ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Climate Change Reality Review for City State and National Leaders

Updated on May 11, 2019
Robert Kernodle profile image

I am a serious amateur who has been independently researching and writing about climate issues since 2009.

Current state of climate-change education photo compiled by Robert G. Kernodle
Current state of climate-change education photo compiled by Robert G. Kernodle

What Climate Change is Not

Accurate data exists from a variety of reliable, professional sources that indicate trends in the climates of various Earth regions. In looking at this data, it is important to remember that climate change is not an unusual phenomenon, but rather a phenomenon that has existed since Earth's beginning.

Today, many people speak of "climate change" as if human beings alone are the cause of it. This use of the phrase, however, is not what the phrase actually means. Climate has always changed, with or without human beings. Today's fashionable focus on humans has drifted in a direction that misuses the term. Consequently, the popular idea of "climate change" encourages uneducated, incorrect language that misrepresents the idea entirely.

Climate change is not what humans cause, but rather what happens with or without humans in the Earth-atmosphere system. The human focus alone, therefore, is egotistical on the part of humans who think that they are this much in control.

What the Data Says

We are routinely informed that temperatures are rising abnormally, that sea level is rising at an alarming rate, that droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, and wildfires are surging to new heights of intensity, while ice is melting, and life as we know it is threatened in an unprecedented way.

Real-world, hands-on data reveals a different truth than this popularly-portrayed "truth".

Temperature

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies (often abbreviated as GISS) provides the following Figure 1: Trend of global annual surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 mean:

Source

This graph represents how much the whole Earth's temperature changed from its 1951-1980 average, over a hundred years.

Look at the left-hand side of the graph that shows the range of change. This range is measured in increments of 0.2 or two tenths of a degree.

Notice that, over more than a hundred years, the temperature of the whole Earth has remained within 0.8 or eight tenths of a degree. From 1880 to about 1933, the temperature of the whole Earth was cooler within 0.2 or two tenths of a degree, and from about 1933 to the present, the temperature of the whole Earth has been warmer within 0.5 or five tenths of a degree.

Tenths of a degree! The whole Earth! For over a hundred years! This is remarkably stable.

Temperature increments on this graph, while quite small in magnitude, are represented as quite large graphically. Twenty years on the bottom part of the graph is allotted the same space as 0.2 or two tenths of a degree on the left part of the graph. This gives the impression that a very small change in temperature, over a large number of years, is a big change.

The human body cannot even sense a tenth of a degree. We routinely live our lives comfortably within multiple whole degrees of temperature change. Tenths of degrees, therefore, mean nothing in our daily reality, and yet we are told by popular reports that tenths of degrees will be catastrophic for the Earth.

Why are we being told this? Ask yourself this question. Why are tenths of a degree being announced as huge risks for the planet? I will not speculate as to why. I simply ask the reader to consider this question seriously.

Then consider the following, more realistic representation of Earth's temperature over all these years:

Realistic, practical representation of the remarkable stability of global temperature over the past hundred or so years.
Realistic, practical representation of the remarkable stability of global temperature over the past hundred or so years. | Source

Sea Level

Popular accounts of climate change claim that sea levels are rising at an accelerating pace. Real-world data proves this claim false.

The fact is that sea level has always risen and fallen over the eons, and today's rising is nothing unusual, compared to what has always happened.

Sea level, thus, has been doing what it has been doing for quite some time, at the same rate, not at an accelerated rate, as shown by the following graph from the United States Environmental Protection Agency:

The steady rate of sea-level rise continues today, as it has since the year 1880, with no accelerating trend in sight.
The steady rate of sea-level rise continues today, as it has since the year 1880, with no accelerating trend in sight. | Source

Many factors can determine a particular region's sea-level rise. Any future projection of sea-level rise is quite small, at best, and , at worst, very uncertain, since any such projection is based on educated guesses inserted into climate models.

Real-world data shows positively zero alarming trend in sea-level rise.

Extreme Weather

Popular accounts frequently report that extreme weather events are becoming more intense and more frequent. Real-world data, however, reveals that this claim is false.

Hurricanes

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) clearly states,

"Once an estimate for likely missing storms is accounted for, the increase in tropical storms in the Atlantic since the late-19th Century is not distinguishable from no change."

In other words, the frequency of hurricanes has not increased in over a hundred years.

NOAA publishes a chart that clearly shows that, between 1950 and 2015, no increasing trend in Atlantic-hurricane intensity exists. A similar chart shows a similar zero-trend in the Pacific.


These two charts appear below, where the ACE Index refers to a standard scale for measuring hurricane intensity -- it stands for "Accumulated Cyclone Energy" (ACE).

The horizontal red line shows, first, no increasing trend in Atlantic hurricane intensity for at least the last sixty-five years and, second, no increasing trend in North Pacific Hurricanes for at least forty-five years:

No trend in Atlantic hurricanes for sixty-five years.
No trend in Atlantic hurricanes for sixty-five years.
No trend in Pacific hurricanes for forty-five years.
No trend in Pacific hurricanes for forty-five years.

As for the frequency of hurricanes, actual data clearly indicates that their frequency has gone downwards, not upwards the way popular reports claim.

More people than ever before might be experiencing hurricanes. More news channels than ever before might be reporting hurricanes. More property-development than ever before might be happening in hurricane-prone regions, thus leading to more humans than ever before being affected by hurricanes.

This is a population-growth phenomenon and a property-growth phenomenon, not a hurricane-growth phenomenon.


The number and intensity of hurricanes themselves has NOT increased. Rather, the number of human beings born (or living in a location long enough) to experience hurricanes has increased.

Consequently, the claim of "more frequent and intense hurricanes" has no foundation in real-world data.

Such a claim is based on future projections from improperly tuned climate models whose highly questionable outputs are being treated as a greater reality than reality itself.

Tornadoes

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association plainly states, "... there has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years. "

At the time, data for this statement extended only to the year 2014. Since that time, as of this writing, extended to the year 2018, the trend has continued on a downward path, as indicated by the following graph:

The occurrence of tornadoes has followed a slight downward trend, since the year 1950.
The occurrence of tornadoes has followed a slight downward trend, since the year 1950.

As with hurricanes, the number of people alive to report tornadoes and to experience them has increased dramatically.

In addition, methods of detecting these storms have improved, as well as the number of instances that these storms are reported by a growing number of newscasts.

Further, people today share their hardships more than ever through social media and through a plethora of communication opportunities that never existed until recently.

Droughts

Widespread claims of increasing droughts appear regularly in the news. We even hear the phrase, "100-year drought", used in a factual sense for the current era.

Once again, however, real-world data does not support such claims.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration publishes a chart that shows no trend in droughts for at least one-hundred-twenty-five years in the contiguous forty-eight states of America:

The United States has had zero trend in droughts since the year 1890.
The United States has had zero trend in droughts since the year 1890.

An even broader examination of global events shows that droughts have been much more severe in the past:

Global droughts have been much more severe in the past.
Global droughts have been much more severe in the past.
There has been little change during the past sixty years.
There has been little change during the past sixty years.

Responsible news outlets and national organizations seem very uneducated in these facts.

Policies based on a lack of diligence in researching these facts are equally uninformed, where the public good is concerned.

Wildfires

Disaster stories make highly sought after news. Consequently, occurrences of California wildfires, over the two years before this article was written, spawned numerous alarming stories about wildfires increasing, due to climate change.

As before, this alarming claim does not stand up to real-world data for either North America or for the entire globe:

Failure to seek out this important information, before enacting relevant laws, leads to a misdirection of human resources. Mistakenly equating more disaster stories to more actual disasters is an immature approach to turning information into practical action.

City, state, and national leaders need to research cold hard facts, before bending to the whims of popular opinion or to the appeal of popular mass news reporting.

Educators are teaching lessons to students of all ages, without a proper foundation in facts, which means, from childhood to adulthood, citizens are being led down the same dark road of misinformation as government leaders who help insure their futures.

Update Made on 4-13-2019

Here are a couple more charts showing hurricane numbers and frequency, starting in 1851.

Notice the lack of any significant trend in this longer interval, as well.

Chart based on NOAA data.
Chart based on NOAA data.
Chart based on NOAA data.
Chart based on NOAA data.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment
    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      7 days ago

      Here's a reality check on wind and solar power:

      https://www.manhattan-institute.org/green-energy-r...

