10 devastating signs of climate change satellites can see from space

As far as potential benefits to humankind go I personally think the contributions to understanding global warming and climate change may be amongst the most significant that space sciences and space technologies make. I say "potential benefits", because we may well continue to collectively fail to make best use of the window of opportunity science based knowledge and foresight has given us.

We are doing better than had we remained ignorant - and continued to believe prosperity built on fossil fuels came without prosperity damaging longer term downsides - but not by enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio
Tyranny will cost the Earth much, much, more than climate change that has not reached the levels of pre-Little Ice Age Middle Ages levels yet. Those ages were famous for the warmth and greening of the Earth. Those ages were famous for warm seas and Scandinavian overpopulations and mass migrations south, east and west overwhelming much of Europe.

Also, from what I read here and there, the jet stream did not quite run as it runs today, nor did the Atlantic current.

The world was vastly larger in its distances between.... things. Mankind was a little less largely cramped, crimped, squeezed, tyrannized and anarchized; a little less tightly chained and wound up; a little less ready for and into the proverbial Chines war of "a thousand little cuts." A type of war mankind is now universally engaged in; a most unwanted, most uncontrollable ,war; a war unbeknownst to be engaged in by all engaged in it. It is not a war begun by words, or anything else at all of the kind, but by the pure physics of a shrunken closed world system (the war a systematic deterioration by mankind analogous to a child in the womb rapidly approaching being over due for birth out (complications will grow and multiply savagely and be impossible of denial). Without an opening frontier of 'Exodus', escalations of complexity, complication, and war, are inescapable.

There is no such thing as convincing all mankind, or even the larger portion of mankind, to be docile en-masse and march uniformly to any high sounding tune of (Utopian) tyranny. The climate tyrants, leading among so many other associated tyrannies and tyrants attached into a naked singularity of tyranny and anarchy, will hear what Patrick Henry is said to have cried, "Give me liberty, or give me death!" As Moses is said to have cried, or at least as actor Charlton Heston playing Moses in the movies did cry on screen, "Let my people go!" (or, if denied or lingering on and on delayed, something on the order of, "Let the whole world fall!")
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: twr

twr

Oct 23, 2019
18
8
4,515
Visit site
I am not supposed to get "political", I know. But in Germany thats truly a sole political topic. The "significant" devastating signs are filtered. E.g. we in Germany have an institute called "PIK" - Pottsdam Institue for Climate". Its president wrote in 2005 that we will never have snow rich winters like before. In 2005... It influences the media and politics in Germany like no other organization.

Most of the climate change claim are not falsifiable according: "If the rooster crows on the dung, the weather changes or it stays as it is." It's getting "toot" cold: well, that's climate warming. It's getting too warm? A proof for climate warming. Too rainy? Too dry? All signs of climate warming.

A few years ago Nasa claimed that the world is getting greener, and now? The world dies. Climate change is evident - but always and always again. The earth and the sun do not care about the actions of humanity.

Believe me, you don't want the ecologists to take over government like they did in Germany. You would not only pay 10fold energy prices and 15US$ per Gallon for petrol. You would get expropriation "because of the climate change", socialism through the back door.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Atlan0001
Apr 7, 2020
162
29
1,610
Visit site
I find it very interesting the hundreds of private jets and near empty limos that the politicians and “experts” took to the latest global warming conference.
Either they really don’t believe it or more likely they feel sacrifices are for the little people.
Just once I would like to see the media nail them on this.
 
More science, and less band-wagon political stunts, is what I'd like to see. Fortunately, there are a lot of new developments in the science efforts that keep improving the climate models. But it is enormously complicated and it is still unclear what is happening, but warming is certainly a foregone consensus. The question isn't climate change, per se, but climate sensitivity -- how will increasing this or that (e.g. CO2) change the climate long term, and, if it can be determined, short term.
 
Satellites confirm seriously dangerous climate trends - but forum.space.com still attracts climate science deniers who pass over the decades of consistent science based advice and evidence on this issue.

