How satellite data has proven climate change is a climate crisis

[Richard Mercer]

Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:

That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.

That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.

That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.

That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.

Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).

That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.

The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.

They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum
sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with
the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.

They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.

The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.

The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.

The expansion of the Hadley cells.

The poleward movement of storm tracks.

The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.

The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.

The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.

That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.
------

"The results show that there is no robust statistical evidence for a divergence between models and observations"

http://iopscience.iop.org/.../10.1088/1748-9326/aaf372/meta

 

[Atlan0001]

In nature there will not be any one world until there two worlds at a minimum! Division will tear its half of the universe out of the guts of your unity if that is what it takes! Matter (+) / Anti-Matter (-)!

The un-observably dark universe, the frontier universe outside the "observable universe," is the known higher energy physic!

How many ways does this 70-plus years student of history, plus other reads and studies, have to put it. You've advocated 'Armageddon'! That is all you've done. period!!!!

 

[Richard Mercer]

It is really true right now, because we do not have " energy efficiency and distributed generation" currently in place. My point is that there needs to be a lot of infrastructure put in place, and that takes time and money.

And, if you saved $100,000 by putting in solar and energy storage over the last 25 years, you were definitely using subsidies. Most people do not even spend $100,000 for electricity from the power company in 25 years. Anyway, you said it took you 25 years, so how fast do you think it would be for everybody to do what you did? Consider that there are a limited number of installers, and 2 big ones just went bankrupt.

You say you charge your electric car during the day. How did you manage that and work at a location that is not your home? Without putting chargers into office parking areas and shopping areas, that is not something that most people can do. Good ideas, but not currently executed.

And, there is the matter of reliability under severe challenges. What happens to a city with 100% electric vehicles when NOAA says to evacuate because there is a category 5 hurricane coming? There is no time for lines at the chargers. And, solar panels on the roof may come down in wind. There will always be a case for some liquid fuels. Maybe we can make them in a "green" manner, but relying on battery powered vehicles for everything is not going to work with the technology we have now or expect to actually be available in the near to intermediate future. Right now, there are motor vehicles and aircraft using fossil fuels to rescue and get aid to hurricane Helene survivors, and they definitely don't have a way to recharge those emergency use vehicles with what was left after that storm.

"you were definitely using subsidies."
The U.S. Oil & Gas industry has been subsidized Non-Stop since 1918.
The U.S. Coal industry has been subsidized Non-Stop since 1932.

The nuclear industry has been heavily subsidized also.

Now, the adding of carbon capture to coal and gas power plants is being subsidized heavily.

Growing corn to make ethanol to put in gasoline has been heavily subsidized.
----------------------------------------------
The global energy crisis pushed fossil fuel consumption subsidies to an all-time high in 2022

"Fossil fuel consumption subsidies worldwide soared in 2022, rising above $1 TRILLION for the first time, according to new IEA estimates.

Last year’s record subsidies – amid the global energy crisis triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – were double their 2021 levels, which were already almost five times those seen in 2020.

As noted in the World Energy Outlook, high fossil fuel prices were the main reason for upward pressure on global electricity prices, accounting for 90% of the rise in the average costs of electricity generation worldwide (natural gas alone for more than 50%)."

The global energy crisis pushed fossil fuel consumption subsidies to an all-time high – Analysis - IEA

The global energy crisis pushed fossil fuel consumption subsidies to an all-time high - A commentary by Toru Muta, Musa Erdogan

www.iea.org

'

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Richard Mercer, I agree that global weather modeling has come a long way, and that satellite data is a big part of that.

However, there is still a ways to go for climate modeling, which seems to involve some changes in ocean and atmosphere circulation patterns, and some sort of chaotic interactions with the Milankovitch Cycles. The climate does not seem to just track linearly with global solar influx or hemispheric solar influx. People are working on it, but last I checked, we still do not have a climate model that can backcast the ice ages as they appear in the geological records. The transitions seem to be the bugaboo.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

You are conflating many types of subsidies, apparently to try to confuse the situation.