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      8 days ago

      Here's a reality check on animal extinction:

      https://notrickszone.com/2019/05/16/recent-studies...

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      2 weeks ago

      Doc,

      I am not sure how you conclude that I am the one who won't look.

      I have provided evidence, and it is you who will not look at it and recognize it as such.

      I can't help you there.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      2 weeks ago from now on

      Here is some food for thought.

      Study sponsored by NOAA finds that poorly-sited air temperature monitoring stations have artificially boosted global warming data.

      https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JAMC-D-19...

    • profile image

      C.D.Marshall 

      2 weeks ago

      How is it that all trolls on all sites repeat the exact same rhetoric? Whether it's Doc Coc or Joe Smoe it's all drafted by the same source. Funny how they claim "papers" is a source. Here I thought that giant thing in the sky that glows yellow was the source.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      3 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      I said I might check back. Been kind of quiet lately, it would seem.

      Robert, all your words are to say that "you believe" that nothing is different than in the past--though you present no evidence whatever to back your assertions. But because you believe it, does not make it so.

      In short, you are utterly in denial. You can't see because you won't look.

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      5 weeks ago

      To doc:

      ["Robert, I really have exhausted the time I have available here. But I must note that when you say "if humans are not the cause of current climate change, then human-caused climate change is not the cause of current animal migrations," you are seriously shifting your rhetorical ground."]

      I am not really sure what you might mean by this or what significance it might have. Anytime anybody frames a new sentence, he is "shifting" the ground from one logical sentence to another, and this is exactly what I did.

      You think that animal migrations today indicate a human-climate-change cause. This is the underlying assumption in your insistence that animal migrations today are "disrupted" or are alarming in some way.

      But if humans are NOT causing the climate change that could disrupt animal migrations, then how are today's migrations any more alarming than past animal migrations? ANSWER: They are NOT, because humans are NOT causing the climate change that might be causing today's animal migrations.

      It's simple logical deduction. Is this what you call "shifting"? If so, then, okay, I am shifting from one logical statement to the implied next logical statement. Nothing wrong with this -- it's how we display good reasoning.

      ["The whole gist of what you are saying has been that any warming is insignificant."]

      No, the gist of what I am saying is that any warming at all now is no more significant than any such warming of the past. And if animals are migrating today, then this is as it has been in the past, when temperatures were as they are today or more.

      Nothing special about today's warming. Nothing special about today's animal migrations that can be linked to warming caused by humans.

      [" Are you now conceding that it is, after all, as shown by all those 'animal migrations?' But it's OK, because 'It's not us doing it?'"]

      Again, no, I concede nothing that you think that I might. I am saying that animals migrate in response to warming, for sure, and that I have no proof that today's animal migrations are any more unusual BECAUSE OF WARMING than past animal migrations were because of warming.

      There are other factors that influence animal migrations, and I am not sure that all of those factors have been separated in such a way as to say whether or not temperature ALONE is a significant driving factor today.

      As with other things, the alarm over animal migrations seems attributed out of fear and superficial correlations that have not been established as cause/effect relationship. And yeah, it [animal migrations today] is okay, with respect to any human hand in changing temperatures [because we are NOT]. But maybe not okay, if something else humans are doing causes migration disruption. That's a whole other area of research.

      Look at how much land-use change humans have caused. Positively, this has had an effect on animal migrations. Every time we build a house and fence in a backyard, we influence how animals move. Humans are dominant and have done this for centuries, wiping out huge herds of animals in the American West, for example, and destroying many animal habitats, in order to create civilization.

      We might have been a bit careless in doing this. And we can be more responsible about this, for sure. But this is NOT a climate issue -- this is a land-use issue -- a true environmental-health issue, NOT a fake CO2-climate-warming issue.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      NOYFOB 

      5 weeks ago

      Paris Accord a solution to what?

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Robert, I really have exhausted the time I have available here. But I must note that when you say "if humans are not the cause of current climate change, then human-caused climate change is not the cause of current animal migrations," you are seriously shifting your rhetorical ground.

      The whole gist of what you are saying has been that any warming is insignificant. Are you now conceding that it is, after all, as shown by all those 'animal migrations?' But it's OK, because 'It's not us doing it?'

      That's a whole other level of denial, if so.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      5 weeks ago from now on

      Sno, do you really think you can sneak by calling me the deceiver?

      If I deceived by leaving out any part of an answer to this question

      “What would you say about man made carbon dioxide causing global warming if I told you that the amount of man made carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere (which scientist admit is minscule) is less than the margin of error in aprroximating the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere?”

      then why didn't you quote the rest of it. It was only a short bit if your usual BS that had nothing to do with that question. I'll post it for you since you obviously don't want anyone to see that it wasn't an answer to that question.

      "Tsad, scientists do not 'admit' that artificial CO2 is 'minscule'. It's small compared to natural fluxes, true enough--9 billion tons of anthropogenic carbon annually, as compared with 120 billion natural in terrestrial photosynthesis and 90 billion in air-sea gas exchanges, per the DOE's 'BORIS' data:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle#/media/File:Carbon_cycle.jpg

      In this sort of context, I wouldn't call ~4.5% 'minuscule', and it's certainly not negligible from a practical point of view.

      That's because the natural fluxes are balanced, and the anthropogenic flux is not--only part of those emissions are being absorbed by carbon sinks. (Specifically, 5 billion tons are taken up by land and sea sinks, leaving a net of 4 billion tons to account for the current observed annual increase of around 2 ppm.)"

      Now does that sound like an answer to this question?

      “What would you say about man made carbon dioxide causing global warming if I told you that the amount of man made carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere (which scientist admit is minscule) is less than the margin of error in aprroximating the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere?”

      Well if anyone doubts me they can go here:

      https://hubpages.com/education/Climate-Change-Pred...

      scroll down 4 comments to my question then look Back up at all the prodding I did to get him to answer that question which he never did.

      Sno, sir you are nothing but a pathetic fraud pushing a hoax of man made global warming.

    • profile image

      ScienceEducator 

      5 weeks ago

      WillStarr...it is true...the left is entirely corrupted by lies. Everything they do is and say is a lie. Normally one wouldn't make such gross generalizations that a lie in one place means a lie in another...but after years and years and looking at everything the left does...ALL they do is lie! It is incredibly consistent. In fact it is uncannily consistent. If it were just stupidity then you could expect accidental correctness...but it is consistent lying wrongness, which indicates *preference and direction*. It is in fact, reduces to, parasitism. If you simply look at them as parasites then all of their lying and everything they do becomes consistent and makes sense in that context. They can't help but lie...it is what defines them, as parasites, and parasites will indeed kill their host and destroy their host even as it means killing themselves. Just look at every degenerate thing the left stands for today...and consider whether it is consistent with evolutionary history and the survival of any sexually reproducing species. In this context, then they are a parasite that seeks to destroy our species.

      They are Last Men. Non-thinking parasitical Last Men. The thinking are the Supermen. One man is extinction, the other is life.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      5 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Let me remind all of you that almost all the support for AGW is coming from the left, and it's the same left that has insisted for over two years that President Trump is a Russian spy. Today, that lie came tumbling down.

      That, plus dozens of other provable lies coming from the left, including the charge that capitalism is causing the destruction of the planet, is why I reject the entire hoax of man-caused global warming. Just like collusion was a lie, so is AGW.

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      5 weeks ago

      ["(And I'm not flattering myself about driving the traffic, particularly; it's just a fact that lots of comments help keep a Hub featured. The *quality* of the comments isn't necessarily a big criterion!)"]

      I do not believe that it was YOU who attracted the comments here. Instead, I invited people here -- that's why lots of the comments happened -- I invited them. So, at best, BOTH of us are the cause of any traffic spike, on top of the fact that this hub was already featured.

      The hub was featured immediately. You commented. I invited people over. They came. Your comments were fodder for them, and so they commented. Without moi, it is you who would have had fewer views here. (^_^)

      And the reason that I digress on this point is because I regard your self attribution to my traffic rise as rather a self-aggrandizing gesture.

      Of late, you seem to have been focusing on animal migrations. My general answer to those comments is that if humans are not the cause of current climate change, then human-caused climate change is not the cause of current animal migrations.

      Animals have always migrated, just as climate has always changed. If there is a more intense focus on animal migration today, then logically, this focus would gain some greater attention. But the greater ATTENTION is NOT due to a greater human-caused climate change.