I find it very disappointing that so many people including commenters here prefer to imagine malign or foolish ideology drives this issue and not the consistent expert advice backed by real world evidence. If climate "activism" leans Left it is only because too many who Right failed to show leadership and handed off this globally important issue to others in "you care so much, you fix it" style - a profound betrayal of responsibility and trust, in order to evade accountability.

Participate and contribute constructively, because the climate problem is every bit as serious as the IPCC reports (summarising the world's science on climate) say. Lift the responses above suspicion and alarmist political and economic fear that seeks to raise false fears of doom from facing up to it head on above the legitimate fear of the consequences allowing the consequences of excess fossil fuel burning to go unconstrained.

Government policies should flow from the expert advice they asked for, that is the same for Right leaning governments as for Left.
 
Government policies should flow from the expert advice they asked for, that is the same for Right leaning governments as for Left.
I don't think you really realize what you said here above. You advocated the totalitarian state over all mankind, period, never once advocating a precisely compensating frontier state -- existing at precisely the same time in parallel, not later -- of leaving, going one's own way: Going away from you and those who think like you.

Look at what you, yourself, said above, and think far more deeply into the meaning for mankind! You didn't think it, but what it means is an Orwellian totalitarian state over the world, and, thus, with the coming of the Orwellian totalitarian state to Earth, total world war, even if a total cold war state.

I knew -- even as a child -- the first time I saw the movie 'The Day The Earth Stood Still' there was something horrifyingly wrong with even the idea of that all powerful robot in the movie. Knowing continued when I was a young man not yet fully developed in realizations, that the movie 'Colossus: The Forbin Project' depicted the same "totalitarian state" as Orwell's '1984' and 'Animal Farm', and that all powerful robot and AI system mentioned above. In your "climate control" talk you talk totalitarian state control of mankind, period, whether that was intended or not! All that I mentioned above is representative of "absolute state" and so is your "climate control" state, short the paralleling, and I mean simultaneously paralleling, existence of an ever expanding frontier state of free exit, aka 'Exodus' state! You may not know it or care, but I know the physics; it is mass war state, eternal war state, because mankind isn't any kind of overall docile human animal state of sheep and cattle alone. You will, with your corralling collision state to attempted fusion state of all mankind, bring up and activate complexity and complication to the absolute maximum of both, and thus, bringing forth to the maximum the anti-matter state of humans (in every way your Utopian matter state with one glaring natural physics, historical as well, exception (the exact negative of the positive rising up to exist in one nakedly singular state of a most advanced, complex, therefore also always existing on the dead edge of chaotic, species)).

I don't know how else to put it. It, the climate control state (the mankind control state), can't possibly work! Division will rip its half-portion physic right out of the guts of your vision of an overall unity via a climate control -- world class control -- state. The Science of Complexity, as well as the Theory of Chaos ("climate control" will be, and already is, a 'strange attractor of chaos'), completely denies even the possibility of a successful climate / mankind control state you envision -- even if only indirectly (by way of indirection) -- for mankind. You don't see the totalitarian tyrannical implosion state you talk in talking, "Government policies should flow from the expert advice they asked for, that is the same for Right leaning governments as for left." The "flow", and the "expert advice" has all-too-often been idiocy and determined force-flow directly to tyranny, anarchy, and an enormity of conflict and war of one kind or another.

Frontier exodus, in physical progress, not dreaming about, is the only alternative to the third, so to speak, World War of and for 'Climate' Control.
 
Last edited:
Without alternatives to fossil fuel use, mankind is on the proverbial "Horns of a Dilemma". Keeping the lights on, heating and cooling ability, the machines operating and the economy functioning is a paramount requirement for the global economy and modern wellbeing. Right now: A shortened life span, disease vulnerability, a grass diet, communal living and showers are not appealing alternatives.
 
