[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

You seem unaware that I'm a conservative voter. Someone who believes in limited government intrusion and limited yet effective regulation. And during my lifetime I've only ever voted for the Conservative Party of Canada.

Which doesn't mean shit, because your "conservatives" are to the Left of our Progressives, much like the Tories in the UK.

Do you see enemies everywhere?

Nope.

So yeah......I'm conservative, yet more educated about climate change than most people. So you see why I get annoyed when people like you make such ignorant statements and those of us who know better get tarred with the same brush.

You don't know better, you believe you know better, and that's the root of the problem.

[The Final Shortcut]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

In this case, you might have pegged me in the wrong corner.

I'm firmly planted in the tinfoil hat wearing, conspiracy believing camp that MOST of today's climate change is NOT caused by man directly.

My main reasons to be suspicious are:

* climate change has become a "scientific religion", and exhibits many signs of a believe system, rather than fact-based discovery

I disagree with this with respect to the science itself. I think the suggestions that people make as a result of the science are where the problems arise.

* BIG MONEY is interested in using this to further their agenda

Sorry turtle, but this really is nonsense. The profits from sectors that stand to be hurt by lowered CO2 emissions - auto, oil, industry, etc - absolutely dwarf any the amounts of money going to climate scientists. Those industries maintain active anti-GW lobbies the world over, who employ sham "experts" whose sole paid profession is to make any argument possible to discredit AGW .....several of which have appeared in this thread.

I guess the question is, why do you conclude that it's the scientists that are lying? You know, the ones who have to stake their entire careers on making the most logical possible conclusions from their studies, as judged by their expert peers?

* much data is inconclusive and tortured to arrive at "proof"

I really see very little evidence of this. I think the anti-GW lobbies have a very effective campaign to make you think so. As I noted above, other scientists such as Richard Mueller also had the same impression, which he publicly stated, and he formed Berkeley Earth to find exactly that in the literature. This was a Big Deal in the anti-GW universe and trumpeted quite loudly. The results, unsurprisingly, were not in their favor - and immediately buried as best as they could.

* it's being used to achieve political goals

Agreed entirely. But as I've said here - that's something entirely different - one can separate the science from the political fallout. And furthermore, the anti-GW lobby is correspondingly being used to achieve political goals - except with a much more direct benefit. In that respect, I really don't view this as a valid argument, although it is certainly my personal sore point in the climate change venue (the amount of money being thrown at marginal returns technology is just painful).

[The Final Shortcut]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Which doesn't mean shit, because your "conservatives" are to the Left of our Progressives, much like the Tories in the UK.

No. Really not. Unless you're talking about social issues, in which case we are far more libertarian than you people, yes.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

No. Really not. Unless you're talking about social issues, in which case we are far more libertarian than you people, yes.

Libertarian ism is about individualism, and voluntary cooperation between individuals. What you have been advocating is "my way or the highway" (via government force), irrespective of what individuals think.

The libertarian way to deal with the issue of climate catastrophe (or any other "problem") would involve setting up of private interest groups, businesses, etc.... without requiring government to impose it on every individual.

If the majority of people do indeed subscribe to the "climate change" AND care enough about it, the market will shift resources accordingly. (If you care so much about CO2 emissions, stop using fossil fuels(direct and indirectly) as an individual. It is ANTI libertarian to force someone else to do the same with the threat of force.)

The fact is, people, whether poor or rich care more about using cheap fossil fuels to better their lives than what the "climate change" vested interests have been offering. "Climate Change" is the religion of the rich. Why? Because the measures being recommended to deal with it, will make it exponentially harder for poor peoples and countries to afford energy. The rich will be able to absorb the price hikes on fossil fuels with ease, the poor not so much.

One question. What is the goal of the climate "alarmists"? What are they trying to achieve? is it reduction in CO2 levels? Is it lowering the global temperature? is it to reduce natural disasters? WHY? (this is a sincere question)

[The Final Shortcut]

First off, I specifically said "social issues". And I advocated no such thing as "my way or the highway" - please stop making up completely baseless claims.

