We have the satellite data to show climate change is real. Now what?

[Admin]

Free, open source climate data can help bridge the gap between information and environmental action.

We have the satellite data to show climate change is real. Now what? : Read more

 

[Green Avenger]

Ok, please tell us what "normal" is for your data? What is normal ice cover? What is normal sea level? What is normal temperature?

When were the data points normal in the past, and for how long?

You claim to have evidence we are changing from normal, so where is it?

 

[billslugg]

Are the numbers spiked? Interpolated? Adjusted in any way? Is this "thermometer data" held to a "tree ring" baseline like Mann did? Did Hadley congratulate these people like they did Mann on his "neat trick" in comparing apples and oranges?

 

[kenhughes]

Free, open source climate data can help bridge the gap between information and environmental action.

We have the satellite data to show climate change is real. Now what? : Read more

Of course climate change is proven. The climate has always been changing. The big question is, do human activities drive it? It is obvious that human produced CO2 cannot be a significant cause. The oceans are by far the biggest emitter of CO2 with their temperature driven by the Sun. Please don't take us for idiots. YOU are the idiots, thinking we are going to believe what you tell us.

 

[FactsNotFeelings]

Ok, please tell us what "normal" is for your data? What is normal ice cover? What is normal sea level? What is normal temperature?

When were the data points normal in the past, and for how long?

You claim to have evidence we are changing from normal, so where is it?

Exactly. I still have a copy of the 1977 all sciency and all Time magazine cover of the "Coming Ice Age".... Reminds somehow of the Treasure of the Sierra Madre quote (to paraphrase) "Evidences? We ain't got no evidences. We don't need no evidences. I don't have to show you any stinking evidences." . So-called scientist use biased models, then they all, by consensus, agree on the biasies and then swear by them. Those of us with actual experience and knowledge and - dare I say it - critical thinking capabilities, actually know "models" by design (aka biases) are terminally flawed. Then again, when you want "funding" and need to manipulate the masses, you have to tell those lies loud and long. ;-)

 

[astroken]

There is no climate emergency. You know its not science when scientists with a different view are deplatformed or sacked from academia for attempting to debate the science . 500 experts wrote a letter to the UN recently in an attempt to be heard. They said:-
1. Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warmimg
2. Warming is slower than predicted
3.CO2 is not a pollutant and we could do with more of the stuff to assist plant life
4.Global warming has NOT increased natural disaters. But facts are inconvenient arent they?
5.Climate policy must reflect scientific and economic realities

Oh and the Maldives is still above water and a prime holiday destination.

 

[scvblwxq]

It is still so cold that outside of the Tropics that humans have to live and work in heated buildings, use heated transportation, and wear warm clothes most of the year.
_
Humans are a tropical species. When it is cool or cold our blood vessels constrict to conserve heat this raises our blood pressure causing increased deaths from heart attacks and deaths in the cooler months.
_
‘QuickStats: Average Number of Stroke* Deaths per Day, by Month and Sex — National Vital Statistics System, United States, 2021’
“In 2021, the average number of stroke deaths per day was highest in January (275 for females and 212 for males) and then declined to a monthly low in June (235 for females and 180 for males)”

QuickStats: Average Number of Stroke Deaths per Day...

This report describes the average number of stroke deaths per day.

www.cdc.gov

_
‘When Throughout the Year Is Coronary Death Most Likely to Occur?’
“Conclusions—Even in the mild climate of Los Angeles County, there are seasonal variations in the development of coronary artery death, with ˜33% more deaths occurring in December and January than in June through September.”

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/01.cir.100.15.1630

_
This study says that around 4.6 million people die each year from cooler weather compared to around 500,000 that die each from warmer weather. Where temperature is concerned, cold weather is the big killer of humans.
‘Global, regional and national burden of mortality associated with nonoptimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modelling study’

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext

_
This study from 2015 says that cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather and that moderately warm or cool weather kills far more people than extreme weather. ‘Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: a multi-country observational study’ https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext

 

[OldGazer]

Free, open source climate data can help bridge the gap between information and environmental action.