The alarmist fears of global tyranny and/or being forced into stone age type existence as some kind of inevitable consequences of committing to climate action are false - although these fears are widely promoted by opponents of climate responsibility and accountability. Accountability is entirely compatible with democracy, free enterprise and the independent rule of law - and nations with those will deal with the climate challenges best. Scientists, engineers and (capitalist) entrepreneurs are making the low emissions alternatives we need work and work cost effectively - and the successful ones are making profits doing so, as they should.

Even now we have clean energy options that can greatly reduce emissions without loss of prosperity - and the options keep getting better and edge us closer to being able to reach zero emissions. I strongly suspect the shift to clean energy will ultimately support greater overall levels of prosperity, not less. The harmful and very, very long lasting -irreversible - consequences to freedom and prosperity of allowing fossil fuel use to continue without restraint are not false, unfortunately.
 
The alarmist fears of global tyranny and/or being forced into stone age type existence as some kind of inevitable consequences of committing to climate action are false - although these fears are widely promoted by opponents of climate responsibility and accountability. Accountability is entirely compatible with democracy, free enterprise and the independent rule of law - and nations with those will deal with the climate challenges best. Scientists, engineers and (capitalist) entrepreneurs are making the low emissions alternatives we need work and work cost effectively - and the successful ones are making profits doing so, as they should.

Even now we have clean energy options that can greatly reduce emissions without loss of prosperity - and the options keep getting better and edge us closer to being able to reach zero emissions. I strongly suspect the shift to clean energy will ultimately support greater overall levels of prosperity, not less. The harmful and very, very long lasting -irreversible - consequences to freedom and prosperity of allowing fossil fuel use to continue without restraint are not false, unfortunately.
Trying for a heaven on Earth, some greater perfection of any kind, in one, and only one, arena, which is exactly what your talking, gets you hell on Earth as the reality. Your Utopian dream is Orwell's Dystopia. Obviously you've blindfolded yourself to the obviously inexorable decline and fall of civilization occurring and continuing in so many cities and nations of the world. You blame climate change for what is happening. I see what Michio Kaku pictured. Humans have increased in numbers on Earth one million fold over the last two million years. Which is a benign thing until you realize the rest of the story. Humans have increased in energies, structures, infrastructures, complexities, reaches (distance destructions), overlap and complications, two million fold, average per every man, woman, and child living over the same two million years : one million fold of that two million fold increase, average, accruing to human life -- in exactly the same womb world nest of Earth -- in just the last 70 years. A shrunken closed systemic box, like any life's closed systemic womb world nest, will not prosper, nor survive, after a due time to either benignly breakout or malignantly begin aborting the life in a roll over of life -- aka a form of mass extinction. The nature of life knows from long experience, very long experience, that there is only so much time to be had in one, single, mudhole.

All I see you seeing and talking is some super body of mass life, some super child of mass life, that can continue to evolve and prosper in place in a still shrinking closed world system, suspending (eternally fixing the environment of the womb world nest by eternally fixing mankind) into perpetuity the inevitably of decline and fall to a mass extinction of one form or another. It, a prospering, isn't even happening now as states keep on borrowing from farther and farther into the future, regardless of what you want to believe, and things aren't going to turn for the better in a still shrinking closed (womb-world-nest) system. Not a chance in nature! It happens in sci-fi fantasy, it can never even possibly happen in the real world of real physics!

Without opening that frontier universe through inexorable conquest of it : though permanent and ever expanding occupation of it, even our individual and mass genius, our innovative inventiveness, our technology, our tooling, closed systematically deforms.
 
Last edited:
Atlan0101 - I disagree. I expect most people probably won't agree; their lives are here on Earth and will agree it is more important to manage the environment and resources we have than seek new horizons. Especially when there isn't anywhere else we can go.

I note that whilst some Europeans colonised the Americas, Australia and other parts most people in Europe never left; they carried on where they were. Successfully. Their economy helped build the American colonial economies through viable trade and was essential to it; there was probably never a time when those colonies>>independent nations were entirely self reliant. Europe developed and built the ships, exported vital supplies, new technologies and ideas and were the essential market for what America could produce.