      To prove that animal migrations indicate a human-caused-climate-change problem, you must first prove that there IS a human-caused climate problem, and this proof does NOT EXIST.

      If anything, humans are inhibiting migration patterns, with their built structures and barriers.

      I wonder what effect massive solar farms or massive wind-mill farms would have on animal migrations. Proponents of "renewable energy" infrastructure do-overs seem reluctant to delve into this negative aspect of their grand plans.

    • profile image

      ScienceEducator 

      5 weeks ago

      "Specifically, it claims that climate science is based on flat earth theory because simplified diagrams don't show Earth's curvature."

      It's the mathematics, Doc Snow. The mathematics equates to flat Earth theory. And yes, they DO also depict a diagram as a flat plane too. There is consistency.

      The division of the solar constant by 4 is what creates the flat Earth mathematics. The solar constant *does not* impinge the entire surface of the Earth at once, and physics occurs in real time, not by averages. An input of the solar constant divided by 4 does not empirically exist. What empirically exists is the solar constant, with full intensity at the solar zenith with ~+90C of heating, decreasing as the cosine away from the zenith. The input *is not* -18C on a flat plane. And yes, it makes a difference. It makes a difference because a solar input of S/4 can't melt ice, this requiring an additional mechanism to explain higher temperatures. Whereas the real-time input can certainly explain the weather. The latter is natural, the former is an invented fake mechanism to "correct" for flat Earth mathematics.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      "...the world needs as much well-focused intelligence as possible."

      Indeed it does. Hope you'll reconsider what I've said.

      (And I'm not flattering myself about driving the traffic, particularly; it's just a fact that lots of comments help keep a Hub featured. The *quality* of the comments isn't necessarily a big criterion!)

      Thanks again for your courtesy, and be well.

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      5 weeks ago

      Doc, as I've stated in other places on the internet, I started out, years ago, as a fervent believer in what was then called "human caused global warming". I read lots of the so called "evidence". I stuck with my beliefs for years, but, over time, I DID consider the opposing arguments, and, yes, they won me over as much more rational, fact-based, and consistent with reality.

      So, I have been on the "other side" as a big fan. I CAME from the other side. This should say something revealing about my current stance -- that a reasonably intelligent person, who once believed in the threat of human-caused climate change came to the conclusion that such a belief is unfounded in fact.

      The fact that the issue is polarized, as you say, is itself a statement of truth -- that the so called "science" is most definitely NOT settled.

      How can two people like us maintain strong positions on opposite poles? That in itself tells me something is wrong with the human-caused-climate change narrative.

      Thanks for commenting, but don't flatter yourself too much about how much traffic you have driven to my hub. (^_^) I invited some of the commentators here, and they kindly dropped in, which I appreciate.

      Thanks again for stopping by, and I hope that you might gain greater clarity at some point, since the world needs as much well-focused intelligence as possible.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Robert, I appreciate you kind words about my writing, but disagree completely with your perpective. As I said, I believe that you and some of your 'team' here are the ones kidding themselves. But the topic has become so polarized that few are willing to seriously try to grasp the other's point of view, or consider evidence with an open mind.

      And yes, I fully anticipate that you'll see that statement as applicable to me.

      However, I will leave that to less partisan readers here to judge.

      Thanks, it's been fun. Maybe I'll check back and weigh in again sometime.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Tsad, you speak about "deceiving", then you quote only one paragraph of a longer comment.

      Look in the mirror, sir.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Will, "You quote yourself as your source, Doc? How convenient."

      It's a blatant promo, it's true--but then, I've spents hours now driving traffic to Robert's Hub; seems like it's only fair to get something back.

      I hope you won't use the provenance as an excuse to avoid considering the information I offer.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      "Doc Snow: Your humble admission you didn't know climatic optima and their definitions even existed is accepted."

      If you look back at my previous comments, you'll find it's not only 'accepted', it's totally imagined.

      Do you really think that if I knew nothing about thermodynamics, I'd be unable to Google up more than enough information to answer your silly questions?

      I consider the vexed question of the Second Law and so-called "back radiation" here, in a Hub published back in 2012:

      https://hubpages.com/education/Global-Warming-Scie...

      I quote Clausius's classic formulation of the second law, and consider some of the observations relevant to the Gerlick & Tscheuschner nonsense that was then current--observations antedating Clausius, and which would have formed part of the background he had in creating his formulations of the laws of thermodynamics.

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      5 weeks ago

      Doc,

      You have lots to offer, and, unfortunately, I do not have time to respond to every one of your comments.

      I suppose that you could take this as a complement, as long as you realize that what you offer is a really good education in how possible it is for a master of language to talk around the truth.

      A brief note about the mathematical physicists that you attempted to cite and misspelled a name: It's Gerlich and Tscheuschner. Here's a hubpages article that I wrote about them in 2012:

      https://hubpages.com/education/Questioning-The-Gre...

      As for Postma's "flat-Earth" claim, I think you do not understand that he means the mathematics and NOT the visual representation of the Earth. It is quite possible to know that the physical shape of Earth is a globe, and yet NOT know that a particular mathematical derivation represents a flat Earth.

      So, yeah, the claimed "scientists" CAN know that the Earth is a globe, at the same time that they FAIL to know that the mathematics they use to attribute radiation characteristics to it could only be for a flat Earth.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      5 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      You quote yourself as your source, Doc? How convenient.

    • James A Watkins profile image

      James A Watkins 

      5 weeks ago from Chicago

      Thank you for writing this excellent article.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Sci Ed--

      The link you posted is a massive fail.

      Specifically, it claims that climate science is based on flat earth theory because simplified diagrams don't show Earth's curvature. (We know they're simplified because the bottom one is helpfully labeled "A Simple Model Of The Greenhouse Effect.") If you can't see how feeble that is, I really don't know how to explain it to you.

      But the ignorance of basics really kicks in when the discussion moves to incoming solar radiation. To quote: the diagrams "represent the Earth as flat and with 342.5 W/m²." It then goes on to calculate the Sun's distance from Earth, which works out to be twice as far as we know it to be!

      Damning, isn't it? How could those so-called 'scientists' make such a bone-headed error, anyway?

      They didn't. The writer of the blog is full of applesauce. Rule one should always be "understand what you purport to criticize." What used to be called the "solar constant" is ~1361 W/m2:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance#Irr...

      So, why does the science--*not*, be it said, the diagrams as the blog claims; they give no absolute value whatever--give a value of 342.5--just 1/4 of the solar constant? (Let's note in passing that the top diagram implicitly acknowledges that, giving a relative value of S/4.)

      Why, they do that *to account for the fact that the 1361 W/m2 is projected upon the surface of a rotating spheroid*!

      https://www.ocean.washington.edu/courses/climate_e...

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Will, the nitrogen, oxygen and argon are basically inactive in terms of Earth's greenhouse effect. Thus, they are not relevant for that purpose.

      The water vapor has a typical residence time in the atmosphere of something like 2 weeks because it precipitates out. In simulations without CO2 the consequence of this is that you end up with a snowball Earth. The water vapor is significant of course, but its relative instability makes it unsuited to be a 'control'.

      And as to the notion that 'man-made' CO2 is 4% of the total, again that's not true if you are talking about the total stock in the atmosphere, which is what determines temperature. Human emissions since 1800 or so have raised atmospheric CO2 from ~280 ppm to the current ~410. That's 46%+, as I said. And also as I said, there are multiple lines of evidence supporting that conclusion. I wrote about it here:

      https://hubpages.com/politics/How-Do-We-Know-That-...

    • tsadjatko profile image

      5 weeks ago from now on

      So “Tsad, I do in fact have a doctorate... and I did in fact answer your question, which was "What you say if..." Apparently when you ask what I would say, and I tell you, you don't believe me. Not my problem.” ~ Sno

      This was my question since you want to deceive by summarizing it.

      “What would you say about man made carbon dioxide causing global warming if I told you that the amount of man made carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere (which scientist admit is minscule) is less than the margin of error in aprroximating the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere?”

      My question wasn’t "What you say if..."

      It was “What would you say about man made carbon dioxide causing global warming if...”

      Nice try Sno but typical of your deceptions. And here was your answer:

      “As to the question of margin of error in the measurements, I'd welcome any specific information you may have on that. I'm sure it's out there; scientists always pay close attention to the question of all sorts of potential errors in measurement.”

