt American growth or simple greed because of their investments in Green New Scam infrastructure varies case by case.

The typical upper-income supporter of the climate cult including academics, media figures and celebrities is probably ignorant of the fact that there is no evidence that CO2 emissions cause climate change and that the real causes are solar cycles, volcanoes, ocean currents and atmospheric moisture not caused by humans.