Climate change

Is Climate change a threat that concens you


  • Total voters
    28
Status
Not open for further replies.

tracecom

Joined Apr 16, 2010
3,944
The topic isn't dead, but all the arguments are. And, to be blatantly frank, my actions one way or the other are completely irrelevant and ineffective. The answer to whether the climate is changing due to human actions will never affect me, nor can I effect the outcome, so it's hard for me to care. The only real fact is that we don't know and won't live long enough to know.
 

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
I think those guys got peer reviewed out of business. But the way those guys talk it's hard to tell.
They do have a study published recently. No they were not mentioned in the aforementioned article. The original report cited in the article is attached also.

But, my concern is the undue additional influences to some of the reporting stations as seen in the attached study. They almost have inspected all the stations. Last report was 82 or so percent.

As far as me, do I believe there is climate change? Sure. I don't believe it's to the extent agreed upon by an international committee. The earth is way too big and the number of probes are way too small. Then the installations have problems. Naturally we can "adjust" or more appropriately, "guess" what the correction is, and "guess" to fill in the "blank" data from others. I can tell you a young watchstander taking readings could be sent to Non-Judicial punishment if they gun-decked an official document, like the weather form sent to NOAA monthly. When I was a young watchstander, we had that shed with the wet bulb and dry bulb about 100 feet from the building in the Aleutians. There was plenty of missed readings when you couldn't see 1 foot in front of you.

I've also had the wind blowing so hard that 1 cup of the three cup anemometer broke off. It reported a lower wind, about 10 kts when the flags on the flag pole showed over 25 kts. Of course my guy who went to climb a 90 foot tower to fix a bad connection was hanging on when I spotted him and made him get the hell off that tower. I told him if the winds were less than 15 kts he could climb to fix the connection, the radio room showed 10 kts. He was only about halfway up when I caught him.

Yes I get skeptical, and for dam good reasons.
 

Attachments

Thread Starter

ronv

Joined Nov 12, 2008
3,770
They do have a study published recently. No they were not mentioned in the aforementioned article. The original report cited in the article is attached also.

But, my concern is the undue additional influences to some of the reporting stations as seen in the attached study. They almost have inspected all the stations. Last report was 82 or so percent.

As far as me, do I believe there is climate change? Sure. I don't believe it's to the extent agreed upon by an international committee. The earth is way too big and the number of probes are way too small. Then the installations have problems. Naturally we can "adjust" or more appropriately, "guess" what the correction is, and "guess" to fill in the "blank" data from others. I can tell you a young watchstander taking readings could be sent to Non-Judicial punishment if they gun-decked an official document, like the weather form sent to NOAA monthly. When I was a young watchstander, we had that shed with the wet bulb and dry bulb about 100 feet from the building in the Aleutians. There was plenty of missed readings when you couldn't see 1 foot in front of you.

I've also had the wind blowing so hard that 1 cup of the three cup anemometer broke off. It reported a lower wind, about 10 kts when the flags on the flag pole showed over 25 kts. Of course my guy who went to climb a 90 foot tower to fix a bad connection was hanging on when I spotted him and made him get the hell off that tower. I told him if the winds were less than 15 kts he could climb to fix the connection, the radio room showed 10 kts. He was only about halfway up when I caught him.

Yes I get skeptical, and for dam good reasons.
Yes, I think your right. Just to many variables to get good results from stations.
But I think the satellites will do a better job. But even they need fudge factors.

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2329/

Maybe the ocean temps would have less outside influence. But even there currents change etc.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/sea-surface-temp.html
 
Last edited:

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
The problem with satellites, unless they are geostationary, there is an orbit. I highly doubt even the satellites would cover the whole earth, over 294 million square miles. What is the calibration frequency on satellite sensors? I don't know, but I do know nothing lasts forever ... ok, maybe Voyager does.

I've read somewhere, that the CRN stations data represents about 100 square miles. Look at any weather channel and look at their reporting stations. There could be large discrepancies in that 100 square miles.

Here's the three weather reporting stations in near me. Note the discrepancy within a half mile on the two on the left. There could be a finely defined heat line causing the discrepancy.
 

Attachments

tcmtech

Joined Nov 4, 2013
2,867
I've read somewhere, that the CRN stations data represents about 100 square miles. Look at any weather channel and look at their reporting stations. There could be large discrepancies in that 100 square miles.
I've also pondered on the resolutions and accuracies of their data collection systems as well being that just locally there can be a huge variation in the weather from where I live to just 10 miles away from me. It can be pouring buckets in town 10 miles north of me while I am kicking up a dust storm baling hay or the reverse. Same with temperature variations as well. The local forecasts can say 90F today for the Minot area and at my house its only 81 or it could be 98!
 

Thread Starter

ronv

Joined Nov 12, 2008
3,770
The problem with satellites, unless they are geostationary, there is an orbit. I highly doubt even the satellites would cover the whole earth, over 294 million square miles. What is the calibration frequency on satellite sensors? I don't know, but I do know nothing lasts forever ... ok, maybe Voyager does.