Secondly, I think your last question is a good one. I think an easy answer is that human dominance and flourish ent has come during a time of relatively stable global temperatures. Increased global temperatures are expected/predicted to cause significant changes in the way we live throughout many parts of the world. This will be great for some areas, but as a whole it seems unlikely to be a net positive benefit to us - adapting will likely cost more money, resources, time, and stress.

Perhaps a good question for a climate non-alarmist such as yourself is: what do you hope to achieve by warming the planet?

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

First off, I specifically said "social issues". And I advocated no such thing as "my way or the highway" - please stop making up completely baseless claims.

Secondly, I think your last question is a good one. I think an easy answer is that human dominance and flourish ent has come during a time of relatively stable global temperatures. Increased global temperatures are expected/predicted to cause significant changes in the way we live throughout many parts of the world. This will be great for some areas, but as a whole it seems unlikely to be a net positive benefit to us - adapting will likely cost more money, resources, time, and stress.

Perhaps a good question for a climate non-alarmist such as yourself is: what do you hope to achieve by warming the planet?

I'm not trying to achieve anything by imposing a cost of everyone else. So i cannot be called onto justify anything. And if i was trying to achieve anything, i would do so through persuasion via the free market (of ideas and products) (as opposed to coercion backed up with the threat of force, or distorting the choices of people with artificial costs).

Relatively stable temperatures? You do realize that since the end of the ice age, life on this planet has flourished due to the increasing global temperature (when man made climate change was pretty much nothing). And specifically human populations have increased due to, not in spite of, increasing temperatures. "Man made climate change" started when early humans burnt wood to overcome freezing temperatures. The use of fossil fuels has contributed to better and healthier lives for much of our history, it enabled us to overcome the forces of nature to preserve our lives. As global temperatures have increased human populations have increased, not decreased, and global populations are still increasing today, not decreasing(fact).

The planet is not static. Species of animals and plants have been coming and going throughout the history of this planet(darwinism). If anything, we as a species adapt and move as required. These trends are over generations not single lifetimes. If sea levels rise, do you honestly think its going to happen overnight, that people wont be able to see it happening and move? This is real life, it isn't like in the movie "Day After Tomorrow".

Are you interested in preserving human lives? Then instead of funneling billions into "green" power by overtaxing fossil fuels and in the process making it more expensive for the poor to get to work, and raising the cost of food and other products for everyone, etc.... all for next-to-no-benefit to anyone(except the green brigade who happily take the money), why not divert resources to cure diseases which ACTUALLY DO present a threat to our species? (Or better yet, let private citizens spend/invest that money in whichever cause they see fit to). With the amount people have been forced to pay to subsidize "green" energy the world over, over the last few decades, you would have probably been able to cure a handful of diseases instead.

Do me a favor and just say this out loud to yourself.... "I want government(s) to try and preserve the current global temperatures". Do you realize how absurd that sounds?

[The Final Shortcut]

I don't even

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

No. Really not. Unless you're talking about social issues, in which case we are far more libertarian than you people, yes.

[The Final Shortcut]

Uh huh. I mean, like the kind of conservatives that reduce the size of government per capita, lower taxes, and don't regulate social issues like abortion or gay marriage.

No place is perfect. But your shitty handout-demanding state can hardly lay claim to conservatism.

[BadKosh]

"Handout demanding" is a LIBERAL TRAIT!!!

[BadKosh]

double post...

[The Final Shortcut]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

Uh huh. I mean, like the kind of conservatives that reduce the size of government per capita, lower taxes, and don't regulate social issues like abortion or gay marriage.

No place is perfect. But your shitty handout-demanding state can hardly lay claim to conservatism.

