seven stats on climate change

[ReinyDays]

Depends on your definitions of the terms

Sure ... this is called "semantics" ... you use whichever definition suits your opinion ...

"careless" observation and ignorance of important factors are incompatible with scientific method

Newton, Faraday, Einstein are all pseudoscientists ... very bold of you to say ... Planck, Hubble, Darwin ... the list goes on of preeminent folks who were ignorant of important factors ... all pseudoscientists you say ... maybe the problem is with your definitions ...

 

[Silver Cat]

Depends on your definitions of the terms

Sure ... this is called "semantics" ... you use whichever definition suits your opinion ...

"careless" observation and ignorance of important factors are incompatible with scientific method

Newton, Faraday, Einstein are all pseudoscientists ... very bold of you to say ... Planck, Hubble, Darwin ... the list goes on of preeminent folks who were ignorant of important factors ... all pseudoscientists you say ... maybe the problem is with your definitions ...

No-no-no. If you don't know something - it is normal. But if you willingly "ignore" important facts, already known to you, to get a pre-determined result, it is cheating.

 

[ReinyDays]

No-no-no. If you don't know something - it is normal. But if you willingly "ignore" important facts, already known to you, to get a pre-determined result, it is cheating.

Sir Issac Newton ... everybody knew his Law of Gravity didn't work for the planet Mercury ... it was obvious and plain ... the matter was simply ignored, we wanted our predetermined results ... to you, this is well over 200 years of pseudoscience ... pseudoscience still in common use today ... GR is never used in climatology or meteorology, biology or sociology ... we ignore the proven fact that Newton was wrong, and everything based on Newtonian physics is pseudoscientific deception ...

ok boomer ...

 

[georgephillip]

What specifically do you want the people of planet earth to do to stop AGW? Give us a list of things that the 7 billion people of earth must do to save the planet from boiling.

I think the richest 350 million people, especially those living in urban or suburban neighborhoods could start here:

"2. Power your home with renewable energy.
Choose a utility company that generates at least half its power from wind or solar and has been certified by Green-e Energy, an organization that vets renewable energy options.

"If that isn’t possible for you, take a look at your electric bill; many utilities now list other ways to support renewable sources on their monthly statements and websites.

3. Weatherize, weatherize, weatherize.
"'Building heating and cooling are among the biggest uses of energy,' Haq says. Indeed, heating and air-conditioning account for almost half of home energy use.

"You can make your space more energy efficient by sealing drafts and ensuring it’s adequately insulated. You can also claim federal tax credits for many energy-efficiency home improvements."
How You Can Stop Global Warming

Of course, the biggest offender isn't even in the discussion for most Americans.

The Pentagon's Climate Impact Is a Threat to Our Planet

 

[ReinyDays]

Military fuel emissions over 19 years is 400 megatons ... global emissions is (conservatively) 10 gigatons/yr ... so the military is responsible for about 0.2% of total worldwide emissions ... that doesn't included depleted uranium left on the battlefields ...

Interesting point ... two decades of military actions is more polluting than a two year's worth of cars on the road ... cute graphic, nothing like cartoon cars to post deceptive data ... works almost all the time ...

 

[Silver Cat]

No-no-no. If you don't know something - it is normal. But if you willingly "ignore" important facts, already known to you, to get a pre-determined result, it is cheating.

Sir Issac Newton ... everybody knew his Law of Gravity didn't work for the planet Mercury ... it was obvious and plain ... the matter was simply ignored, we wanted our predetermined results ... to you, this is well over 200 years of pseudoscience ... pseudoscience still in common use today ... GR is never used in climatology or meteorology, biology or sociology ... we ignore the proven fact that Newton was wrong, and everything based on Newtonian physics is pseudoscientific deception ...

ok boomer ...

Any theory has its own limitations. If we say "Newton's model is good to describe movement of all planets, exept Mercury" - it is normal. If AGW-supporters say that their "CO_2 only" models works only for Mars, it could be acceptable.

 

[bripat9643]

What specifically do you want the people of planet earth to do to stop AGW? Give us a list of things that the 7 billion people of earth must do to save the planet from boiling.

I think the richest 350 million people, especially those living in urban or suburban neighborhoods could start here:

"2. Power your home with renewable energy.
Choose a utility company that generates at least half its power from wind or solar and has been certified by Green-e Energy, an organization that vets renewable energy options.

"If that isn’t possible for you, take a look at your electric bill; many utilities now list other ways to support renewable sources on their monthly statements and websites.

3. Weatherize, weatherize, weatherize.
"'Building heating and cooling are among the biggest uses of energy,' Haq says. Indeed, heating and air-conditioning account for almost half of home energy use.