Europe is still there - and arguably most of Europe lives better than most of The Americas. Not even the paleolithic people who colonised Australia and The Americas first ever made a lifestyle of exploration and colonisation. Nomadism within known ranges isn't the same. Some went further, mostly when circumstances forced them - and unless overtaken by catastrophe the original society was still there. But they lived in a world rich beyond measure in opportunities; nothing outside Earth so far looks as good as Earth's harshest deserts, even with global warming.

In any case escaping (advancing?) to anywhere off Earth - even for a tiny minority - is not currently possible. It isn't a choice between facing the challenges we have, like anthropogenic climate change and moving on to better pastures; there are no better pastures and we are not mindless herds.

It isn't any kind of extremist idealism to choose to face the problems of this world face on, with eyes open (including with satellite enhanced views), just plain practicality and common sense.
 
Last edited:
Satellites confirm seriously dangerous climate trends - but forum.space.com still attracts climate science deniers who pass over the decades of consistent science based advice and evidence on this issue.
As important as satellite data is, we need to treat the results as we do in all of science... with scrutiny.

Climatesense-norpag

“The correlative UAH 6.0 satellite TLT anomaly at the MTTP at 2003/12 was + 0.26C. The temperature anomaly at 2021/9 was + 0.25 C. (34) This satellite data set shows that there has been no net global warming for the last 17 years.“


...

“On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from
Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance
Roy W. Spencer * and William D. Braswell

It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Atlan0001
As important as satellite data is, we need to treat the results as we do in all of science... with scrutiny.

Climatesense-norpag

“The correlative UAH 6.0 satellite TLT anomaly at the MTTP at 2003/12 was + 0.26C. The temperature anomaly at 2021/9 was + 0.25 C. (34) This satellite data set shows that there has been no net global warming for the last 17 years.“

...

“On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from
Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance
Roy W. Spencer * and William D. Braswell

It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations.”

Why that data set - the one put together by a declared Christian who believes God will not allow damaging climate change? The one data set that is consistently inconsistent - lower - that ALL the others?

Why not this data set - that more closely tracks actual change to global heat content year to year than any surface air temperature data set and shows clear warming over the disputed period? -

heat_content2000m.png


Why choose UAH as "proof" other than because it shows a lot less warming than every other data set? Note that (oddly) the other main satellite based data set - RSS - shows more than any other - whilst thermometer based sets align more closely -

rate1980.jpg



Why not accept the validity of IPCC AR6 - that summarises what climate science knows and doesn't about global warming - except that you appear to prefer to believe they are wrong. You seriously think this means all the other data sets including raw thermometer temperature data, that show warming over that period - and consistently show more warming than Roy Spencer's UAH - are ALL wrong?

It is not like any amateur can make any sense of how UAH data is computed from microwaves.

Not that 17 years is enough time to decide warming has stopped - or whatever it is that is implied; just the swings of ENSO are enough to give the illusion of slowing and speeding up over that short a period.

Why 17 years? How do the start and end years line up with known natural swings of global average temperature, such as due to ENSO? If the start year was an el Nino we expect it to be hotter than average. 2020 had a la Nina - ie naturally cooler - as does 2021. We saw that with the supposed "pause/hiatus" - picking an extreme record hot year so what came after - despite being warmer than what came before 1998 - can be portrayed falsely as not being warmer. If you pick the hottest day in late winter and track through to a cold day in early spring would you declare the axial tilt theory of Seasons is in doubt and summer may never arrive? Or would you look at longer, more inclusive data sets, to see the bigger picture?

Helio, you need to look to better sources. A problem this serious needs better than picking and choosing sources that are outliers - especially if you pick them because they are outliers. I expect those holding high positions of public trust and responsibility to take decades of consistent science based advice seriously.
 