I'd like to apologize in advance for using the word shitty - I think that must have been a weird typo, as I wouldn't normally say that about someone else's place and I actually loved Tennessee last time I drove through it.

i have a lot more problems with the new iOS 9 and this site - doesn't work that great.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

Uh huh. I mean, like the kind of conservatives that reduce the size of government per capita, lower taxes, and don't regulate social issues like abortion or gay marriage.

No place is perfect. But your shitty handout-demanding state can hardly lay claim to conservatism.

You really should keep deflecting the thread topic, who knew someone purportedly of science (heh) could produce so many logical fallacies in one thread?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

I'd like to apologize in advance for using the word shitty - I think that must have been a weird typo, as I wouldn't normally say that about someone else's place and I actually loved Tennessee last time I drove through it.

Oh, the hypocrisy.

[The Final Shortcut]

What are you even talking about? You've done nothing but make snipes, rants and innuendo for the last two pages - literally, [i]zero[/] rational input since providing the fake, made-up NY Times graph about polar bear numbers.

We all know that you refuse to admit that you're wrong - you probably haven't done so in the history of this site. So if you have nothing to add to your own thread, why not just shut up and sit down?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

literally, [i]zero[/] rational input since providing the fake, made-up NY Times graph about polar bear numbers.

More irony!

So if you have nothing to add to your own thread, why not just shut up and sit down?

Take your own advice, tough guy.

[The Final Shortcut]

It's ironic that....you were completely wrong?

Wait.....you still haven't admitted that, right?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Because I'm not "completely wrong", and you've not proven your assertion that I am, anyway.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

40 years ago these same scientists were all sorts of sure we were entering another ice age, so that idea that these guys are somehow unimpeachable is laughable,

NO. 40 years ago scientists identified factors that could result in a cooling of the planet. Some scientists thought these factors would prevail over factors warming the planet, some didn't. The media decided this debate meant we were heading for a new ice age. The global ice age was a theory put forward with the follow up that maybe some evidence could be found that would allow scientists to produce predictions on possible cooling. A theory which failed to make these predictions and was abandoned.

You may say that the evidence for man made climate change is overwhelming, you may say it isn't. What you CAN'T say is that because you erroneously believed that scientists got something wrong once you should not trust them on other predictions.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

You may say that the evidence for man made climate change is overwhelming, you may say it isn't. What you CAN'T say is that because you erroneously believed that scientists got something wrong once you should not trust them on other predictions.

My point is that it's by no means a mature science, nor should a great deal of trust be put into the models being used. As such, you absolutely can and should scrutinize the scientists, especially since their predictions are being used for policy that has wide ranging impacts.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Today I had a talk with a college student, convinced of anthro climate change, and I asked,

"Do you think the climate would be changing if we weren't even here?"
She replied, "I don't know."
(Fair enough.)
"Has the climate changed before without our involvement?"
"I think so."
"What makes you think we're causing it now when, throughout history, it's been changing all on its own without us?"
"Aren't these important things to know before you back a stance that has potentially disastrous implications?"

[The Final Shortcut]

I think you could stand to talk to more people who actually know about climate science.

Your questions are rudimentary. We know that we are causing climate change. We know that CO2 acts as a GHG - that was figured out in the 1800s. it's simple chemistry and physics. It's also why scientists had hypothesized that it was a driver of our favourable atmosphere - decades before we actually had studied atmospheric concentrations in relation to heat. And we can also roughly calculate how many GHGs incl. CO2 that humans have produced over the past hundreds to thousands of years.

The fact that you think we might not be causing climate change is frankly astounding. We are. We have to be.

The real questions that people are working on are related to narrowing down the precise extent, and calculating the various drivers that might take effect to one way or the other. And related to those, what amount of our change we can accept going forward and the cost-benefit analysis of whether we should bother doing anything to slow it.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

*grand sweeping assertions, no data*

Not astounding. In fact, typical now.

