Reducing pollution is contributing to global warming?

[/pine]

Sitting next to the Cascadia Subduction Fault, I can tell you that 1000 year events leave plenty of traces that can be analyzed and dated. Thinking you have to shuffle through old newspapers for records is nonsense. The Earth speaks.

Great post...What it shows is how much Earth has changed (even in relatively short (1k years) time periods)...and that data shows that those changes did not all happen at the same rates...some were accelerated and some were retarded...
Maybe some of all the money being spent on trying to prove the unprovable (AGW)...should be spent on studying changes before humans could have had any influence...!

 

[/pine]

That paper cherry picks its data in an effort to discredit it. Fortunately for those of us who respect reality, NOAA and NASA have satellite data that is not subject to local variations.


I have no idea why the denialists are so dedicated to denying facts. It makes no sense.

Again...I have to ask...EXACTLY who is denying that the planet is undergoing some climate changes ??? WHO...name names...!

Oh and BTW....NASA and NOAA are constantly "adjusting" satellite temperature data under a plethora of reasons...and over recent history all those "adjustments" have raised both the rate and the temperatures of the planet....put those FACTS in your pipe...!

 

[/pine]

The reasonable thing to do if you challenge one nation's conclusions is to look for others.

If you want to finger point...China is widely recognized as one of the leaders in pollution and lack of environmental safeguards etc...
...But IMO...the countries that should be the most admonished are the ones responsible for the most deforestation...!

 

[dirttoys]

You don't always need a thousand years of data; you observe something over time, and accumulate observations. Typically, there is a pattern, or shape, to the distribution of your observations. You can then take your observations, and the distribution of your data over time and make an estimate for how likely some new data point would be.

It doesn't matter whether it is home runs by a hitter, bumper specifications, electrical power cable failures, whether hoof beats are zebras, or weather. You can readily make an estimate with sufficient data. The breadth/size of your base data, and the exact type of its distribution, will determine how certain the estimated data point is. The more data that you have, and the better your model is, the more accurate your predictions are. With global temperature measures, there is a surfeit of data.

What is often lost in the popular press reporting is that an estimate for a "one in a thousand year flood", is that there is a probability associated with that estimate, usually 95%, or 99%, meaning that one time in twenty or one time in a hundred that something that is estimated to be a "one in a thousand year flood", is not that. The flip side is that at least nineteen out of twenty times something called a "one in a thousand year flood", is a "one in a thousand year flood".

I admit to be at home with numbers and numerical analysis. I once made out really well with it when I came across a roulette wheel that was badly off.

It is just statistics.

Whether you believe that the climate is changing or not, the frequency of extreme weather events is increasing. (See citizen reported data here) That is just the data folks. One explanation for the fact that more extreme weather events are happening is that "**** happens". Another is that by virtue of shifts in CO2 levels, global temperature, and climate shifts are occurring. The "**** happens" explanation gives you no way to model or plan for the future. The other explanation gives people who plan, and are involved in building and maintaining things like infrastructure, such as dams, water supplies, levees, roads, power supplies, and home designs, something to make plans with to be better prepared when the future arrives.

If someone recognizes that the roulette wheel is off, and you don't, they will clean you out. That is a fact. It is called betting on a sure thing.

Americans are strangely resistant to believe in climate change compared to the rest of the world;

Climate Change in the American Mind: November 2019

Our latest national survey finds that the highest percentage of Americans since our surveys began are "extremely" or "very" sure global warming is happening.

climatecommunication.yale.edu

Which countries believe in climate change?

A new poll shows different attitudes to climate change around the globe

www.theguardian.com

All the best,

Peter

You will find patterns in patterns, we don't have the altitude to see the bigger pattern.

Between ice ages and near ice free terms on earth, you could plot it, and with 3 or four cycles of accurate experiential data, you could probably make some legit predictions.

The problem is, we are looking at the fly specs in the horse crap. We don't have accurate data of even one cycle. We are looking at 30 year cycles, inside of 300 year cycles, inside of multi thousand year cycles, inside of millennial cycles. We only have solid data for the 30 year. Applying that up, results in information of no use.

Best,

ed

 

[dirttoys]

It seems the more I read it, the less this report makes sense.
The only thing they point out, ultimately, is that the corrections made to the data over time may have made it seem like the temps went up without looking at cyclical data which could have impacted the data.
While this makes sense, it does not invalidate the data and does comparisons with disparate data to get to this conclusion, and most data is stopped at certain years in their comparisons, even though newer data is available, and used in other comparisons.

So the data models are not accurate and constantly being adjusted. Don't need a masters to see that.
That the data may make things look like they are warmer than they are, well who did they tell that to? Certainly if they are this sure they should publish for NOAA peer review.

That would make it something to be noticed.

Has that happened, I don't think so, not every scientist agrees on everything and I am sure there is someone who could champion this through the process.

We count on scientists to openly discuss this, and some have.

But I just came back from Switzerland where a 12,000 year old glacier is disappearing at an accelerating rate over the last few decades, enough that I can see the change and the layers can be measured in how many years they contain.

I hope it's just a cycle, but why not clean up our act just in case?


View attachment 758096

I think most people feel this way, and that is what makes the agenda so dangerous. Sure pick up your trash.

The problem we get into is when we try to pick winners in business, and spend trillions in national treasure for the possibility "it may help", or it "can't hurt"

Sadly (I don't believe) the money being spent by the fed gov, or the policy being created is not to save the world. It is an engineered problem to enrich politicians, and their contributors. Shift the balance of power, distract from real problems, and reduce our freedoms.

Best,

ed

 

[/pine]

Anyone care to speculate on when the first ambulance chasing lawyer will file a C.A. lawsuit against fossil fuel companies...on behalf of victims of weather related disasters...??
not that far distant from suits against tobacco cos., gun manufacturers etc...
Of course we can only expect the validity of such a lawsuit to be determined by which way the judge(s) lean politically...

 

[kenmbz]

I agree , politicians and climate=$ for most of what we see going through the "system".

 

[Doughknob]

Why is it that when progressives are confronted with material that contradicts their doctrinaire assertions (which they never examine critically) that they automatically and universally resort to insults and belittlement?
Did you not see the link in the article that has the original research?

Its already been pointed out pal. It is fake research. Why would you just automatically believe it?

 

[Torvy]

Why would you just automatically believe it?

Thanks pal. It is amazing that if we said the same thing, you would be indignant. The research I posted is not fake. It just doesn't jibe with the popular opinion. Many of the great discoveries in science bucked popular opinion.

Unfortunately, people tend to get rooting interests for political opinions as if they were sports franchises. Facts don't matter. Opposing views don't matter. Just march in lockstep with the people who have the same letter after their name. When I see two sides and no way for me to personally verify the claims, I look for which side is about control of others and which side is about liberty. Liberty wins.

 

[Doughknob]

The link to this study is clearly there in the article https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

So u think this is real? What reputable scientific journal was it published an peer-reviewed in?