We have the satellite data to show climate change is real. Now what? : Read more

Climate change is a hoax. Proponents can't come up with any worthwhile 3rd party verifiable empirical data because there isn't any. There never was any and there never will be any. Bill Gates won't plant trees because according to him trees make carbon an we all know that dieing stars (novas and supernovas) make carbon and everything else that exists in the universe. Carbon Dioxide is the gas of life on our planet. Plants use it and give off Oxygen and water in the process. When the concentration of atmospheric CO2 increases, plant life flourishes. If we were to remove CO2 entirely plant life and every other living thing on this planet would die. The bottom line is we are being lied to and it's all about having control. They want us to give up our cars, shut down our farms, live in "15 Minute Cities" and eat Soylent Green so they can jet back and forth to Davos and eat strawberry jam. Read, Study, Think Critically, Resist...

 

[Helio]

What we need is more science, less politics. Science + politics = politics. It seems to me that it's the UN milking climate change for their own agenda. The IPCC has not been the ones to scream "turn or burn". (ok, I borrowed that one. )

The key issue is climate sensitivity -- what amount of change in temperature will come from this or that increase or decrease for a given variable. It's extremely complicated.

Hurricane predictions, I assume, have fewer variables and their impacts more predictable. They predicted up to 15 ft. surge into Tampa Bay. Actual surge was a drop by abut 5 feet. [The eye turned south of Tampa Bay thus the easterly winds drove water out.]

All I'm saying is that we should be getting the bigger picture of scientific modeling.

 

[COLGeek]

Climate change is a hoax. Proponents can't come up with any worthwhile 3rd party verifiable empirical data because there isn't any. There never was any and there never will be any. Bill Gates won't plant trees because according to him trees make carbon an we all know that dieing stars (novas and supernovas) make carbon and everything else that exists in the universe. Carbon Dioxide is the gas of life on our planet. Plants use it and give off Oxygen and water in the process. When the concentration of atmospheric CO2 increases, plant life flourishes. If we were to remove CO2 entirely plant life and every other living thing on this planet would die. The bottom line is we are being lied to and it's all about having control. They want us to give up our cars, shut down our farms, live in "15 Minute Cities" and eat Soylent Green so they can jet back and forth to Davos and eat strawberry jam. Read, Study, Think Critically, Resist...

Do you actually believe all of this? Seriously?

 

[COLGeek]

What we need is more science, less politics. Science + politics = politics. It seems to me that it's the UN milking climate change for their own agenda. The IPCC has not been the ones to scream "turn or burn". (ok, I borrowed that one. )

The key issue is climate sensitivity -- what amount of change in temperature will come from this or that increase or decrease for a given variable. It's extremely complicated.

Hurricane predictions, I assume, have fewer variables and their impacts more predictable. They predicted up to 15 ft. surge into Tampa Bay. Actual surge was a drop by abut 5 feet. [The eye turned south of Tampa Bay thus the easterly winds drove water out.]

All I'm saying is that we should be getting the bigger picture of scientific modeling.

I would imagine that hurricane modeling for a specific event is far less complex than global modeling. Hurricanes are weather events that are subject to change, as we just saw with Milton. It was still catastrophic, just in other areas. Let's not forget that.

I am slightly amused by folks who mistrust the science we do know of. More is always better, no doubt. Unfortunately, many will never be swayed and that isn't a matter of science.

Science should be free of a political agenda or ideology, agreed. Methinks the current trends of disbelief and skepticism have completely allowed many to ignore reality, in often incredibly misinformed ways.

While not in response to this thread, I overheard a serious conversation about "the government has been controlling the weather since the 1950s" today. How the recent hurricanes were intentional. These gents were dead serious and it only spiraled worse into political conspiracy theory lunacy.