      Does that sound to anyone like an answer to my question? It’s evasive rhetoric to avoid answering my hypothetical because the answer has to be then the Co2 warming is meaningless and there is no way in hell his brainwashed mind can even entertain the thought.

      Oh yeah and his doctorate! That’s right he does have an earned doctorate,

      in composition!

      Which means he has absolutely no credentials in science but is an expert at writing to avoid answering questions.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      5 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Man's CO2 contribution is about 00.000005% of the total atmosphere.

      The atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and .9% argon. That's 99.9%.

      Only .1% of our atmosphere is composed of so-called 'greenhouse ' gases. One tenth of one percent

      Of that .1%, 95% of greenhouse gas is water vapor.

      Of the remaining 5% only about 4% (four percent of five percent) is CO2 and less than 4% of that is man-caused.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Tsad, I do in fact have a doctorate... and I did in fact answer your question, which was "What you say if..." Apparently when you ask what I would say, and I tell you, you don't believe me. Not my problem.

      Will, again, man's cumulative contribution is now over 46% of the total CO2 burden. *Not* 'tiny'.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      5 weeks ago from now on

      Will, same thing he said to me, I stand by my answer” when he never actually gave an answer! And he has no Doctorate.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      5 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      I am far from convinced that man's tiny, tiny contribution to our massive atmosphere is altering our climate to any real degree. Like peeing in a lake will increase the temperature of that lake, in the real world, it's such a tiny influence that it's insignificant.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Well, given that we ourselves evolved during the Ice Age cycles, probably, yes. As I see it, anyway.

      Though I'd have to note that human ingenuity makes us one of the least habitat-reliant species around, of course--the ultimate example to me being the pan-Arctic indigenous people (Eskimo, Inuit, Sami, etc.) They thrived in conditions even the Vikings couldn't hack.

      But even so, humans do depend on a well-functioning biosphere, so it wouldn't be wise to disrupt it (even though we are in fact doing so rapidly and in multiple ways right now, including ways quite apart from climate change).

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      5 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      "Then, Will, my original answer stands. Humanity benefits profoundly and indeed fundamentally by a rich and healthy biosphere--and the only one we have is adapted to the current ice age interglacial conditions."

      I understand that agree that man benefits from ideality, but that does not mean that today's climate IS the ideal climate for man, does it?

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Then, Will, my original answer stands. Humanity benefits profoundly and indeed fundamentally by a rich and healthy biosphere--and the only one we have is adapted to the current ice age interglacial conditions.

      Science ed-- I don't know the basis for Postma's assertion, but I do know that climate science is well aware of the shape of what humanity has been calling "the globe" for lo, these many centuries now. That knowledge is deeply embedded in many places in the science--to name two just off the top of my head, the calculation of effective insolation values, and the modeling of Coriolis forces (which obviously would be nonexistent for a flat Earth).

      I suspect the reviewer's comments were rather tongue in cheek, but it's hard to tell without more context; it may be that the reference to "your model" was not to flat earth theory itself, but to Mr. Postma's attempts to tie the same to climate theory.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      5 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      'Will--

      "Again, how do you know that the existing biosphere is best?"

      Define 'best' in this context. '

      Sure. Best as in 'ideal'. How do we know what the ideal temperature is for Earth, and by ideal, I mean for mankind. Unlike others, I place man first and don't worry too much about creatures that cannot adapt.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Science ed--

      You quote: “There should be some solid theoretical evidence provided to support your proposed idea was a better method/model which should lead to some scientifically significant results.”

      And what, exactly, was Postma's 'proposed idea'? That the earth is round?

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      CDHDRs--

      You do realize, don't you, that your comments are nigh on unreadable, between random capitalizations, inexplicable double-spacing, and a not very coherent, rambling and rhetorical style, spiced with numerous usage errors?

      However, I tried to read your latest anyway, just to be fair. It'll probably be the last time, as it wasn't a pleasant experience.

      Anyway, your point appeared to be that you believe that warmth is always GOOD for life, while cooler conditions are always BAD, as witnessed by the alleged 'fact' that there's always more biodiversity/productivity in warmer conditions.

      Well, that was a new claim to me, and seemed a bit out of line with the fabled richness of, for instance, Arctic fisheries. (That's a product, by the way, of the fact that cold waters hold far more oxygen than warm ones.) So I did a little searching, and I must say the first study I found failed to support your claim:

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC19403...

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Will--

      "Again, how do you know that the existing biosphere is best?"

      Define 'best' in this context. I really don't know what you mean by it, or how you would measure it. The existing biosphere is the only one we've got--the only one in the currently observable universe.

      And we have very good reason to think that it could be drastically impoverished by climate change, as has happened in past thermal excursions, according to the fossil record. The clearest example is probably the so-called PETM:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eo...

      If I recall, it took about 5 million years for biodiversity to regenerate--for context, that's more than 12 times longer than anatomically modern humans have existed.

      "What if a warmer climate is far better?"

      For whom? Cockroaches? 'Cause it won't be better for the biosphere as a whole, nor for humans specifically--the primary focus of my concern.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      5 weeks ago from now on

      Each ISIS attack now is a reaction to Trump policies, but all ISIS attacks during Obama's term were due to Climate Change and a plea for jobs????

      The real reason for the hoax of manmade climate change is political.

    • profile image

      Cold Gas HeeDuRs 

      5 weeks ago

      Utter, utter BoLLoCKS.

      There is only one type of formally described, Climate Optimum:

      a WARM Climate Optimum.

      The planet spends 9/10ths of it's time in glaciation, and about 1/10th of the time in interglacials.

      A reasonably small number of these interglacials were discovered to be significantly warmer than the other interglacials, and these periods, when average global temperatures surpass some internationally acknowledged,

      formal average, sometimes named, as specific Climate Optima.

      We are in one now, but it's not named. We're only JUST inside the threshold of - what did I say? WARMTH, to be IN and OPTIMUM

      but - in one, we are.

      Biological diversity goes through the ROOF when it's warmer

      and DRAMATICALLY diminishes, when it's colder,

      for a variety of reasons.

      One reason is that expanding ice caps on the continents, are not occurring in some statistical vacuum: The SOLE REASON the REGIONS above roughly NEW YORK, ENGLAND - have ANY significant ocean life at ALL, is because GLOBAL HEAT FLOW away from the EQUATORIAL REGIONS most illuminated by sunlight,

      carries myriad: uncountable small macroscopic and microscopic life, FAR toward the poles, as well as bringing warm water: which makes processing of water and lipid based organic functions, all that much easier.

      Critters chasing the macro and microscopic flora and fauna are able to stay fed in areas that glaciation precludes their moving into.

      The macro and microscopic food sources, die, and/or go into dramatically reduced breeding efficiency regimes, wiping out the food supply that travels MUCH farther, much FASTER, during warm optima.

      http://tinyurl.com/yy5y3ksn

      Everything related to polar life cycles ramps up when it's warmer. Everything related to life over about two thirds of the planet ramps up in vitality of life processes.

      This is f.u.n.d.a.m.e.n.t.a.l.s. in global climate history.

      F.u.n.d.a.m.e.n.t.a.l.s. There are many test questions from MIDDLE SCHOOL related to this VERY subject: it's one of the very first ones as children are brought into abstract thought about past history and how things are different, when key environmental variables change.

      This is 4th, 5th, 6th grade fodder.

      When was all this discovered?

      When the advent of hydraulic mining, made it possible to clear enormous tracts of land in arctic areas all the way to near the equator and it was discovered certain time frames seemed to have many more plants, and more particularly, many more WARM weather loving plants.

      Where are some places this is recognized as having occurred?

      Alaska is a famous one there are several others.

      What is one of the MAIN identifiers of these times in history from an analyst's standpoint?

      "Is there enough warmth?" When there IS, you have an OPTIMUM.

      When there ISN'T you CAN'T.

      End of Story.

      There has never been anything called a 'cool' or 'moderate' Climatic Optimum.

      Whoever told you that

      also believed a cold light blocking nitrogen atmospheric bath

      is a heater.

      And that more light blocking refrigerants

      in the bath

      such that less light goes into the planet

      make more light come back out,

      each time they make less go in.

      Tell me what the current total GHG ppm is on this planet.

      Water is at 25,000 ppm,

      CO2 is at 410 or so

      meaning total ghg concentrations in current standard air mix

      are - roughly - 25,410 ppm.