"You can make your space more energy efficient by sealing drafts and ensuring it’s adequately insulated. You can also claim federal tax credits for many energy-efficiency home improvements."
How You Can Stop Global Warming

Of course, the biggest offender isn't even in the discussion for most Americans.

The Pentagon's Climate Impact Is a Threat to Our Planet

No thanks. I'm not going to spend three times more on energy than I spend now.

 

[georgephillip]

Like TARP? The US Treasury made well over $100 billion, and counting, on TARP.

that mitigate the firms' assumption of risk and undermine market laws

Joking? Banks lost hundreds of billions during the crash.

Banks caused the Great Recession.
How many bankers went to prison?

Great Recession in the United States - Wikipedia

"The U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported its findings in January 2011.

"It concluded that 'the crisis was avoidable and was caused by: Widespread failures in financial regulation, including the Federal Reserve's failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages; Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk; An explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis; Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels.'"[3]

"According to the Department of Labor, roughly 8.7 million jobs (about 7%) were shed from February 2008 to February 2010, and real GDP contracted by 4.2% between Q4 2007 and Q2 2009, making the Great Recession the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression."

 

[ReinyDays]

Any theory has its own limitations. If we say "Newton's model is good to describe movement of all planets, exept Mercury" - it is normal. If AGW-supporters say that their "CO_2 only" models works only for Mars, it could be acceptable.

More semantics ... tiresome ...

First you're talking about AGW theory ... now all of a sudden it's AGW models ... and now we're not talking about the science, but rather the (uneducated) "supporters" of AGW ... if you want to condemn the stupidity of what some people think AGW theory says, I'm on your side ... but there is an actual scientific theory that tries to explain man-kind's roll in climate, and it covers much much more than CO2 emissions ...

No one thinks AGW theory is perfect as currently stated ... as new research gets published, old ideas are changed, new ideas are added ... the matter is evolving as we type to each other ... I know, The National Enquirer doesn't publish this, try finding different sources for your climate research news ...

 

[bripat9643]

Like TARP? The US Treasury made well over $100 billion, and counting, on TARP.

that mitigate the firms' assumption of risk and undermine market laws

Joking? Banks lost hundreds of billions during the crash.

Banks caused the Great Recession.
How many bankers went to prison?

Great Recession in the United States - Wikipedia

"The U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported its findings in January 2011.

"It concluded that 'the crisis was avoidable and was caused by: Widespread failures in financial regulation, including the Federal Reserve's failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages; Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk; An explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis; Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels.'"[3]

"According to the Department of Labor, roughly 8.7 million jobs (about 7%) were shed from February 2008 to February 2010, and real GDP contracted by 4.2% between Q4 2007 and Q2 2009, making the Great Recession the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression."

The Federal Reserve is an arm of the government, and it's the only cause of the great depression. Financial firms acting recklessly, breakdowns in corporate governance, excessive borrowing and risk by households are all as old as money. Why should all these errors occur at the same time? The answer is the Federal Reserve.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Like TARP? The US Treasury made well over $100 billion, and counting, on TARP.

that mitigate the firms' assumption of risk and undermine market laws

Joking? Banks lost hundreds of billions during the crash.

Banks caused the Great Recession.
How many bankers went to prison?

Great Recession in the United States - Wikipedia

"The U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported its findings in January 2011.

"It concluded that 'the crisis was avoidable and was caused by: Widespread failures in financial regulation, including the Federal Reserve's failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages; Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk; An explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis; Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels.'"[3]

"According to the Department of Labor, roughly 8.7 million jobs (about 7%) were shed from February 2008 to February 2010, and real GDP contracted by 4.2% between Q4 2007 and Q2 2009, making the Great Recession the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression."

Banks caused the Great Recession.

How?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Like TARP? The US Treasury made well over $100 billion, and counting, on TARP.

that mitigate the firms' assumption of risk and undermine market laws

Joking? Banks lost hundreds of billions during the crash.

Banks caused the Great Recession.
How many bankers went to prison?

Great Recession in the United States - Wikipedia

"The U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported its findings in January 2011.

"It concluded that 'the crisis was avoidable and was caused by: Widespread failures in financial regulation, including the Federal Reserve's failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages; Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk; An explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis; Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels.'"[3]

"According to the Department of Labor, roughly 8.7 million jobs (about 7%) were shed from February 2008 to February 2010, and real GDP contracted by 4.2% between Q4 2007 and Q2 2009, making the Great Recession the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression."