[The Final Shortcut]

Ignorance is bliss

[OAW]

To deny that human activity isn't contributing to climate change because the climate has changed before on its own is like saying that human activity doesn't contribute to fish population declines because they've declined on their own in the past. As if fishing boats hauling in TONS of fish out of the ocean on a daily basis doesn't have a damned thing to do with it. It's downright idiotic quite frankly.

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

Ignorance is bliss

You speak from experience.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

To deny that human activity isn't contributing to climate change

Full stop. Nice straw man, I didn't say that.

As I said earlier:

This just looks like some projection. I just wanted to have a talk about the methods used by climatologists to come to their conclusions, especially in light of the fact those methods are being questioned by one of the greatest scientists in the world. Again, I'm not doubting that climate change is happening, or even that mankind is making it worse, I'm just curious if we're looking at it all from the wrong direction and wasting time and resources in the process.

Not that such things have slowed you down before...

[BadKosh]

I'm just waiting for a prediction to actually come true. So far it's just Henny Pennie clucking. Its funny seeing AlGore and his fictional "An inconvenient truth" and seeing how many of his predictions are wrong. I wonder if they 'll re-classify it a parody, or comedy/fiction.

[The Final Shortcut]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

"What makes you think we're causing it now when, throughout history, it's been changing all on its own without us?"

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Full stop. Nice straw man, I didn't say that.

Oh, you're not sayin it.....but you're not not sayin it, are you?

[Chongo]

Obama is expected to reveal the name of the the main culprit tonight. His name is Cimate bin Changin.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

Oh, you're not sayin it.....but you're not not sayin it, are you?

My stance is plain and unchanged, you're just slow.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Obama is expected to reveal the name of the the main culprit tonight. His name is Cimate bin Changin.

My keyboard is now dotted with coffee spewed from my mouth upon reading that! Boy is that funny.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Obama is expected to reveal the name of the the main culprit tonight. His name is Cimate bin Changin.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

My keyboard is now dotted with coffee spewed from my mouth upon reading that! Boy is that funny.

I need to give credit where it's due.
BREAKING! Obama Releases Name Of Third Terror Suspect - Climate Bin Changin' RedFlag News

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

Oh, you're not sayin it.....but you're not not sayin it, are you?

Precisely.

OAW

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

To deny that human activity isn't contributing to climate change because the climate has changed before on its own is like saying that human activity doesn't contribute to fish population declines because they've declined on their own in the past. As if fishing boats hauling in TONS of fish out of the ocean on a daily basis doesn't have a damned thing to do with it. It's downright idiotic quite frankly.

OAW

But just how, and to what degree the climate is being affected by man is what's at issue here. Unless you ascribe to the "something is better than nothing" line of reasoning when determining the future of our economic stability (and by extensions ability to conduct such science).

My arm is bleeding?! Better take a shower! Something is better than nothing.

[OAW]

^^^^

But I would submit that this is something that doesn't particularly lend itself to hundreds of years of study to be 100% sure. If the projections are correct by the time that happens it'll be too late. So it really comes down to a question of VALUES. What's more important? The potential survival of humanity? Or the next quarterly earnings results?

But REGARDLESS ... moving to sustainable energy is a good thing any way you slice it. From a pollution perspective alone. Have you seen BEIJING lately?

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Precisely.

OAW

Precisely... nothing.

[The Final Shortcut]

I find it hilarious that you started this thread and and have contributed so many posts.....and yet have made zero discernible arguments in it and attacked anyone who has tried to ascertain your position from the brief comments you have made.

The thread title? No that was a question, not a statement or a position. The various articles that suspiciously relate to the thread title? No those are for informational purposes only. Your statements about humans possibly not causing global warming? That's not what you said. Your statements about polar bear numbers, which was shown to be total misinformation? No, those details aren't important.

It's a very typical tactic from Shaddim - there's an overall message he's making, but nothing you can actually debate, because he will not state an actual arguable point that can be attributed to him (and possibly proved wrong).