      The entire atmsophere interacts with and completely blocks, about 29% of total, otherwise available warming firelight spectra from the sun.

      The cooling green house gases are responsible, for - roughly -

      23, 24% of that with the other gases, non green house gases, responsible for the rest.

      What you have here is a situation where 25,000 ppm GHGs

      are stopping - ROUGHLY it's not square but ROUGHLY -25%.

      It's not exactly square, we both know this. but it's a reasonable enough coincidence that it's super easy to remember.

      ROUGHLY 25,000 ppm GHGs

      stop ROUGHLY 25% of all warming sunlight spectra, from ever reaching earth and warming it. Becoming part of the system.

      So this means, that - again roughly - that for ABOUT - for about every

      1,000 ppm cooling GHGs,

      1% of warming firelight spectra

      are refracted, and reflected out to space, never to warm Earth.

      The STORY you have been TOLD,

      about the

      cold nitrogen bath, that is a heater

      because cold refrigerants have been added,

      which took away 23% of incoming sunlight.

      The COLD light blocking gases

      added to the COLD not-so-much light blocking gas bath, made of Nitrogen and Oxygen,

      make 23% less light, ever reach Earth,

      and this REDUCED 23% ENERGY IN

      is supposed to be making the planet,

      leak MORE light back OUT

      every time they make LESS light, leak IN.

      And you're in here arguing endlessly with others, that - "Cawse fantsie guvurmint fellurs, what's got... bow ties, and thair on parkin playsis at werk and what not, has dun SED!"

      "YaW."

      That's your answer to the question "How do you propose 29% less light into a rock, makes more and more come out, every time less goes in?"

      It's YOUR church.

      Explain it so everyone here doesn't keep laughing in your face.

      Start, with - again roughly, "First, there was a cold, nitrogen bath."

      And end up SOMEWHERE in the vicinity of

      "And that is how a cold, turbulent, light blocking,

      nitroxy bath,

      dun come uh heedur."

      -------------

      Doc Snow

      9 hours ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Will, your question was already asked and answered. But I'll say it again, and I'll try to be a bit plainer.

      There is no "optimum temperature" *for the Earth.*

      For the extant biosphere, current temps or just a bit lower are optimum. I know this because science tells us that that biota has spent the last couple of millions of years adapting to similar, or colder, temps.

      I hope that is plain enough.

    • profile image

      Cold GaS HeeDuRs 

      5 weeks ago

      Doc Snow

      You're right about not being an expert.

      Tell me the name of the law you believe is consulted when referencing the individual gas energy constants

      in calculations related to temperatures of gases,

      so someone can calculate whether CO2 enrichment of a volume of Air, will cause it to retain more heat.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      5 weeks ago from now on

      He doesn't know, he can’t “know” it’s just more of his bs avoidance of answering a question. He did it to me when he couldn’t answer my question on Jacklee’s article.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      5 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      How do we know that Earth, as we know it, is optimal? We know that just a little cooler may trigger an ice age, but suppose a little warmer means a far better life?

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      5 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      "There is no "optimum temperature" *for the Earth.*

      For the extant biosphere, current temps or just a bit lower are optimum."

      Again, how do you know that the existing biosphere is best? What if a warmer climate is far better?

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Robert, you say:

      "...in relation to solid, given knowledge about how tolerant life forms are within large ranges of temperature change..."

      Can you point me to the data you gave about "how tolerant life forms are?" Because I seem to have missed it, either in your post or in your comments.

      "Solid evidence of what? You worry that organisms have never altered their ranges and behavior in ways consistent with warming, before humans existed..."

      I think you are losing track of the argument here. The point of citing all those phenology changes I referred to was to respond to your claim that observed temperature changes couldn't possibly be significant. Clearly, if all sorts of creatures are measurably responding to those changes, then those changes are significant. The question of whether those changes are good or bad, unusual or to be expected, is a good one, but not what we were trying to settle. Or are you now agreeing that observed temperature change is indeed significant for numerous life forms? It would be quite nice to settle one question between us!

      "My criticism of your analogy was with how you compared the temperature threshold of liquid-to-solid in water with the temperature threshold of good-life-to-bad-life in the Earth/atmosphere system, as if to say the Earth/atmosphere system stands in the same relation to a degree of temperature rise as a beaker of water stands in relation to a degree of temperature decline. There is no equivalence of water's threshold near liquid/solid to life's threshold near death in a slightly warming Earth ."

      Again, I think that's a different question. You had claimed that a degree was ipso facto insignificant; I disagree, and offered the example of the freezing/melting point of water, where a degree can make all the difference. You naturally want to make my example irrelevant, if you can, because it's hard to refute 'head on.' But it's not irrelevant, firstly because it's so far the only evidence on the point of whether or not a degree is 'significant', and secondly because the freezing/melting point is vital to all kinds of real-world processes including significant chunks of plant biology, and thirdly because there are numerous other examples of more-or-less hard limits in nature where a degree may in fact be a matter of life and death--or at least, of normal versus significantly reduced productivity.

      "You have used the same flawed reasoning in comparing the concentration of a vitamin in the human body to the concentration of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere."

      But it's not "flawed" when your point was that such proportions "must be" insignificant. Obviously, they are not.

      There are numerous other analogies showing this--for example, a typical Olympic-sized pool may have 2,500,000 liters of water in it. Suppose we pour in black paint to the same concentration as CO2 has in the atmosphere: ~400 ppm. (Actually, we're at 410 now, but let's keep the math simple.) That would obviously be 2.5 x 400 = 1,000 liters of black paint. Think anyone is going to want to swim in that? I sure don't. So, in this analogy, the 400 ppm of black paint is significant.

      Now, I sure hope you don't think that I am confusing the atmosphere, or the Earth system for that matter, with a swimming pool. But I point out with this, or any other such analogy, that *your assertion that the concentration is insignificant prima facie* can't be true, because it is not true in analagous cases. It *might* nevertheless be true that it is insignificant in the case of atmospheric CO2--but not just because the proportion seems small. To convince anyone logically, you need specific evidence that there is something about this particular case that makes the CO2 'insignificant.' Its mere proportion does not suffice. That is the sort of evidence I'm asking for, and which I haven't seen to date.

      "0.002 C/ year compared to 0.0174 C/year ?! Seriously?!"

      Yes, seriously. You're the one who cited the BOM graph from which I derived the 0.002 figure; I would have thought that you'd take what it says seriously.

      You say that the observed temperature trend exhibits "...absurdly impossible precision [outside the margins of uncertainty in the determination procedures themselves]..."

      But the margin of uncertainty of a single temperature measurement is not the margin of uncertainty of many, many repeated measurements:

      "No measurement is exact. When a quantity is measured, the outcome depends on the measuring system, the measurement procedure, the skill of the operator, the environment, and other effects. Even if the quantity were to be measured several times, in the same way and in the same circumstances, a different measured value would in general be obtained each time, assuming the measuring system has sufficient resolution to distinguish between the values.

      "The dispersion of the measured values would relate to how well the measurement is performed. Their average would provide an estimate of the true value of the quantity that generally would be more reliable than an individual measured value. The dispersion and the number of measured values would provide information relating to the average value as an estimate of the true value."

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_uncertai...

      That's why repeated measurement is a common tactic--it can reduce the uncertainty.

      Turning back to the larger argument here, my point was to give specific evidence that current rates of warming are indeed much more rapid than most climate transitions in the past. Your response is to say that the numbers--including ones derived from your own source--are meaningless.

      The corollary of that would be that you don't believe that we know anything meaningful about past or present rates of temperature change; the numbers simply can't be trusted.

      I say you are wrong--but more importantly, so does basically the entire scientific establishment, including the small but non-zero numbers of 'contrarians' like Roy Spencer, for example.

      In any case, you have demolished your own claim that "Sorry, but simply NOT true." [That current changes are more rapid.] Based on what you are now saying, the most you could consistently claim is that I (and you) can't know whether I'm right or not.

      Obviously, I disagree. Your apparent dislike and distrust of small numbers has no probative value whatever.

      And, by the way, I do hope you're appreciating my earnest efforts to drive traffic to your site!

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      TCGHDRs--

      Guess your mental telepathy must be working well, that you are able to diagnose the state of my knowledge of thermodynamics when I haven't said a word on the topic so far, at least not in this conversation.

