FlyingMonkey Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 And, this is what we get when CT Flier becomes a political rant site. "You sound like..." "No you sound like..." Oh well. CT Flier used to be a good site. Now its just fights about what Rotax means about motor oil and an argument about climate change. To be fair, every online forum I have ever been on, going back to the old dial-up BBS days, has had a lot of nit-picking discussions about various aspects of the subject matter of the forum. The Rotax oil discussion is an example and is on-topic for this site, and it makes perfect sense to debate that here. The climate change stuff, well...it just depends on whether we want a true focused forum, or one that has a primary focus but also allows discussion/debate on other topics. I have been on many of both types, they each have their merits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted November 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 Last comment - really - where is the plethora of scientific study refuting NASA? Not opinion, numbers. Doug, NASA is doing a good job of refuting their own warming theory all by themselves. How much study does it take to point out that the warming required by their models has stopped almost 20 years ago? There is no evidence of AGW there are only predictive models and those models have failed. NASA's Own Data Refutes 2014 "Warmest on Record" Claim In a press release sent out last week, NASA claimed 2014 was the “warmest year on record,” a widely disputed allegation that made headlines worldwide almost instantly. What NASA failed to mention, though, was far more important: The agency’s own satellite temperature data for last year show that 2014 was only the sixth warmest since NASA’ Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) satellites went up less than four decades ago. Despite actually boasting of its satellites monitoring “Earth’s vital signs” in the announcement, NASA opted to highlight its dubious temperature “estimates” rather than the objective, unmanipulated, comprehensive global data collected by its own expensive taxpayer-funded technology. In fairness, after being pressed by increasingly skeptical journalists on its data, NASA scientists claimed to be only 38 percent sure that last year was actually the warmest on record. The press release declaring 2014 to be the “warmest on record” failed to mention that fact, however. When asked by the U.K. Daily Mail whether the NASA scientists behind the data regretted not mentioning the crucial fact that the margin of error was greater than the alleged temperature difference between other years and 2014, they reportedly stopped responding to questions. The New American had a similar dialogue with NASA’s top climatologist last year that ended just as abruptly, and without real answers. http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/19930-nasa-s-own-data-refutes-2014-warmest-on-record-claim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 Just to add to the debate - report from the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34763036 Must stress I'm agnostic bordering sceptical on the whole thing. I'm willing to accept proven observations on temperature rises but remain to be convinced of the mechanism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 And, this is what we get when CT Flier becomes a political rant site. "You sound like..." "No you sound like..." Oh well. CT Flier used to be a good site. Now its just fights about what Rotax means about motor oil and an argument about climate change. There is room on the site for discussions in all corners of aviation. Random Thoughts seems appropriate for the NASA debate. NASA (our national aeronautics agency) has been thrust into the middle of the Global Warming debacle because NASAs mission has been coopted by Obama and his admin (basically CTs contention). The fluids (fuel and oil) discussion is central to the care and feeding of our Rotax engines... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted November 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 The King Canutes of Climate Science The monarch of old ordered the tide to recede as a lesson to his courtiers that no mere human, not even a king, can make the world to do as it's told. Will Steffen, the CSIRO and other grant-fed warmists face a similar problem: while modern enablers still profess to believe them, actual sea levels pay no heed http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2015/11/king-canutes-climate-science/ Try starting with the NOAA sea data for Sydney (Fort Denison) and Fremantle. The Sydney data go all the way back to 1886. The reference point is a plug in the northern wall of the Department of Lands Building in Bridge Street. There are other plugs in the stone wall on Fort Denison and Mrs Macquarie’s Point. For the period 1886-2010, the sea level at Fort Denison rose by 0.65mm/year, a rate of 6.5cm per century. That is a fifth of a foot, in other words. So tiny? Some mistake, surely! Let’s check the Sydney numbers against those for Fremantle, 4000km to the west. In this case, the reference point is a little brass plate set in concrete below a cover plate at the inshore corner of ‘A berth’ landing. From 1897 to 2010, the average annual rise at Fremantle was 1.54mm, or 15.4cm or a mere 6 inches per century. So head north to Bundaberg and Townsville, and all you get is 5.8cm and 14.8cm per century, respectively, a few inches and half a foot. Criss-cross to t’other side, Port Hedland (21.8cm/century) and Carnarvon (28.9cm/century). That’s a bit higher, but we’re still only talking of barely a foot in 100 years. Over to NZ then, let’s spread our sample. Same boring story, 12-23cm per century. So head for those drowning Pacific isles, Tuvalu and Kiribati. Tuvalu gets an average annual rise (since 1977) of 3.74mm or 37cm a century: 15 inches. This rate could become a problem in 30-50 years if the islanders maintain their high birth rate and continue degrading their environment. Even so, the island chain’s surface area is growing, not drowning.