The climate changes science has noted is not an "either/or" concern. The overwhelming evidence is that human activity exacerbates the natural cycles. Also, CO2 isn't the only issue, there are a number of manmade and man worsened things wafting through the atmosphere. All of this matters.

It is appalling how many allow politics to blind them to basic science. This doesn't bode well for us all.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I saw some mainstream news articles about weather conspiracy theories getting completely out of hand, with a U.S. Congressperson stating that hurricane Milton was "engineered" and intentional.

It strikes me as ridiculous that what appear to be the same people who don't believe the science that human activities contribute to global warming still believe that humans have the scientific knowhow to cause and direct hurricanes. And that this capability could somehow be kept secret within some cabal of powerful, but not scientific politicians.

And, then these believers in conspiracy theories post that the rest of us need to employ critical thinking! Most of us already do that, comrade.

But, the goal seems to be to stir up those who can't/won't to cause as much trouble as possible. Weather forecasters are saying they are getting death threats. Does anybody really believe that Al Roker or Dillon Dryer actually can control the weather? Wouldn't their forecasts be right more often?

There is a whole science regarding the use of "outrage" for political purposes. It is based on the feeling of helplessness that people have when hurt by things beyond their control, and their desire to find some way to gain control. That desire can be malevolently manipulated to make people believe that somebody is to "blame" for their problems, and get them to politically or even physically combat those who are blamed. So, if you want to control people, concoct a story about how their particular misery is being caused by somebody else, somebody you want to destroy for your own purpose. It works too well, which is one of the reasons why there are so many wars and revolutions. And, unfortunately, the Internet has provided a powerful tool to find, reach out to, indoctrinate, radicalize and direct susceptible people.

Is that what we are seeing in this thread?

 

[Helio]

I would imagine that hurricane modeling for a specific event is far less complex than global modeling. Hurricanes are weather events that are subject to change, as we just saw with Milton. It was still catastrophic, just in other areas. Let's not forget that.

Indeed. My folks had a house on the beach on Padre Island and we went through a few hurricanes.

Someone should calculate how many atomic bombs equate to Helene’s and Milton’s power. The results would surprise many.

I am slightly amused by folks who mistrust the science we do know of. More is always better, no doubt. Unfortunately, many will never be swayed and that isn't a matter of science.

Science should be free of a political agenda or ideology, agreed. Methinks the current trends of disbelief and skepticism have completely allowed many to ignore reality, in often incredibly misinformed ways.

Unfortunately this is true for some. I suspect they will remain a small minority since if they bark too loud they expose their stupidity. If they have objective arguments, however, I’m willing to listen and learn.

While not in response to this thread, I overheard a serious conversation about "the government has been controlling the weather since the 1950s" today. How the recent hurricanes were intentional. These gents were dead serious and it only spiraled worse into political conspiracy theory lunacy.

Perhaps the atomic bomb equivalence would pause their nonsense. Well, not for the sensationalists, of course.

The climate changes science has noted is not an "either/or" concern. The overwhelming evidence is that human activity exacerbates the natural cycles. Also, CO2 isn't the only issue, there are a number of manmade and man worsened things wafting through the atmosphere. All of this matters.

Yes, nicely stated. Exacerbation is a word for degree. CO2, methane, water vapor, orbital factors, volcanoes, etc. are some of the variables. Human production for some of these makes consensus for human responsibility, but the question for scientists is the true net temperature effect.

The prediction of warming from the worst-ever underwater Tonga eruption should be taken into account, IMO. It also affected the ozone level (Here from NOAA)

It is appalling how many allow politics to blind them to basic science. This doesn't bode well for us all.

Yes. Favorability of political leaders nay be at an all time low nationally and internationally. They need to seek accurate assessments before calling in the band wagons.

iPhone

 

[COLGeek]

I saw some mainstream news articles about weather conspiracy theories getting completely out of hand, with a U.S. Congressperson stating that hurricane Milton was "engineered" and intentional.