The Federal Reserve is an arm of the government, and it's the only cause of the great depression. Financial firms acting recklessly, breakdowns in corporate governance, excessive borrowing and risk by households are all as old as money. Why should all these errors occur at the same time? The answer is the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve is an arm of the government, and it's the only cause of the great depression.

Why do you think that?

 

[SSDD]

How would you (or Rush) explain this global temperature spike over the past fifty years?

In the same way I would explain all of the rapid spikes in temperature over the past 10,000 years....natural variability...and as you can see, over the past 10,000 years, there have been multiple times when the temperatures increased far more, and far faster than the bit of change we have seen. The fact is that the bit of change we have seen over the past 150 years or so is insignificant compared to some of the rapid changes over the past 10,000 years. Hyperventilating, and waving your hands simply doesn't make the change we have seen more significant..and certainly not unusual or unprecedented.

 

[SSDD]

Geez guy...we are just beginning to scratch the surface of the natural factors that effect the climate.

Who told you that, Dude?

Great...step on up and tell me all of the factors that drive the climate and how each and every one of them interact with each of the others...I am particularly interested in how the wild changes, on annual, and decadal scales, in the amount of solar output in the various individual energy frequencies as opposed to the total solar output drive the climate...and I would be interested to know how much geothermal energy is being released by vents on the ocean floors and what effect that has on the climate...

Lets hear it.

 

[SSDD]

So go to that link and bring back some observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability

Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010

"Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2.

"The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra3 together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations4"

Fine example of scientists being fooled by their own instrumentation. Those measurements were made with instruments that were cooled to a temperature of at least -80F. They were measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument. Put an identical instrument next to the cooled one except leave it at ambient temperature and you measure no such energy because energy only moves from a warmer source to a cooler source...never from cooler to warmer..

 

[SSDD]

as I pointed out, termites alone produce more CO2 than all of humanity

Link?

"A meme shared hundreds of times in multiple posts on Facebook and Twitter claims that termites produce 10 times more carbon dioxide than humans in a single year.

"The claim is false; scientists estimate termites’ carbon emissions are approximately one-tenth of those created by humans."

It’s the other way around -- termites produce approximately one-tenth of the carbon dioxide emissions created by humans

Sure...I started with this masters thesis titled METABOLIC GAS EMISSIONS FROM RETICULITERMES FLAVIPES (KOLLAR) (ISOPTERA: RHINOTERMITIDAE) It was written by a fellow attending oklahoma state university. Thesis papers are a great starting point for research because they contain so many references to published literature.

https://shareok.org/bitstream/handl...kstate_0664M_14733.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Following his references led me to a large number of sources...here a paper published by the AAAS (an organization that those who believe in AGW tend to respect highly because their organizational statement is all about man made global warming) titled Termites: A potentially large source of atmospheric methane, carbon dioxide and molecular hydrogen.

Termites: A Potentially Large Source of Atmospheric Methane, Carbon Dioxide, and Molecular Hydrogen

Here from the abstract:

Abstract
Termites may emit large quantities of methane, carbon dioxide, and molecular hydrogen into the atmosphere. Global annual emissions calculated from laboratory measurements could reach 1.5 x 10^14 grams of methane and 5 x 10^16 grams of carbon dioxide. As much as 2 x 1014 grams of molecular hydrogen may also be produced. Field measurements of methane emissions from two termite nests in Guatemala corroborated the laboratory results. The largest emissions should occur in tropical areas disturbed by human activities.

5 x 10^16 grams of CO2 is 50,000,000,000,000,000 grams or 50 gigatons and lets not get into how much of the methane breaks down and converts to CO2 and O3 in the atmosphere.

According to the World Resources Institute, their doom and gloom accounting of the amount of CO2 we produce per year is 37 gigagons in 2018... By my counting, 50 gigatons is larger than 37 gigatons. Unlike you believers, I try to go to the actual science whenever I can rather than just looking till I find something that agrees with what I believe.

Not sure where the 10 times business comes in...I never made any such claim...I only said that termites produce more CO2 than we do. Think about it...it is estimated that there are 1000 pounds of termites for every human being on earth...and that whole thousand pounds is producing CO2 every second minute and hour of every day...

 

[SSDD]

Agree or not?

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

Why do you say 66.4% expressed no opinion ... and then say 97.1% endorse ... are you including "no opinion" as affirmatives? ...

Why do you say 66.4% expressed no opinion ... and then say 97.1% endorse ... are you including "no opinion" as affirmatives? ..