[vi] But here’s Kiribati: a mere 6cm per century, a few inches. Then there’s the Cook Islands (15cm per century or half a foot), Palau just a tad higher, and the Marshall Islands, higher again at 36cm, or 14in.. But those statue-building descendants on Easter Island can relax: their vast Pacific Ocean surrounds are rising at a mere 3.3cm per century, or not quite 2 inches in a 100 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT_MATT Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 This whole Global warming/climate change debate is interesting... The earth is ~4.5 BILLION (4,500,000,000) years old - sometimes it helps to see ALL the zeroes Dinosaurs first roamed the earth ~230 MILLION years ago There have been 5 major ice ages (as far as the "experts" can tell) during the earth's 4.5 Billion year history Ice core samples (measuring CO2, Temps, etc) only go back ~400 THOUSAND years "accurate" measurements of temperature, sea level, CO2, etc. for the last 100 years (I use accurate very loosely here) When someone can piece together a trend that includes several HUNDRED MILLION years there might be a very small chance of predicting any kind of FUTURE climate change if any. There is an natural ebb and flow to the these things and we want to look at the last ~100 years (or even 400 thousand years, which is still an infinitesimally small percentage of the history of the earth) or less and try to predict the future... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 I don't have a big attachment to one side or the other, but here's a possibility: What if the "consensus" scientists are all acting in good faith, but are operating on faulty or manipulated data sets? https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/11/09/97-of-climate-scientists-base-their-research-on-fraudulent-data-from-nasa-and-noaa/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bseager Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 I think CT_MATT is on the right track. Climate change has been occurring continuously over those long 4.5 billion years often violently. Too assume man is unduly influencing the long term climate change for the planet is unreasonable and smacks of hubris. Why do we think our 75 years on the planet is when the catastrophic changes will be set in motion, it is ridiculous but is typical of our need find a cause and to matter in the big scheme of things. Historic periods of vulcanism played havoc with the planet's climate far more than all the greenhouse gases we could ever hope to emit. Short term climate change is wildly unpredictable and the best advice for us is to ensure resiliency in design of our infrastructure, agricultural practices and yes, aircraft design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted November 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 We live in the time of Ice ages and for the last half million years plus the glaciations have been roughly on 100,000 year intervals with roughly 10,000 year interglacial periods like now. We are now 12,000 years into the interglacial making it time for the next glaciation. Even if AGW is real is it real enough to end this time of Ice Ages or are we worried about the wrong thing entirely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 This whole Global warming/climate change debate is interesting... I beg to differ. I can think of few things less interesting than laymen with no expertise in climate science arguing back and forth, from talking points they've read on sites they've cherry-picked to enhance their confirmation bias. Which is why I rarely engage. Now, to follow my own advice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted November 9, 2015 Report Share Posted November 9, 2015 I beg to differ. I can think of few things less interesting than laymen with no expertise in climate science arguing back and forth, from talking points they've read on sites they've cherry-picked to enhance their confirmation bias. Which is why I rarely engage. Now, to follow my own advice... The discussion is filled with good content and good debate....and you hit on part of the problem. Those carrying water for the Global Warming cult, especially Al Gore who flunked high school life sciences, are not qualified to comment on the subject, yet presume to lecture the world. And even seek to punish those who are skeptical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted November 10, 2015 Report Share Posted November 10, 2015 I beg to differ. I can think of few things less interesting than laymen with no expertise in climate science arguing back and forth, from talking points they've read on sites they've cherry-picked to enhance their confirmation bias. This is where we have to part ways. In my opinion, one does not need to be an "expert" to have a valid and informed opinion on any topic. You don't need a Ph.D. in political science to have reasoned opinions on foreign policy, nor