It strikes me as ridiculous that what appear to be the same people who don't believe the science that human activities contribute to global warming still believe that humans have the scientific knowhow to cause and direct hurricanes. And that this capability could somehow be kept secret within some cabal of powerful, but not scientific politicians.

And, then these believers in conspiracy theories post that the rest of us need to employ critical thinking! Most of us already do that, comrade.

But, the goal seems to be to stir up those who can't/won't to cause as much trouble as possible. Weather forecasters are saying they are getting death threats. Does anybody really believe that Al Roker or Dillon Dryer actually can control the weather? Wouldn't their forecasts be right more often?

There is a whole science regarding the use of "outrage" for political purposes. It is based on the feeling of helplessness that people have when hurt by things beyond their control, and their desire to find some way to gain control. That desire can be malevolently manipulated to make people believe that somebody is to "blame" for their problems, and get them to politically or even physically combat those who are blamed. So, if you want to control people, concoct a story about how their particular misery is being caused by somebody else, somebody you want to destroy for your own purpose. It works too well, which is one of the reasons why there are so many wars and revolutions. And, unfortunately, the Internet has provided a powerful tool to find, reach out to, indoctrinate, radicalize and direct susceptible people.

Is that what we are seeing in this thread?

Not sure, but news like this is beyond words. How could any rational person believe this nonsense?

I won't link the CNN article I just read.

I have no words.

 

[billslugg]

"It is appalling how many allow politics to blind them to basic science. This doesn't bode well for us all." - COLGeek

Yes, science literacy is at a very low level. Arguing is futile. I answer with bare facts. I do not make comments as they will simply attack the comments. I especially do not insult anyone as that requires them by "Man Rule #12" to send a zinger back. However, with an undeniable truth from an impeccable source in front of them and with no insult to avenge, they just go away.

 

[OldGazer]

Do you actually believe all of this? Seriously?

Yes I do because the "science" used to "prove" climate change just doesn't work. It didn't work for the "big freeze" scare, and for darned sure it didn't work for "global warming" either. Look at what they are blaming it on: People roaming around freely and enjoying the fruits of their labors. The say combustion engines are bad. They were until new technology like computer controlled fuel and engine management systems were developed, and we switched from leaded to unleaded gasoline. Los Angeles was the smog capital of the world back in the '50's and '60s. Now its been moved to China. We are supposed to dump "fossil fuels," but there aren't any to dump because no one really knows where crude oil came from, and what about coal seams that were supposedly formed by layer depositions over millions of years that are penetrated vertically by tree trunks. C02 is not the "bad guy." In fact, CO2 makes up 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere. If we could lower that by 50% ALL life on the planet would die. Electric vehicles are a scam. The batteries are prone to fail catastrophically, the mining of lithium ore is an ecological nightmare, and the mining of the rare earth metals that go into these batters is done with slave labor. Now what's good about that? And then there are thousands of wind turbines that are not only killing birds, they are creating huge land fills because the turbine blades cannot be recycled. Where is the ecological sense in that? This hoax is not driven by CO2. Its driven by ignorance and greed. Our schools have been dumbed down and we all walk around with blinders on swallowing the swill and lies of the elite. To prove that, try asking a high school graduate if they know what the differences between hemoglobin and chlorophyll are.

 

[Atlan0001]

The history of past ten to thirty thousand years of global warming interludes reaching culminating point of climatic heat before sudden collapse in two-hundred or less years into eighty to a hundred and twenty thousand years of great Ice Ages is well documented but all but totally ignored. And all but totally unknown as to exactly why the ages have occurred over the last millions of years as they have.

And if anyone thinks they can be stopped or even slowed by a human tyranny ruling over mankind in some kind of Earthly Utopian regime of One World-ism, they have another think coming. If the Nature of Life (aka Mother Nature) actually exists, The Child of Mankind has been designed by it for Earth's life breakout from the womb into the frontier universe outside the womb.