My point is that your "saving $100,000" over 25 years must have been due to selling excess electricity at more than the "time of day market value", and those subsidies are now being curtailed because that cannot be applied to everybody without bankrupting the grid providers.

How much electrical energy were you using per year, 25 years ago, anyway? It must have been a lot.

 

[Richard Mercer]

Scrolled down to find a Harris presidential ad. Modern “journalism” is beyond corrupt and essentially useless in presenting objective reality. Man made climate change may be real, but the trust in what is communicated, and the method of doing so, has been irreparably tarnished. If you are expecting the federal government to save us, lust look no further than FEMA’s response in NC. Think electric cars are the solution? Take a peak at the power sources feeding our grid. “Green” is now a trillion dollar a year industry. Those invested, including the gov’t, will never let this cash register go. Climate models are notoriously bad, look it up. Climate is measured in hundreds of thousands of year, not centuries. If you think the accuracy of climate measurements then are remotely similar to what we have today, you’ve been fooled. Tell the whole story, if you truly care about the future. IF, and this is a big IF, what is laid out here is accurate, what’s the mitigation plan for the impending disasters? Which never seem to show up, look up impending ice age predictions from the 70’s. Or were those climate measurements somehow wrong? A laundry list of fortune tellers have mad a, well, a fortune.

" ice age predictions from the 70’s. Or were those climate measurements somehow wrong? A laundry list of fortune tellers have mad a, well, a fortune."

You are repeating from something put out by AEI, a known fossil fuels funded dispenser of disinformation on climate change.
"5 decades of failed predictions"
is a pack of lies. NOT ONE of their claims is true.
AEI is one of these.
--------------------------------

They learned how to pull it off from the Tobacco industry, which successfully clouded discussion of tobacco dangers, for decades.
The disinformation is spread by these proxies, that they fund.

These 32 conservative organizations have all been funded by and involved in the tobacco industry's campaign to deny the science showing the dangers of tobacco.

They are all now funded by fossil fuels, to do the same in the campaign to deny the science of climate change.

1. Acton Institute
2. American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)
3. Alexis de Tocqueville Institute
4. American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
5. Americans for Prosperity
6. Atlas Economic Research Foundation
7. Burson-Marsteller (PR firm)
8. Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW)
9. Cato Institute
10. Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI
11. Consumer Alert
12. DCI Group (PR firm)
13. European Science and Environment Forum
14. Fraser Institute
15. Frontiers of Freedom
16. George C. Marshall Institute
17. Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
18. Heartland Institute
19. Heritage Foundation
20. Independent Institute
21. International Center for a Scientific Ecology
22. International Policy Network
23. John Locke Foundation
24. Junk Science
25. National Center for Public Policy Research
26. National Journalism Center
27. National Legal Center for the Public Interest (NLCPI)
28. Pacific Research Institute
29. Reason Foundation
30. Small Business Survival Committee
31. The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC)
32. Washington Legal Foundation
------------------
#5 and #9 were created by the billionaire oil and lumber tycoon Koch brothers, who fund all kinds of anti-environmental PR.

#24 Junk Science, which is aptly named, is run by Steve Milloy, who Fox News likes to feature as an "expert" on climate change. Milloy is NOT a scientist. He's a paid lobbyist for fossil fuel interests and a professional PR man. Did Fox ever divulge that? I doubt it. And Milloy gets funding from, guess who? - the Koch brothers.

 

[Richard Mercer]

Richard Mercer, I agree that global weather modeling has come a long way, and that satellite data is a big part of that.

However, there is still a ways to go for climate modeling, which seems to involve some changes in ocean and atmosphere circulation patterns, and some sort of chaotic interactions with the Milankovitch Cycles. The climate does not seem to just track linearly with global solar influx or hemispheric solar influx. People are working on it, but last I checked, we still do not have a climate model that can backcast the ice ages as they appear in the geological records. The transitions seem to be the bugaboo.

Milankovitch cycles would now have the planet cooling slightly, not warming.
The warming that ended the last glacial period ended 9,000-8,000 years ago, at the Holocene Thermal Maximum.
A global temperature plateau then lasted for about 2,000 years, followed by a slow gradual cooling that lasted right up to the 20th century. That cooling totaled about 0.7C.
Since then the world has warmed by about 1.3C.