I've read somewhere, that the CRN stations data represents about 100 square miles. Look at any weather channel and look at their reporting stations. There could be large discrepancies in that 100 square miles.

Here's the three weather reporting stations in near me. Note the discrepancy within a half mile on the two on the left. There could be a finely defined heat line causing the discrepancy.
I suspect the satellites are very good and could be fairly easily calibrated by someone with the budget of NASA. :D
My thinking about the ocean is that it is more difficult to influence it with outside stuff. No new trees or hot air sources. Also seems like it would be a better heatsink.
I'm not sure the short term effects of the weather stations matter much as long as there are enough samples over enough time. The larger problem (I think) is if something changes and no one notices.
Statisticians gotta love this stuff. :rolleyes:
 

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
The larger problem (I think) is if something changes and no one notices.
That certainly is one possibly to be wary. It may have happened with upgrading some of the older stations. I haven't found a record of decommissioning or commissioning stations, if one exists. I'll just keep on reading and waiting to see if some of the past and present predictions come true. I don't expect to be here at the end of the century for people to say "I told you so" or me uttering those words.

I haven't read what Nostradamus said on the topic of "climate change" yet, if any.
 
Last edited:

wayneh

Joined Sep 9, 2010
17,496
I'm surprised this topic can still raise a ruckus on this site. It should be a dead issue.

The anthropogenic global warming hypothesis was once a valid hypothesis worthy of testing. Elaborate models were created to test the hypothesis; if human-made carbon dioxide was the hypothesized source of recent and impending warming, the model predictions of increasing temperature would bear out. The models failed miserably. Data were then fudged by some to save the models, and some of this nefarious activity has been exposed. We know more fraud awaits exposure, because some are still fighting to withhold their data sets despite being publicly funded. And manipulation of the time series data sets continues to be uncovered on a regular basis. It's very hard to tell which data sets are pristine versus which ones have been jiggered with to fit the preconceived AGW outcome. Satellite temperature data and the recent CO2 survey studies do not support the AGW hypothesis.

The creators of the AGW movement have publicly acknowledged it was a political scheme, never about science, designed to punish developed nations in favor of the developing nations, as well as a money-making opportunity for a few (cough cough Al Gore cough cough).

So I frankly can't see why AGW still attracts so much attention. We were duped on a grand and global scale but that's done with. Move on.

Like bacteria on a petri dish, humans will eventually use up all our resources and/or drown in our own waste products. We can fight that and possibly delay it, but that will just allow even more people to be born and exacerbate the problem. The fight against this Malthusian end will inevitably be a fight against the human population on this planet. It's not about CO2 or any other magic bullet - it's about people. Is there a sustainable population level that mankind can hold itself too? Now that's a question worth pondering.
 

Thread Starter

ronv

Joined Nov 12, 2008
3,770
It's really just a measurement problem. I don't think anybody thinks the last ice age ended (or is ending) because the temperature got colder.:D
If it's a conspiracy it's a beauty. I never though Al Gore was that smart.
 

Thread Starter

ronv

Joined Nov 12, 2008
3,770
New York has both been colder and warmer than it is today, on each of an annual, historical, and prehistorical basis. If you've got a point, make it.
The point is that people are saying it is no warmer now than it was 50,000 years ago. That defies logic.
 

joeyd999

Joined Jun 6, 2011
5,237
The point is that people are saying it is no warmer now than it was 50,000 years ago. That defies logic.
At this point, the 'historical' temperature record has been revised, corrected, distorted, and corrupted to such an extent that I don't think anyone knows for certain what the temperature was before yesterday.
 

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
The point is that people are saying it is no warmer now than it was 50,000 years ago. That defies logic.
Is the temperature record from 50,000 years ago stored in the archives at Alexandria? Where is Dr Indiana Jones when you need him? Maybe Archimedes' lifted it from the library when he visited Alexandria.

just some extraordinary claims with no to little actual proof.

The actual record is at Mount Olympus in Zeus' personal library. :)
 

tcmtech

Joined Nov 4, 2013
2,867
The actual record is at Mount Olympus in Zeus' personal library. :)
What good would that do? If I recall my mythology correctly Zeus and all of the ancient gods and goddesses were bigger liars than any politicians we have alive today. :rolleyes:
 

wayneh

Joined Sep 9, 2010
17,496
Good post, @wayneh, except for the last 'drown in our own waste' part. Unlike bacteria, (a few) men have minds that can think and solve problems.
I agree, but as I implied that will only postpone the inevitable, unless the problem we solve is our numbers. If we could actually hold a level - maybe one that grows slightly as we learn how to handle more - then we might avoid the fate of the bacteria. But the world population has doubled in my lifetime and I see little reason to think humans will contain themselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top