Life long ago expanded out from one mudhole, and one type of life, for its overall survival and prosperity. It has been doing that ever since. And it means to do it again if has to nuke an arrogantly recalcitrant species and produce one to take its place (if time allows) to get the job of breakout, of birth-out, done! The noted historian Will Durant, among many others, have dealt in the Nature of Life and its will, only to be completely ignored, including the Nature of Life itself being completely ignored, by those who think they can control and direct it by "science" to do their own arrogantly Utopian-Earth ideological bidding. The problem for them is it inherently knows all about the wars of a thousand, million, billion, trillion, little cuts -- every way there is to cut from within and without -- to bring on extinctions.

Now what?!

 

[Atlan0001]

The Moon has inched out and away from the Earth. Has it done these expansions and contractions before that could cause effects to the Earth system of climate by rearrangement of Earth internally?

Does the Earth itself expand and contract its orbit of the Sun that could cause effects to the Earth system of climate by rearrangement of Earth internally?

Is something concerning the solar system's transit of the galactic disk rearranging arrangements within the solar system periodically?

Now what?!

 

[OldGazer]

The Moon has inched out and away from the Earth. Has it done these expansions and contractions before that could cause effects to the Earth system of climate by rearrangement of Earth internally?

Does the Earth itself expand and contract its orbit of the Sun that could cause effects to the Earth system of climate by rearrangement of Earth internally?

Is something concerning the solar system's transit of the galactic disk rearranging arrangements within the solar system periodically?

Now what?!

You made my point exactly. The bottom line is we really don't have a clue, and sometimes it takes us a while to realize we are being lied to.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

The posts here that try to muddy the waters about what we do and don't know and what we can and cannot predict very far into the future are the best demonstration of the "dumbing down" that they are supposedly decrying.

Yes, we are being lied to. When activists and politicians start using scientific research results to "prove" their positions on matters that affect the public, they are typically misrepresenting the degree of certainty and too frequently misrepresenting the actual facts. And that is a "bipartisan" trait - all sides seem to be willing to do such things on just about every political issue.

And, they sell all sorts of ridiculous ideas, such as the Moon inching away from Earth is affecting our climate in the short term. If you really want to understand how the orbits and axis wobbles of Earth and Moon have influences on our climate, read about the Milankovitch Cycles. But, don't believe the people who insist that they explain everything, either. The geological records indicate that there is more to it than we fully understand at this time - probably related to the different atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns that can develop under different conditions.

The people who are saying that others have been "dumbed down" are demonstrating that they, themselves, are incapable of even the rudimentary ability to quantify the effects they are proposing. And, when that is pointed out, they try to defend their credibility by impugning the abilities of people who are far better educated, far better informed, and much more capable of rationally testing such thoughts.

So, on the Internet, where everybody is anonymous, claims of credentials cannot be verified, and there is no accepted objective source for unbiased fact checking, what is a reader supposed to do with conflicting claims in posts to a thread?

My suggestion is that you look for people who can explain the bases for their positions clearly and quantitatively. So, that is what I try to do. But, it takes time to do that. People who play loose with the truth can post far more B.S. than people who try to post science lessons that are understandable by non-scientists.

 

[jhixon]

The sun is slowly expanding and brightening, and over the next few billion years it will eventually desiccate Earth, leaving it hot, brown and uninhabitable. About 7.6 billion years from now, the sun will reach its maximum size as a red giant: its surface will extend beyond Earth’s orbit today by 20 percent and will shine 3,000 times brighter. So for all of the people that think eliminating cars and fossil fuels will stop climate change, your wrong.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

The sun is slowly expanding and brightening, and over the next few billion years it will eventually desiccate Earth, leaving it hot, brown and uninhabitable. About 7.6 billion years from now, the sun will reach its maximum size as a red giant: its surface will extend beyond Earth’s orbit today by 20 percent and will shine 3,000 times brighter. So for all of the people that think eliminating cars and fossil fuels will stop climate change, your wrong.