do you need a degree in climatology to understand the merits of the climate debate. I can read graphs and charts, and download raw datasets. I understand statistics. To argue otherwise is to say that certain topics should be left to some self-appointed, insular "priesthood" to decide, without interference or debate from the uninitiated. But who will make policy decisions on these topics? After all, the President and Congress are not among the initiated, and don't have the requisite degrees... Besides Eddie, you don't really know anybody else's background on this board, and what level of expertise they have. You also don't know to what degree they are really informed versus "cherry-picking" their data. Your assumption that everyone in the debate is a layman with bad data might be your own confirmation bias in action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishAl Posted November 10, 2015 Report Share Posted November 10, 2015 I agree with you Andy. The flip side of your statement is that there's hardly a field of knowledge in existence where the experts in that field don't disagree with each other, and very often the disagreements are profound. Possessing 'Expertise' can be just a much a set of blinkers as it can be a doorway to clear and accurate understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted November 10, 2015 Report Share Posted November 10, 2015 I agree with you Andy. The flip side of your statement is that there's hardly a field of knowledge in existence where the experts in that field don't disagree with each other, and very often the disagreements are profound. Possessing 'Expertise' can be just a much a set of blinkers as it can be a doorway to clear and accurate understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted November 10, 2015 Report Share Posted November 10, 2015 "Unwarranted certainty is the enemy of healthy, civil debate." Mickey Reynolds But who issues the warrants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralarcon Posted November 11, 2015 Report Share Posted November 11, 2015 If, you believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that human activity causes the majority of CO2 production then this follows. 1. The largest proportion of CO2 world wide is produced by production of electricity and heat generation. (source EPA and what is yourimpact.org) The largest producers of Carbon emissions China 27.6%, USA 19%, Russian Federation 6%, India 5% and climbing, Europe 19%, as a whole, Japan 4%, rest of the world roughly 28%. (source EPA) figures are percent estimates and do not include all minor sources. India , China and Russia's leaders have stated that they will not curtail their countries economical development in the service of curtailing global carbon emissions. The rest of the developing world is just trying to get electrical service to the totality of their countries. Coal is the cheapest source of electricity production. If the US and Europe bring carbon emissions to 0 tomorrow this would produce a world total impact of about 38 to 40%. Not enough to stop global warming effects, and as expected China and India are poised to increase their emissions significantly. Russia's economy is almost 100% dependent on the production of Fossil fuel. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted November 11, 2015 Report Share Posted November 11, 2015 Except... From the following NASA research paper: http://vademecum.brandenberger.eu/pdf/klima/rasool_schneider_1971.pdf Which matches perfectly with observed CO2 / Temperature effects: In other words, temperature increases up to a certain fairly low concentration of CO2, then stops increasing because the narrow infrared wavelength that is absorbed by CO2 becomes largely already completely absorbed and thus there is no further heat in that band to cause additional heating. As the paper points out, increasing the CO2 concentrations by TEN TIMES beyond modern levels does not lead to significant additional warming. The one way that additional heating COULD occur, would be to pump additional radiation in the CO2-absorbed bandwidth into the atmosphere, which would then be absorbed and retransmitted as atmospheric heat. But then, it's no revelation to anyone that if we increase solar radiation output, we here on Earth experience more warming. So the answer to the previous question of "who is refuting NASA's research" is...NASA. NASA has also modified previous data to higher numbers than were originally reported. Unless NASA has a time machine to go back and take better measurements, how does this graph of past measurements reported by NASA in 2001 and 2015 make any sense? : Past temperature measurements have literally been altered upwards to show high rates of warming. It's data and information like this, easily found by anyone willing to look at the actual and historical data, that makes it hard to write a blank check to the "consensus view". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted November 11, 2015 Report Share Posted November 11, 2015 If, you believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that human activity causes the majority of CO2 production then this follows. C02 is plant food. If there is an elevated amount of it in the atmosphere (something not proven either) then plants will easily eat it, and they do. There are other myths perpetrated by the so-called 'environmentalists' in regard to the rain forests and forestry worldwide. There are more trees in N. America today than there were when Columbus landed. The Amazon is growing at a far faster rate than clearing is taking place. Another grand irony in this battle with flat-Earthers (greenies) is the technology with ZERO carbon footprint is the one technology hated most by them....nuclear power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted November 11, 2015 Report Share Posted November 11, 2015 Is it possible that the science, data, and analysis has changed since that NASA report in 1970? The numbers measured in the past did not change. Going back and "adjusting" previous measurements when you were not the one who took those measurements is generally considered shoddy scientific practice. And how the numbers reported changed not from 1970 to 2015, but from 2001 to 2015 -- what great scientific advancement occurred 2001-2015 to more than DOUBLE the actual temperatures reported? Was all thermometer technology found to be flawed sometime after 2001? Was it found that every weather station in the world hung their measuring gear in front of an A/C vent until 2001? I have looked, and can find no explanation from NASA for the discrepancy. If you are going to change previous numbers by huge amounts like that, you should have a really damn good reason, and post it in bold blinking text everywhere you can. And I'm pretty sure the radiation absorption properties of Carbon Dioxide have not changed since 1970. Again, this graph: That graph was taken from recent measurements, not in 1970. It clearly shows Watts per square meter at ~340 at 0ppm concentrations increasing to about ~352 W/m^2 at 1000ppm. The current NOAA measurement for atmospheric CO2 is 398.29ppm; or about 349W/m^2 on the graph. So we could increase CO2 by 250% (which nobody in predicting in any reasonable timeframe) and increase the amount of energy the atmospheric CO2 absorbs (and thus must re-emit on the same or other frequencies) to 350W/m^3, or about 0.008%. The Law of Entropy tells us it is impossible for all of that radiated energy to go directly into the atmosphere. But let's assume for a moment that it does, and that the additional 0.008% energy goes directly into temperature. Assuming a normal average temperature of 72°F, the atmosphere will heat up by 0.61°F. A rounding error, even for an impossibly dire case model. And it essentially cannot heat more that that amount later (due to CO2, anyway), unless solar output increases. I am not saying that warming IS or IS NOT happening. What I'm saying is that the case for CO2 or man being the cause is not convincing when you look at the historical record and research, and in light of puzzling recent data anomalies. And even if the world warms significantly, I have heard no case that conclusively proves that to be a "bad thing". Higher sea levels by several feet? Meh, move inland a few hundred feet. Higher temps by a few degrees? So what, average temps were 10-25°F warmer worldwide when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth. It didn't a cause mass die off of half the world's species as we've heard predicted. More catastrophic weather? Not really: I think the alarm over any changes is sold well by the news outlets, but not by the data. Again: IMO, based on my personal research and understanding of the data. YMMV, no express or implied warranties, void where prohibited by law, some exclusions may apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 To add to the data - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/11/17/record-crushing-october-keeps-earth-on-track-for-hottest-year-in-2015/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralarcon Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 To add to the data - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/11/17/record-crushing-october-keeps-earth-on-track-for-hottest-year-in-2015/ "El Niño events release vast amounts of heat from the tropical Pacific into the atmosphere. This year’s event is near its peak and may begin to weaken soon, but is expected to remain strong into the winter, likely keeping global average temperatures above or at least very near previous record levels." This climactic fenomenom is not related to Global Warming. It has been around for EONS ! Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralarcon Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 "The toasty October put another exclamation mark on a year that has essentially locked up the title of warmest on record." This statement shows the bias on this subject, terminology and definitions are important. The fossilized records have shown much warmer Octobers, in the history of the earth. The article should say , since temperature records have been kept. However it does not, and it discards the fossil evidence, thus giving a misleading impression. You do not have to be an expert to see the linguistic flaws on this article. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 No response to any of the hard data method flaws I pointed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishAl Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 Okay, here's one. You made a convincing argument. You've obviously researched the subject in some depth - thanks for sharing. I was genuinely surprised by the strength of your points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 Okay, here's one. You made a convincing argument. You've obviously researched the subject in some depth - thanks for sharing. I was genuinely surprised by the strength of your points. Oh...thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.