      As it happens, I'm not posing as 'some sort of expert.' I don't have to, because I'm not the one claiming that basically the entire scientific establishment is wrong about this topic.

      Sounds like you are a fan of Gerhard & Tscheuschner, who claimed that AGW was wrong because 'thermodynamics.' All I can tell you is that point of view hasn't swayed any other thermodynamics scholars that I've heard of.

      Enjoy your nitrogen bath!

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Will, your question was already asked and answered. But I'll say it again, and I'll try to be a bit plainer.

      There is no "optimum temperature" *for the Earth.*

      For the extant biosphere, current temps or just a bit lower are optimum. I know this because science tells us that that biota has spent the last couple of millions of years adapting to similar, or colder, temps.

      I hope that is plain enough.

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      5 weeks ago

      To Doc, in reply to latest comments:

      ["Robert, incredulity in the form of generalized arguments about how apparently 'small' certain changes seem to be, is not solid evidence. But that's what you keep pro-offering."]

      How are charts that show precisely very small trends (over decades) in global temperature change, in relation to solid, given knowledge about how tolerant life forms are within large ranges of temperature change ...... "generalized arguments"?

      You are just making stuff up now.

      ["Solid evidence would be something that explains, for example, why organisms all over the planet are altering their ranges and behavior in ways consistent with response to warming, if there is as you claim no significant warming."]

      Solid evidence of what? You worry that organisms have never altered their ranges and behavior in ways consistent with warming, before humans existed; you ignore reality that organisms have indeed done so before, that indeed warming of the current magnitude has existed in the past before humans (you even said so); and you want this contradictory stance to serve as your pillar for demanding ... "solid evidence"?! Can I laugh out loud now?

      It is not I who determine what "significant" means. I simply judge what any reasonable person would judge as "significant", regarding the temperature range within which living organisms on Earth CAN withstand and HAVE withstood change in earlier times (by your own admission that temps have been as high or higher in the distant past). It's not a complex determination -- it's common sense that is subverted by academic sophistry, which sophistry is then elevated to the status of high knowledge by way of ignorant leaders [and I don't necessarily mean, "ignorant", in an insulting way -- more misguided].

      ["You try to make climate all about the atmosphere--"confusing freezing water with freezing air"--but the reality is that freezing (or melting) water is just as integral to the function of the Earth system as the atmosphere is. Sea ice modulates terrestrial temperature, to an extent, so do ice sheets. And their existence (or not) are vitally important for many life-forms, which in turn may affect carbon cycles, too."]

      Well, I did not mean to give the impression that I think climate is all about the atmosphere. I do not. I refer to the Earth/atmosphere system, when I comment.

      My criticism of your analogy was with how you compared the temperature threshold of liquid-to-solid in water with the temperature threshold of good-life-to-bad-life in the Earth/atmosphere system, as if to say the Earth/atmosphere system stands in the same relation to a degree of temperature rise as a beaker of water stands in relation to a degree of temperature decline. There is no equivalence of water's threshold near liquid/solid to life's threshold near death in a slightly warming Earth . That is the very conjecture that has NOT been proven -- a degree or so of warming, for life, is NOT the equivalent of a degree or so of cooling, for ice.

      Sea ice was not in that line of reasoning at all. That's something you just introduced, and it is a separate line of discussion. I was referring to your misuse of analogy with the liquid-to-solid ice comment.

      Clearly, you were comparing apples to oranges, or, as I said, air to water in that analogy. You have used the same flawed reasoning in comparing the concentration of a vitamin in the human body to the concentration of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere. This is a common mistake among those people who think the Earth is warming at an alarming rate.

      0.002 C/ year compared to 0.0174 C/year ?! Seriously?! You are trying to resolve, first of all, absurdly small temperature differences [hundredths or thousandths of a degree] per YEAR to, second of all, absurdly impossible precision [outside the margins of uncertainty in the determination procedures themselves], in order to make an outrageous claim of unprecedented rate of temperature rise! That's exactly the type of mountain-out-of-mole hill alarmism I'm talking about, have been talking about, and will continue to talk about, and repeat ad nauseam, if necessary, to try to get it into the minds of climate-fear-mongerers how ridiculous this temperature perspective is.

    • profile image

      JP 

      5 weeks ago

      Believing in climate change/climate alarm based on the concept of an atmospheric greenhouse effect modulated by CO2, *is believing in flat Earth theory*. Everyone should read the part in my book where the peer-reviewers asked what was wrong with basing an entire "scientific" field on flat Earth theory...lol.

      This constitutes a 100% solid justification for disbelief in climate alarm. QED. We reject flat Earth theory. :-)

    • profile image

      Thim Cold Gas HeeDuRs 

      5 weeks ago

      Doc Snow You ARE aware - right? -

      that you are on the internet, testifying boldly

      you believe a cold nitrogen-oxygen bath is a heater,

      because cold refrigerants in it

      are making 29% less sunlight warm the planet?

      You are aware you are on the internet,

      telling people you think that's real, right?

      Let me show you the difference between you,

      who think that's real,

      and other people,

      who know for a fact it's not real.

      We can name the law of thermodynamics

      written to calculate the temperatures of Air, and of CO2.

      We can tell you the name of the chart you'd use to get your Individual Gas energy Constants for Air, CO2, H2O etc

      We can tell you the name of the official global

      International

      Standard,

      base Atmospheric

      climate parameters.

      We can tell you things like

      when that law I can name but you can't,

      was written,

      who wrote it,

      when, and why.

      You don't know the name of the law,

      You don't know the name of the chart,

      You don't know the name of the World's

      officially adopted

      base climate parameters,

      You don't know when that first law was written,

      You don't know which law that chart I mentioned is part of,

      You don't know who it was written by,

      You don't know why it was written,

      You don't know the names of the 4 laws it replaced.

      You don't know what the almost immediate benefit to the world was once the law was written and adopted globally.

      Do you.

      No you don't.

      In other words you can't even name the law of thermodynamics

      you're posing as an expert about, on the internet.

      Coincidentally, you also believe

      a cold light blocking Nitrogen bath,

      is a heater.

      Tell me the name of the law you're posing on the internet, as an expert about.

      Tell me the name of the chart you use,

      when you show people how CO2 has the higher

      Individual energy Constant causing CO2 enrichment

      to lead to additional heat retention by a volume of air.

      What line of the chart is Air on, and what line is CO2 on?

      When you can't answer a SINGLE one of these questions

      explain why you're posing as an Atmospheric Sciences expert

      on the internet, in spite of not even knowing

      what law of physics you're lying about being an expert on?

      .

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      5 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      The real climate question:

      What is the optimum temperature for Earth and how do you know that?

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Robert, incredulity in the form of generalized arguments about how apparently 'small' certain changes seem to be, is not solid evidence. But that's what you keep pro-offering. Solid evidence would be something that explains, for example, why organisms all over the planet are altering their ranges and behavior in ways consistent with response to warming, if there is as you claim no significant warming. ("Significant" being the most important word here--and the primary difficulty being, in my opinion, your insistence on being the a priori judge of what that word means.)

      You keep accusing me of ignoring context, yet all the while you keep ignoring mine. For instance, you say that "as you continue to ignore the physical contexts of systems and attempt to substitute metaphors for legitimate, rational, physical comparisons." By this you seem to be referring to my example--not metaphorical in the slightest, please note!--of the freezing point. You try to make climate all about the atmosphere--"confusing freezing water with freezing air"--but the reality is that freezing (or melting) water is just as integral to the function of the Earth system as the atmosphere is. Sea ice modulates terrestrial temperature, to an extent, so do ice sheets. And their existence (or not) are vitally important for many life-forms, which in turn may affect carbon cycles, too.

      So, from where I sit, it isn't me that's ignoring context.

      As to the 'coming out of an Ice Age' issue, no, we aren't, in any meaningful sense. The little Ice Age:

      "...has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries, but some experts prefer an alternative timespan from about 1300 to about 1850."

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

      Either way, it's long since over.

      As to the actual Ice Age--by which you presumably mean the current interglacial--no, we aren't coming out of it, either. I already told you that the height of interglacial warmth was several thousand years back. This period is usually called the "Holocene Thermal Optimum", and you can read about it in many places, of which this is just one:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_op...

      "The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years BP, with a thermal maximum around 8000 years BP. It has also been known by many other names, such as Altithermal, Climatic Optimum, Holocene Megathermal, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, Hypsithermal, and Mid-Holocene Warm Period."