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

If I'm interpreting this source correctly of 11,944 peer reviewed climate abstracts published between 1991-2011, 66.4% expressed no opinion on AGW.

32.6% endorsed AGW and 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

Of the 33.6% of abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

If those numbers reflect 2020 reality, it makes this claim by NASA appear misleading, at least?

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."

If you research the history of science, you will find that nearly 100% of the time, the consensus regarding relatively new branches of sceince such as climate sceince has been wrong...and that is branches of science which haven't been hijacked by politics and people with an agenda...and very often, old consensus opinions are wrong as well..they have been falling like dominoes over the past decade....consensus is no basis to choose which side to believe....if you are looking at consensus as a deciding point, the odds would be heavily in your favor to simply choose the opposite of the consensus if you want to be on the right side....especially in a relatively new branch of science such as climatology.

 

[Silver Cat]

Any theory has its own limitations. If we say "Newton's model is good to describe movement of all planets, exept Mercury" - it is normal. If AGW-supporters say that their "CO_2 only" models works only for Mars, it could be acceptable.

More semantics ... tiresome ...

First you're talking about AGW theory ... now all of a sudden it's AGW models ... and now we're not talking about the science, but rather the (uneducated) "supporters" of AGW ... if you want to condemn the stupidity of what some people think AGW theory says, I'm on your side ... but there is an actual scientific theory that tries to explain man-kind's roll in climate, and it covers much much more than CO2 emissions ...

No one thinks AGW theory is perfect as currently stated ... as new research gets published, old ideas are changed, new ideas are added ... the matter is evolving as we type to each other ... I know, The National Enquirer doesn't publish this, try finding different sources for your climate research news ...

Ok. You say, that there is the "stupid" AGW-theory, and "smart" AGW-theory, so there are some questions:
1. Pls, show us a "smart" AWG-model, which include data about water vapour, clouds, farming, forestation/deforestation, fertilizers, fishing, whaling, Milancovich periods, volcanic eruptions and so on.
2. Why environmentalists preffer to demonstrate "stupidity", not "smartness"?
3. Why politics, industry and ordinary citisens must act accordind delibirate stupidity, at least, basing on those incomplete models?
4. Can you (or anybody else) "guarantee" that there will be no big volcanic erruption this year, with further "year(s) without summer" and "global cooling"?
5. Isn't it better to make ourselves better prepared to any climate change, rather than try to stop unstopable?

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.

7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost

Too bad our President & his followers are too stupid to acknowledge its existence let alone take action.

Republicans are sacrificing their children's future to bow down to their orange god.

Acknowledge your weird watermelon cult and religion?......what for ?

 

[RealDave]

Any theory has its own limitations. If we say "Newton's model is good to describe movement of all planets, exept Mercury" - it is normal. If AGW-supporters say that their "CO_2 only" models works only for Mars, it could be acceptable.

More semantics ... tiresome ...

First you're talking about AGW theory ... now all of a sudden it's AGW models ... and now we're not talking about the science, but rather the (uneducated) "supporters" of AGW ... if you want to condemn the stupidity of what some people think AGW theory says, I'm on your side ... but there is an actual scientific theory that tries to explain man-kind's roll in climate, and it covers much much more than CO2 emissions ...

No one thinks AGW theory is perfect as currently stated ... as new research gets published, old ideas are changed, new ideas are added ... the matter is evolving as we type to each other ... I know, The National Enquirer doesn't publish this, try finding different sources for your climate research news ...

Ok. You say, that there is the "stupid" AGW-theory, and "smart" AGW-theory, so there are some questions:
1. Pls, show us a "smart" AWG-model, which include data about water vapour, clouds, farming, forestation/deforestation, fertilizers, fishing, whaling, Milancovich periods, volcanic eruptions and so on.
2. Why environmentalists preffer to demonstrate "stupidity", not "smartness"?
3. Why politics, industry and ordinary citisens must act accordind delibirate stupidity, at least, basing on those incomplete models?
4. Can you (or anybody else) "guarantee" that there will be no big volcanic erruption this year, with further "year(s) without summer" and "global cooling"?
5. Isn't it better to make ourselves better prepared to any climate change, rather than try to stop unstopable?

What do you think these models include?

Don't you think they take into account trends in deforestation? Solar cycles, etc?

Models use pasdt/existing trends to predict based on these trends.
That is why you see " If we do not make changes, our future could look like..."

Sure, we can have a really active volcanic activity. So what?
Are you saying we should ignore AGW because of some unforeseen possible event?

Furthermore it is not unstoppable. Man made emissions are driving it so reducing man made emissions will reduce it.

And yes, you are stupid to think otherwise.