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

I find it hilarious that you started this thread and and have contributed so many posts.....and yet have made zero discernible arguments in it

Liar.

The thread title? No that was a question, not a statement or a position.

I know, maybe I should have used a question mark, or even phrased it as a question. Oh wait...

The various articles that suspiciously relate to the thread title? No those are for informational purposes only.

Because I shouldn't use articles that relate to the thread title? If I used unrelated articles wouldn't that be counterproductive?

Your statements about humans possibly not causing global warming? That's not what you said.

I said we're probably making it worse, and that was pretty early on in the thread, too. Did we start climate change? Nope.

Your statements about polar bear numbers, which was shown to be total misinformation? No, those details aren't important.

It isn't, and you've not proven that it is, you just "say so" without supplying your own evidence, which isn't worth a bucket of cold piss. One number of the graphic I posted is in question, 5,000, which your source said is, "likely wrong", but doesn't supply supporting evidence. Either way, even your source says there's far more today, which still jives with my main point, there are far more today. The only "total misinformation" in this are your own assertions that I was purposely trying to lie or mislead, which I wasn't (and I'm still not). If you are a scientist you're a very piss poor one, that's for sure.

It's a very typical tactic from Shaddim - there's an overall message he's making, but nothing you can actually debate, because he will not state an actual arguable point that can be attributed to him (and possibly proved wrong).

You can't even argue a ****ing point, just line after line of logical fallacies and baseless assumptions, predicated on the expectation that we just take you at your word. "Oh, this is a fact, I know people in Climate Science!" Based on your own performance here, I think it's just as likely you know the goddamned Easter Bunny. Where did you get your degree, a box of Cracker Jacks? How did you stand for your dissertation? Was it a certificate of attendance for showing up? Is that what qualifies for an education where you're from? It's abso-****ing-lutely impossible to believe that you even attended university, much less represent someone who earned a graduate degree. What idiots put your name to parchment, because you're a damned disgrace.

[Hawkeye_a]

Ice age delayed by humans... by 100,000 years

Apparently delaying an ice age, which has the potential to kill millions of humans, is a bad thing.

Apparently, lives of people don't really matter, when it conflicts with the 'cause'.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Ice age delayed by humans... by 100,000 years

Apparently delaying an ice age, which has the potential to kill millions of humans, is a bad thing.

Apparently, lives of people don't really matter, when it conflicts with the 'cause'.

You're complaining we don't care about people's live 100,000 years from now because we're focused on the lives of people 100 years from now?

[P]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Ice age delayed by humans... by 100,000 years

Apparently delaying an ice age, which has the potential to kill millions of humans, is a bad thing.

Apparently, lives of people don't really matter, when it conflicts with the 'cause'.

CNN can't read. Ars has a better summary:

We narrowly missed a new ice age, and now we won’t see one for a long time | Ars Technica

At the end of the interglacial 800,000 years ago, the low in sunlight was about the same as today, but CO2 was at 240 parts per million—prior to the industrial revolution, our CO2 concentration was 280 parts per million. At the end of the interglacial 400,000 years ago, CO2 was also about 280 parts per million, but an ice age started because the low point in sunlight was just a bit lower. The researchers conclude that we narrowly missed an ice age off-ramp in the past few thousand years because CO2 was just a touch too high. Lower the concentration by just 40 parts per million in the model, and ice sheets would already be growing by now—though the fossil fuel revolution would still be dictating a planetary U-turn.

So: some time during the last few thousand years, we reached a low point in sunlight, but the CO2 concentration at that point was about 280ppm - which was too high to trigger an ice age. The next sunlight minimum is 50'000 years from now, but at current CO2 levels, that one won't be enough to trigger an ice age either. If we were back at the 280ppm we had before our current climatic experiment, it would probably be enough. So if we stop polluting tomorrow, the next scheduled ice age in 50'000 years won't happen, but it might happen later. If we go on as we have done or only cut back slightly, there is no ice age for as long as they ran the simulation. Of course, the same type of simulations show that we will have flooded the planet much sooner than 50'000 years from now, so when the next ice age shows up becomes rather moot.