The topology of the mapping to ice ages is that of long graduating ascent to mountainously great heights of global warming, then reaches suddenly drop off over and off a steep cliff precipice where the world has gone only too suddenly, geologically speaking, into the Abyss of much longer flat, almost entropic-like, periods of ice age freezing in almost no time at all. The scenario has been only too repetitive, shown to be the way of many times happening by digs. And I've read (many more times than once) that "ice age" is, geologically, actually the normal condition of the Earth now, with short periods (though those short periods still stretch many thousands of years; some tens of thousands of years) of global warming being only occasional interruptions, hiccups, in an inexorable process of majority Earth freezing.

What I've read explains what is happening, but never the overall why of global freezing having become the overall norm of Earth. You apparently, by what you say, know so much about the Earth inside the context of outside universe / deep inner universe, you explain why the conditional "norm", which seems in a very usual temporary interruption (if that), has been permanently changed as to that "norm" by mankind. You of course believe in environmental Utopia, the fixing and putting of the Earth into perfect and permanent balance between the two conditions by simply putting all mankind into a form of chains, a form of reduction to slavery.

As you can tell, I'm having none of your talk and tactics of continuing delay of beginning and following through on a streaming process toward massively expanding opening in frontier now to an 'Exodus'. An endlessly deceiving strategy of only too many and varied tactical delays that have already gone on for far too long in stopping opening cold! There are too many chains on opening! Too many iron curtain-like walls against opening! To echo Ronald Reagan, "Tear down this wall!" (Once more, I'm having none of you people's talk and tactics of continuing delay.... and neither, I am very, very, sure, is a closed systemic -- entropic -- nature / a closed systemic -- entropic -- physics, regarding you people's Utopian dreams of perfectly balancing Earth and all mankind even into perpetuity).

It begins with one "2001: A Space Odyssey" -like rotating gravitied utilitarian space station. Or a rotating gravitied "Voyager Station" hotel having utilitarian uses. Those are firm-like proto-beginning tooling toward bigger and bigger, better and better, things in space. Cheapo cul-de-sac micro-gravity installations will take the masses of the rest of us nowhere at all in that frontier. They literally cannot be any conduit to opening up that frontier. The two rotating gravitied stations, either one or both, are the only type of space-based installation and tool that can be the beginning tooling of beginning (sic) for the rest of mankind. Those micro-gravitied cul-de-sacs have been proven to be wastes of valuable time and monies toward getting the frontier opened to any of the rest of mankind. Almost intentionally so!

I'm one of those people finally grown deaf (after decades and decades) to what you people have to say, but not speechless in a growing resistance to your movement's increasingly all consuming combinations of varieties of strangling tyrannies and anarchies. Frontier first! You will wait for 'Exodus' to begin and begin growing in streaming out first! You will wait or nothing you try will end in any positive without two or more far larger negatives indivisibly tied to it (springing from it).... made, produced, by you people!
 
Last edited:
Why that data set - the one put together by a declared Christian who believes God will not allow damaging climate change? The one data set that is consistently inconsistent - lower - that ALL the others?
Can you support either of those ad hominems? [I tried at his website, but had no luck.]

The beauty of science is that scientific claims are objective-based, so one's religion isn't what must be tested. Either his efforts are worthy based on science or they are not.

He doesn't appear to me, at least, to be much of a crackpot, or something...

"Dr. Spencer’s [PhD] research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE... "

"...he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites." [my bold]

Why not accept the validity of IPCC AR6 - that summarises what climate science knows and doesn't about global warming - except that you appear to prefer to believe they are wrong.
When have I ever said that?

So let's look how AR6 has improved prior claims...

AR4....“There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above.”

Footnote from AR5:
“No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”

But AR5 was an improvement. Consider this graph...


Note the red zone, and, also, that it doesn't extend past 2035.

In AR5 SPM, it was stated, “It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas…” [my bold]

AR6 is less….extreme in their claims.

Also, AR6 has dropped the “long standing” upper range from 4.5C to 4.0C. [The new projection, however, did raise the low-end from 1.5C to 2.5C, but for no clear reason, apparently.]