This is obviously not relevant to current climate change issues and the problems of people living on the Earth, today. Why post it?

And, note that it puts up the false premise of "stopping climate change". Nobody thinks we can stop the climate from changing.

What people are worried about is that human activities seem to be pushing the climate in a direction that will be destructive to a lot of our infrastructure investments and will require people to migrate across established political boundaries to follow the shifts in livable climates.

Right now, that fear is associated with warming. Back when scientists first discovered that the climate was cyclic (over the last few million years) the first fear was that we seemed to be due for the next ice age. Frankly, we still have not figured out exactly what the process is for the Earth to transition from glaciation to melting. People are working to understand that better. But we are currently accustomed to a climate that has only occurred cyclically for about 10% of the last 3 million years, so any expectation for it to continue forever as it is now is just uneducated.

But, all of the warming changes that that we are currently debating are on a time scale of decades to centuries, not billions of years.

So, arguing that we can't stop the Sun from destroying the Earth billions of years from now is no excuse for not trying to stop making a mess of our planet's ecosystems for the lifetimes of ourselves, our children, their children . . for hundreds of millions of human generations before we would get to the Sun destroying our planet.

 

[OldGazer]

My suggestion is that you look for people who can explain the bases for their positions clearly and quantitatively. So, that is what I try to do. But, it takes time to do that. People who play loose with the truth can post far more B.S. than people who try to post science lessons that are understandable by non-scientists.

I agree 100%. Thanks to Uncle Sam I have a core background in Nuclear Physics, and Electrical Power Generation and Distribution. I also have hands on experience with oil fired steam plants, gas turbine power plants, analog and digital electronics, mechanics, heat transfer and fluid flow, power plant water chemistry, hydraulics, pneumatics, diesel engines, gasoline engines, astronomy, astrophotography, GPS positioning technology and GPS assisted autonomous UAV construction, maintenance and operation.

I question everything. If a person makes a claim but does not have verifiable data to back it up, I ignore them. By the same token if a person like Al Gore says one thing and then does another they are added to my liars list. Regardless of what I have read or heard from the "experts" and MSM talking heads, NO ONE has been able to convince me that climate change is real. I go back and look at the Global Warming days, and all the Climate Changers have done is put lipstick on the Global Warming pig.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

OldGazer, OK, then please support your position that we don't have a clue that the climate is changing. The satellite data would seem to be more than a clue. The geological data is certainly more than a clue that the climate has changed extensively in the past.

And, remember, you said "climate change" not "human induced climate change", so don't try to change the subject when you reply.

 

[Atlan0001]

Physicist and sociologist Michio Kaku, besides writing and speaking on orders of civilization, has written that Mankind has grown in numbers from around five thousand to around eight billion in the last two million years. Also writing that those numbers don't even begin to tell the story of a species of energy.

In that last two million years Mankind, like a child in a womb world, has increased in growths of energy, in its energies, in its infrastructural limbs and organs, complexity and chaos and reaches, needs and wants, two million fold average per every man, woman, and child, living on the Earth (living within the womb-world). One million fold of the two-million fold increase average per every human being (cell of the Child Mankind) coming in just the time period since WWII.

It's too simplistic to equate that two-million fold increase to a multiplication of the numbers of Mankind by two-million fold but equating is exactly what can be done. It equates to the ghostly number of two-million times eight-billion human beings alive on the Earth at this moment! Quite the crowding of Child's cells in the womb awaiting either beginning birth from the womb or an Apocalyptic Utopian tomb in the womb!

Of course, I'm often told that neither I (seventy years a thinking reader and student of history, plus....) nor Michio Kaku, nor Stephen Hawking, nor Will Durant, nor Newt Gingrich, nor anyone else I've ever quoted from.... know what the hell we are talking about!