[Waragainstsleep]

I think its safe to say we are definitely changing the climate. What we can't prove is the net benefit or detriment. 'Better safe than sorry' would usually apply but as is typical there is an element preferring to go with 'better rich than keeping other people safe'.

[P]

We can show that water levels will rise as temperatures rise - the water is rising already, this is not a theoretical discussion anymore. That means that the people who are going to be flooded are going to lose their homes. They don't particularly care if climate change also has positive effects somewhere else - especially not if those effects are 50'000 years from now.

[BadKosh]

Sure its NOT erosion?

[Captain Obvious]

Human life IS cheap.
We all believe that to some degree as is shown with the shrugging off of preventable deaths in various parts of the world without so much as a second thought. The general public's lack of self awareness of this truth is predictable because, Bell Curve, but the sooner we start to act in accordance with this reality the better it is for humanity.

With that in mind if changes in the climate don't trouble you that's fine. With such a large percentage of the populace being so weak-minded that they still need to believe in god I wouldn't expect that explaining the complexity of the chain of events caused by warming sea temperatures would be within their grasp anyway. We should however remove those safety nets government has in place to protect them in the short run so the reality sinks in.

*Subsidized insurance for people living in hurricane country. Gone.
*Live on a flood plane and need FEMA to swoop in to save you. No.
*Wild fires on the west coast turning your house into ash. Go **** yourself.
*Want to use federal land to graze your cows. How about we shoot them for you instead.
*Your family farm is being foreclosed on because of years of under performing harvests. Lulz.

They higher up the societal food chain you are the less it will effect you. Which is good because there's a correlation between your position and your educational level and we all know were creationists and climate change denialists fall on that spectrum. We've been too quick as a country to prevent Darwinism from taking its natural course.

But natural selection doesn't stop there. This is going to cut heavy into the brood of illegitimate children and their biological parents all of whom have next to no statistical chance of being productive members of society anyway. Not to mention that the hardest places to be hit will be Asia, Africa, and the Middle East all of whom are reproducing at rates unsustainable to provide for.

Maybe by the time we thin the herd by a couple billion everyone will be on the same page about the necessity to discuss climate change. And as I just pointed out the majority of the deaths would be of people that were going to cause society the biggest burdens anyway.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Human life IS cheap.
We all believe that to some degree as is shown with the shrugging off of preventable deaths in various parts of the world without so much as a second thought. The general public's lack of self awareness of this truth is predictable because, Bell Curve, but the sooner we start to act in accordance with this reality the better it is for humanity.

With that in mind if changes in the climate don't trouble you that's fine. With such a large percentage of the populace being so weak-minded that they still need to believe in god I wouldn't expect that explaining the complexity of the chain of events caused by warming sea temperatures would be within their grasp anyway. We should however remove those safety nets government has in place to protect them in the short run so the reality sinks in.

*Subsidized insurance for people living in hurricane country. Gone.
*Live on a flood plane and need FEMA to swoop in to save you. No.
*Wild fires on the west coast turning your house into ash. Go **** yourself.
*Want to use federal land to graze your cows. How about we shoot them for you instead.
*Your family farm is being foreclosed on because of years of under performing harvests. Lulz.

They higher up the societal food chain you are the less it will effect you. Which is good because there's a correlation between your position and your educational level and we all know were creationists and climate change denialists fall on that spectrum. We've been too quick as a country to prevent Darwinism from taking its natural course.

But natural selection doesn't stop there. This is going to cut heavy into the brood of illegitimate children and their biological parents all of whom have next to no statistical chance of being productive members of society anyway. Not to mention that the hardest places to be hit will be Asia, Africa, and the Middle East all of whom are reproducing at rates unsustainable to provide for.