What climate scientists are working hard on improving in models is the ability to accurately model regional effects in relatively short time scales.

They have a pretty good handle on Milankovitch cycles over the last 1 million years.

 

[Atlan0001]

Had I described this world today to people living two-hundred years ago I would have been laughed out of the bar or lecture hall for a purveyor of fantasies and fictions. That kind of human is still with us today, still trying to put us back in the Stone Age instead of forward into the Space Frontier and Space Age!

 

[Unclear Engineer]

They have a pretty good handle on Milankovitch cycles over the last 1 million years.

I'll disagree with that. Show me a link to a climate model that successfully backcasts the ice ages over the last million years, including lengths of cold and warm periods, max and min height of sea levels, and concentrations of CO2. It needs to show me the dynamics of the processes, not just a statistical replay of what we know from the geological records.

So far as I know, that has not yet been accomplished. There are some things we don't understand very well.

And, for that matter, show me how much the Milankovitch Cycles were altered by the accumulation of ice sheets. What did they do to the rates of axis precession?

Claiming more than you can support undermines your credibility, even on the things you can support.

That said, I am not trying to deny that human activities are warming the planet. And I am not saying that the uncertainties should cause us to "wait and see" before taking steps to deal with that. By the time we see well tested climate models, it will be too late to do anything about the consequences.

 

[Richard Mercer]

I may have misspoke on that one. Fair enough.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Here is an article that tries to put some perspective on sustainability of life style. I think there are several things that are not really proper in the comparison, but, overall, it makes the point well enough.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-number-of-earths-needed-for-different-countries-lifestyles/

So, I doubt that many countries would voluntarily change to be like India. While it has some highly developed elements, it also has a lot of people in grinding poverty and a high crime rate. It is more like a microcosm of the world, needing to bring people out of poverty faster than their population (now the largest in the world) increases the number of poor people.

Most countries aspire to be like the ones that are shown to be unsustainable. Countries that do look "sustainable" really are not, because they are generating many millions of migrants who are not happy with their lives in those countries.

Just getting everybody on the planet to the levels of the countries that migrants are going into would create huge amounts of CO2 emissions if done with current fossil fuel technologies.

So, the task is to make everybody happy enough with "green" energy technologies, and hope that allows the population to level off, and even decline, in a peaceful manner.

But, that is not the way people are currently behaving in most of the world, today. The "old fashion" processes of population reduction, war, famine, and plague, still seem to be the current choices, although everybody claims to not want those.

The question in my mind is whether humans as a species can collectively change ourselves to live within our planet's carrying capacity for us.

 

[Atlan0001]

Abe Lincoln created the National Academy of Science so Congress would be informed about science issues.
He would not be laughing today, more like crying, if he saw the science denial of the GOP now.
The fantasy is that anyone is trying to take us back to the stone age, by acting on climate change. Its a SLOGAN and nothing but that.

Kill the child, by enslaving it to Orwellian-ism, and save the womb world.... Or.... suspend it in animation putting it on a treadmill to 'Organian' nowhere, and prevent "grow or die." Well known and noted historian Will Durant predicted that if you try it, suspending animation of the mass body and going for mind alone, nature takes a hand and vitality and fertility rots and dies bringing on extinction of civilization (thus the supporting infrastructure undergirding 'science') and/or species anyway. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur was absolutely right in seeing that maintenance and expansion of the mind was tied to expansionism in frontier space and energy. Greco-Roman, Indian and Chinese civilizations, among others, didn't die of invasion, they died from within (nature killed them from within, killing the human body of civilization from within via the cancer of negative energy closed systemic entropy).

Unfortunately ignorance of history and natural laws . . . stupidity . . . is what is indoctrinated (brainwashed) into the human species today by the state. Resistance to it, developing the mind, in some here and there the communal mass mind, is hard come by!
----------------------------

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; otherwise they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." -- Edmund Burke, 'Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents'.