Not that 17 years is enough time to decide warming has stopped - or whatever it is that is implied;
"Stopped"? Why would you suggest that? Not that long ago there was a mile of ice sitting on what is Chicago today. It was two miles thick over parts of Canada, apparently.

Helio, you need to look to better sources. A problem this serious needs better than picking and choosing sources that are outliers - especially if you pick them because they are outliers. I expect those holding high positions of public trust and responsibility to take decades of consistent science based advice seriously.
I've always argued for more science, not less. You haven't done a fair job of trashing Spencer, IMHO. Is he lying about his strong credentials?

I'm barely an amateur at climate science, so all readers should take what I say in the context of a person just trying to get past the fluff and noise from the bandwagon, and see what the real merits are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Helio - Roy Spencer is a signatory to "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming". Which clearly says (amongst other dangerously irresponsible nonsense) -

We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.

That is a statement of prejudice and bias, rejection of climate science and contempt for climate scientists. Roy Spencer signed it and has never backed away from it.

And his UAH results are consistently out of step with other datasets, including other satellite based. Other climate scientists have questioned the reliability of UAH methodology.

I also don't see how you can read AR6 as anything other than clear that the problem is real and very serious - or believe that conclusion doesn't have a very strong scientific basis.


Also, AR6 has dropped the “long standing” upper range from 4.5C to 4.0C. [The new projection, however, did raise the low-end from 1.5C to 2.5C, but for no clear reason, apparently.]
I think that is climate sensitivity, ie how much warming for a doubling of CO2 (from pre industrial) , not projected warming, which is different for different emissions scenarios. With stronger emissions reductions efforts than we are seeing it looks like 2.1 - 3.5C by 2100.

1 C of global average warming so far has resulted in 1.4 C of local warming here. Heatwaves, droughts and fires with 3 - 5 C of local warming would be truly devastating. If strong climate action lacks support, because, say, enough people hold to their doubts and suspicions about climate science and support governments that won't do it - there will be more warming than that.

Not that 17 years is enough time to decide warming has stopped - or whatever it is that is implied; just the swings of ENSO are enough to give the illusion of slowing and speeding up over that short a period.

"Stopped"? Why would you suggest that? Not that long ago there was a mile of ice sitting on what is Chicago today. It was two miles thick over parts of Canada, apparently.
s

Why would I suggest that? You raised the "no warming for 17 years" claim.

Which no data set apart from Roy Spencer's UAH shows. And I noted how significant choices of start and end points are within a data series.

Why 17 years?

We had the "global warming has stopped" BS after 1998, with a period that short, attempting to read long term trends into short term variability, with a cherry picked start point. Surface temps warmed a lot after 1998 - even more if you pick 1997 or even 1999 instead of 1998 as the start point! New record global temperatures have been set 5 times over since then. And ocean heat content rise never even slowed. As it has not slowed in this most recent 17 years.


Are you suggesting global warming might be a continuation of warming from when ice sheets covered Canada? Why?

1920px-2000%2B_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg.png


Prior to AGW the world was cooling. The false idea that current warming might be post glacial maximum rebound - not GHG's -ignores that. Besides ignoring most of the existing body of knowledge about climate change.


If you insist you are not convinced, but you choose to count what Roy Spencer says as "better science" than all the other climate science that says the climate system is undergoing significant - and damaging - global warming then you will remain unconvinced.

Nothing I can say will change that.


I will continue to push for my own nation's governments to base their policies on the IPCC reports and those of their own science agencies (that contribute to the IPCC reports) and are (I note) consistent with them.
 
There have always been many, many, too many, predictions by maniacal radical alarmists of the end of the world if mankind does not surrender to the chains of some puritanical tyranny.

Frontier, a reality of an opening system, first! Or, in keeping with an iron curtain and closed systemic physics, crushingly titanic bureaucracies, titanic mistakes and anarchies, world class declines, falls, and all out total wars to the end of the world, first! :D Your choice! :D
 
Last edited:

Latest posts