      Note the graph of reconstructed temperatures in the article. Unlike the BOM graph you cite, which considers too long a time scale to be able to assess temperatures during the current interglacial, it clearly shows the temperature history of the Holocene.

      "But this just supports what I have been saying all along -- that today's warming is NOT unprecedented, contradicting your earlier claims."

      I would invite you to look back at what I've said, as I don't think I've ever said such a thing. I have said that today's *rates* of increase are unusually rapid by the standards of past climate change (at least as far as we can resolve the record). As an example, let's take that BOM graph you linked to. For convenience, here' the link once again:

      http://www.bom.gov.au/info/climate/change/gallery/...

      The most rapid warming I see properly resolved in that graph is the second phase of the onset of the current interglacial, which appears to be roughly 12,000-10,000 years ago. It's shown as taking GMST from about 11.5 to about 15.5 C. So that's a warming of 4 C which, over 2,000 years, translates to a warming rate of 1 in 500, or 0.002 C/yr. The currently observed rate of warming in the GISTEMP thermometer data is 0.0174 C--8.7 times more rapid.

      I've actually spent a little time in the past, trying to see if there are examples in paleoclimate history of more rapid global change, and the short version is that it's hard to tell. The so-called 'D-O' events are a candidate but they probably weren't coherent on a global scale:

      https://www.nature.com/articles/srep20535

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      5 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Earth has been both far warmer and far cooler. In the warm eras, the Earth was tropical and plants sequestered the CO2 we are releasing today. In the cool eras, we had ice ages with limited food and life.

      With that in mind, what is the optimal temperature for Earth and how do we know that?

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Great question, Brad. Unfortunately, it'll probably inspire far too many words from me, yet again. I'll try to hold the verbiage down, though.

      First, I unequivocally support the Paris Accord. It finally addresses the need to bring all or almost all of the nations of the world onboard in seeking a solution to climate change--a goal that was front and center in US climate policy ever since the Clinton Administration. (The US Senate opposed ratifying the Kyoto Accord, since it basically exempted developing nations from emissions mitigation. That makes Mr. Trump's intended withdrawal yet more disheartening and unfortunate--not to say ironic. No nation had more to do with the shaping of the Paris Accord than the US.)

      While many have agreed with you in decrying the voluntary nature of the Paris targets, I actually think that's likely to prove a strength, not a weakness. To use the analogy of marriage, mutual respect and affection are a much better factor in preserving a union than is the financial penalty of divorce. And half-hearted compliance under duress is not likely to get us where we need to go.

      All of which said, Paris isn't perfect. It's universally acknowledged that it ambition is too low: the announced targets do not keep us within a safe--or, more realistically given how uncertain the system response to warming could be, 'sort of safe'--temperature zone. Paris does have a built-in mechanism to 'ratchet up' ambition, in the form of 5-year performance reviews and a 'name and shame' process of monitoring every nation's progress in achieving its 'Nationally Determined Contribution' (NDC) towards emissions reduction. For Paris to really work, those mechanisms will have to really influence national behaviors--and the mechanisms are essentially being negotiated (and really, invented) on the fly.

      At the international level, there is no Plan B. At national levels, there is a huge plethora of approaches to emissions reduction. Presumably we'll see which ones work best over time--not that there's much of that to spare, unfortunately.

      If you ask my opinion of helpful policies, I'd say that probably the best thing we could do is to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels. On a global level, they are massive. Unfortunately, it's a tough ask in many countries, where they take the form of fuel subsidies the careless elimination of which would imperil large numbers of poor folk--who would naturally react with fury, on a scale that would go far beyond the French "gillets jaunes" protests. So you have to find ways to substitute the resources in a way that protects people.

      The next priority for me would be a universal, revenue-neutral tax on carbon. If it's done right, the evidence is that it can be very effective.

      I would also support various forms of 'clean technology' which would replace current fossil fuel-dependent technologies--notably, wind and solar energy, electric mobility technologies, and various forms of energy storage--and, last but not least, energy efficiency measures of all sorts.

      (I'd also support existing nuclear power capacity, but not its expansion with current technology--I'm not much worried about safety, but the direct and opportunity costs are much too great. You can just build a whole lot more wind and solar, a whole lot quicker, than you can nuclear capacity. I'd also support continued research into better nuclear technologies.)

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      5 weeks ago

      Response to Doc:

      ["Robert, you've still offered no evidence whatever for your incredulity."]

      I have offered it, but you refuse to see it.

      ["I could assure you that I don't confuse 'freezing water with freezing air';..."]

      And yet you imply a comparison to try to make a point about the generality of phase-change thresholds in entirely different substances, in entirely different systems, as you continue to ignore the physical contexts of systems and attempt to substitute metaphors for legitimate, rational, physical comparisons.

      ["...I am well aware of the climate benefits that offset some of the harms in the early phases of the process;..."]

      But you seem to loose track of these benefits in an unfounded projection of some future alarming phase, where these benefits magically fall out of favor in a flawed cost/benefit assessment.

      ["... that in fact the current rates of temperature change are quite rapid by the standards of most observed past changes;..."]

      Sorry, but simply NOT true. What "past" are you referring to? -- if you look back sufficiently far, you cannot help but see how wrong you are here. What "standard" are you referring to? -- a couple degrees or, even less, fractions of a whole degree? -- I've referenced the absurdity of this repeatedly, as it relates to the tolerance of life forms and life systems of this planet.

      ["... or even let you know that, no, we aren't "coming out of an ice age", ..."]

      What can I say, other than you seem to have not looked at this closely enough to realize that, once again, you are wrong, since we are still exiting a major ice age, on a long time scale, and we are still exiting a mini-ice age, on a shorter time scale. Maybe this will help: http://www.bom.gov.au/info/climate/change/gallery/...

      ["..since the height of warmth in the current inter-glacial occurred several millennia ago since which time we've seen generally decreasing global temps--but really, why?"]

      But this just supports what I have been saying all along -- that today's warming is NOT unprecedented, contradicting your earlier claims. And it does NOT subtract from MY major claim of exiting a GREATER ice age, in which the "Little Ice Age" was "less icy" than the major one that came before, from which we got that warmer-than-today blip at the Holocene Optimum.

      Earth's climate has gone through many cold/warm cycles, where some are cycles within cycles, like the "Little Ice Age" ... "warmth", compared to the greater ice age "even colder", out of which it came, followed by more warmth that exceeded today's warmth that alarmists are now calling unprecedented, which is really cooler than, as you stated, "the height of warmth in the current inter-glacial which occurred several millennia ago".

      ["You still have yet to give a solid reason for your disbelief."]

      I have given ample "solid reasons" that appear to be lost on you.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      NOYFOB 

      5 weeks ago

      Doc Snow

      Do you think that the Paris Accord is a solution to your purported problem? Or is there some other plan you back as the solution?

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      JP, the blurb for that masterwork says:

      "This book is nothing to do with supporting the ridiculous flat Earth meme which can be found around internet discussion forums these days. That part of the subtitle indicates that the flat Earth meme has actually been clandestinely if not accidentally inserted into modern physics to the extent that flat Earth theory is actually literally taught to science students by science professors in professional academic universities and their science departments. Yes, seriously."

      Too bad; if it had been meant satirically, he might have something.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Robert, you've still offered no evidence whatever for your incredulity. I could assure you that I don't confuse 'freezing water with freezing air'; that I'm well aware of the climate benefits that offset some of the harms in the early phases of the process; that in fact the current rates of temperature change are quite rapid by the standards of most observed past changes; or even let you know that, no, we aren't "coming out of an ice age", since the height of warmth in the current interglacial occurred several millennia ago since which time we've seen generally decreasing global temps--but really, why?

      You still have yet to give a solid reason for your disbelief.

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      5 weeks ago

      George Nicolas Ifft, an American consul at Bergen, Norway, submitted the following text in his report to the the State Department, Washington, D.C., which was published in the journal, Monthly Weather Review October 10, 1922.

      http://www.climate4you.com/Text/1922%20SvalbardWar...

      Sound familiar?

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      5 weeks ago

      Okay, Doc, let me briefly have a go at some of your latest:

      ["No. There are a few small areas in which cooling is observed, due to circulation changes, the most notable being the so-called "cold blob" in the North Atlantic. However, the overwhelming area of the planet, including all continents, are experiencing warming trends."]