Maybe by the time we thin the herd by a couple billion everyone will be on the same page about the necessity to discuss climate change. And as I just pointed out the majority of the deaths would be of people that were going to cause society the biggest burdens anyway.

Hilarious for this post about natural selection and our thinning the herd to come after "sure it's not erosion".

[The Final Dakar]

Hawkeye? Don't tell me you post and ran...

In the meanwhile, Ars posted a great article. It explains a few things I used ti see posters like ebuddy cite as undermining the science.
Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data | Ars Technica

Around 1960, the guidelines changed from late afternoon observations to morning observations. That kicked in over time (many stations didn’t change until a new volunteer took over) and there’s a substantial cooling bias over that time period as a result. In the 1980s, the National Weather Service asked volunteers to switch to electronic thermometers, adding another cooling bias. So in the US, accounting for non-climatic factors ends up increasing the warming trend over the raw data—which we know is wrong.

...

One station issue that has long been a favorite of those who reject climate science relates to the fact that cityscapes tend to heat up in the sun more than rural landscapes do. Just as moving a weather station from the post office building to an airport creates a cooling bias, a city growing up around a station can create a gradual warming bias.

Evaluating this “urban heat island” effect was also on Berkeley Earth’s to-do list. They found (as others have) that it had no effect on their estimates of global temperatures. Zeke Hausfather, now a research scientist on the Berkeley Earth team, led a separate 2013 study examining this question. That study split about 10,000 US stations into urban and rural ones, examining their warming trends separately. “There was some difference in the raw data,” Hausfather told Ars. “But once you do [the homogenization], there’s no difference between urban and rural stations.”

...

The changes around World War II led to some very significant adjustments to the raw marine data. And that means they have a big impact on the calculated global warming trend over the past century. “The single biggest effect in the climate record is the change from the buckets to the engine room intakes, and the engine room intakes are of the order of 0.6 degrees Celsius warmer than the buckets,” Thorne said. “So if we didn’t correct for that effect, we would be saying that global warming was about 0.4 degrees Celsius per century warmer than it has been."

...

As far as gold standards go, these satellite measurements also have their own quirks and biases that have to be studied and adjusted for. Being on a satellite does not make a thing magic.

Over a dozen different satellites have provided measurements since 1978 (not all at the same time.) Each used a device that measures microwave radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface and by gases in the atmosphere. Like a burner on a stove, Mears said, the atmosphere glows. “But it’s not hot enough to glow in the visible—it glows in the infrared and the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum.”

“Depending on exactly what frequency you measure, the instrument sees different distances into the atmosphere,” Mears continued. Precisely at a frequency of microwave radiation emitted by oxygen, you’ll just see the stratosphere (where the ozone layer lives). But turn the knob just a bit, and you can tune in the troposphere—the 10 kilometers or so between the surface and the stratosphere. So what you get is an average temperature from that thick layer, which means these measurements are not interchangeable with weather stations six feet off the ground or the temperature of the sea surface.

...

The satellites orbit the Earth from pole to pole, passing over each location at the same time of day each time. But many of the satellites don’t quite nail this rhythm and are progressively falling a little more behind schedule each day. Since temperature changes over the course of the day, your measurements for that location would slowly change over time even if every day were the same temperature. It’s as if you started checking the temperature at your house at 5:00pm each day but after a few years ended up checking at 7:00pm instead.

The “no warming in 18 years” claims simply stem from the fact that the warm El Niño conditions around 1998 stand out very strongly in the satellite record, producing a cherry ripe for picking. “Of course if you start riding your bike from the top of a hill, you’re gonna go downhill for a while,” Mears said. By starting in 1998 rather than, say, any year previous, you can draw a flat line to the present. (Since the current El Niño is just as strong, we should see a similar hill appear in the satellite data as that warmth moves poleward from the tropics.)

[The Final Shortcut]

All quiet on the climate change front?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

All quiet on the climate change front?

The world is still here....funny I thought for sure we'd all be dead by now.