      Isn't that interesting, how a few small areas of cooling exist among a majority of warming. I will concede that an average includes a warming trend for the majority of the planet, but my main point still remains that this AMOUNT of PLANETARY warming is very puny and insignificant for life as we know it, as has been shown (if paleo-climate data are correct) in previous periods of Earth's history, when temperature variations were quite a bit greater than these puny so called upward trends of today.

      You do know, of course, that we are still exiting an ice age, and that the planet has been warming, long before recent technological innovations by humans came onto the scene.

      ["Freezing point is a lot more consequential for the real world."]

      This is a very important point that I agree with. Another ice age would be much worse than a few degrees warmer world-wide.

      Insects and plants have been adapting to seasonal shifts, ever since life, as we know it, emerged on Earth. We just happen to be alive during a particular period to witness the beginnings of such adaptive periods. Experiencing something for the first time is NOT the occurrence of something from the first time. Just because humans happen to be alive to see these changes does not mean that similar changes did not take place WITHOUT humans.

      Also, I think that you are overly downplaying the benefits of an earlier growing season for some people who could greatly benefit, in terms of food crops. You generally are overlooking the possible benefits of less cold stress, quite in accord with the point that you made about freezing point.

      I agree that there are numerous examples of temperature thresholds that affect crop production, but I do not agree that current climate change is significantly upsetting any of these thresholds.

      Air is not water, Doc. That's the point that I was trying to make with the water thing. You seem to be satisfied that there is a one-to-one correspondence between freezing water and freezing air. Air does not solidify. Water does. The comparison is misplaced in the context where you were trying to introduce it.

      Two ACE points over fifty years! Oh my word, that is so insignificant, once again, not distinguishable from zero. "Not impressive" for sure -- what an understatement! (^_^) I'm talking about changes that amount to something significant in THIS reality, not in the reality of making your point with an insignificant increment that a wind instrument could probably barely detect.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Robert, you said:

      "Within these small ranges of an average, therefore, there is no real warming for the world AS A WHOLE. Cooler regions are being warmed conceptually at a distance, ... conflated irrationally with warmer regions."

      No. There are a few small areas in which cooling is observed, due to circulation changes, the most notable being the so-called "cold blob" in the North Atlantic. However, the overwhelming area of the planet, including all continents, are experiencing warming trends. See, for example, figure 2.21, in chapter 2, here:

      https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/observations-at...

      "It's interesting how you choose the range of small variations around the freezing point of water to make your point about small changes. I would have thought that you would choose the small range around the boiling point."

      Freezing point is a lot more consequential for the real world. For example, observed shifts in temperature are translating to earlier spring thaws, often to the tune of a week or two. That may sound like a good thing, but it often leads to unfortunate consequences, such as disrupting the timing of important biological events such as insect hatch.

      And it's only an example; there are many temperature thresholds for which a degree can be quite important. For instance, maximum temperature for wheat yields in tropical areas like India: much increase, and yields drop drastically. Or, here in South Carolina, the peach crop: if the trees don't get enough cool winter weather, they don't set fruit.

      "No matter, you are talking about physical thresholds for water that have NOT been proven for the air mass of an entire planet."

      Huh? I think the physical threshold of freezing water is pretty thoroughly proven... you must mean something else, but I have no idea what.

      "...the same mistake you make in trying to compare a small percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere with a small percentage of a vitamin in a nutritional supplement..."

      It's not a mistake when your only argument is the one from incredulity that 'such a small proportion' can be significant, because it directly addresses your contention, by showing that there are in fact cases where such proportions *are* significant.

      "Earth's massive atmosphere is not a beaker of water -- it is air with far greater dynamic complexity in terms of its flow and heat distribution."

      Which is precisely what climate scientists study and model.

      "I wonder what that graphical difference translates into, in terms of the ACE index unit of measurement..."

      Evidently you didn't read to the end of my comment, so let me quote it:

      "The measured distance on the scale was 25 mm between 100 ACE and 150, so that [ie., 1 mm on the screen] would be an increase of 2 ACE points over 50 years. Not impressive, I'd agree, but it's certainly still an increase."

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      5 weeks ago

      Doc,

      Just a few points about your last series of comments:

      We are considering an average for the WHOLE planet, and the small deviation from this IS remarkable.

      Within the very small range of change that this average expresses, there could be any number of regional influences that disguised cooling trends in other parts of the planet. This is why such a small value for an average misrepresents vast regional differences. One part of the planet might warm one degree, say, while another might warm half a degree, say, while still another might cool by a fourth of a degree, say, thereby forcing the perception of warmth onto a cool region that does NOT exist.

      Within these small ranges of an average, therefore, there is no real warming for the world AS A WHOLE. Cooler regions are being warmed conceptually at a distance, ... conflated irrationally with warmer regions.

      It's interesting how you choose the range of small variations around the freezing point of water to make your point about small changes. I would have thought that you would choose the small range around the boiling point. No matter, you are talking about physical thresholds for water that have NOT been proven for the air mass of an entire planet. Again, you use an ill-conceived analogy -- comparing a container of water near its freezing point to the entire atmospheric mass of a planet that lacks any such consistent temperature field. It seems like the same mistake you make in trying to compare a small percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere with a small percentage of a vitamin in a nutritional supplement. In other words, I do not regard your analogy as valid, because it conflates all threshold situations without focusing on the context. Earth's massive atmosphere is not a beaker of water -- it is air with far greater dynamic complexity in terms of its flow and heat distribution.

      I don't have it in me today to wade through all your latest commentary, but my sense is that you are mixing lots of information into a rationale that is not as connected as you have been led to believe.

      I laugh at the idea of you putting a ruler to the screen to detect a, one mm difference was it(?), in the red trend line of your linked-to chart. That seems pretty desperate to me. I wonder what that graphical difference translates into, in terms of the ACE index unit of measurement, and whether this is at or below the margin of error of measuring capabilities. In other words, your micro-trend is indistinguishable from zero, and I believe that NOAA actually states this somewhere.

      That's all the time I have today.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Robert, thanks for your courteous words.

      Briefly:

      "...a less-than-one-degree variation for the ENTIRE PLANET over many decades is remarkably stable, first of all."

      It's not that remarkable, actually, precisely since it is an average. There's a reason for that famous phrase "average OUT."

      "Second of all, less than one degree of change is simply not a sensible change for the human body."

      And why is that a useful criterion for what is good (or not) for the planet? Keep a carafe of water at 32.5 F for 24 hours, and another at 31.5 F, and see how 'sensible' that change is for those glasses... or for human perception of their contents, for that matter.

      "...place your hand in 50 F water, place your hand in 50.8 F water..."

      Not the most crucial points here, but--first, the change observed currently is about 1 C, which is precisely 1.8 F. Second, the warming over land is about twice the global average, due to the great thermal inertia of water. Which gets us to ~3.6 F. And it's much higher in the Arctic, which turns out to be pretty consequenial.

      "Are we to believe that Earth is more sensitive to temperature-change than the very beings that it spawned?"

      But those beings are in fact sensitive to the observed temperature changes. Bird ranges are shifting polewards; the USDA has had to shift their hardiness zones for horticulture northwards; and possums and even kudzu have colonized Ontario. And the aedes egypti mosquito has gained footholds--if that's what a mosquito population gains--in the lower US:

      https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dengue-...

      That's put Americans at risk for the once-exotic diseases of dengue, chikungunya and, of course zika virus.

      Is "sensible" the word we really want here?

      "The voluminous scientific literature, thus, does exactly what I have claimed originally, which is to make very questionable attributions regarding this insignificant temperature change."

      Shorter version: "I don't want to believe it, therefore it is not true." That's called the "argument from incredulity." Unfortunately, incredulity doesn't confer immunity to chikungunya.

      "No, all you do is to take a small change out of its context..."

      No. The proper context of a change in mean temperature is the long-term mean--not the short-term cycles or geographically distinct ranges which contribute to that mean. That's not to say that the variations and region norms aren't important. But we don't do well to confuse them with the mean itself.

      "Just because one system responds to a small change does not mean that all small changes cause significant responses. Each unique context has to be considered. Each unique system-configuration has to be considered."

      Very true. However, the mainstream science has done this for climate, at great depth and breadth. All you've got to counter that is the argument from incredulity.

      "...quite a few hurricanes during the period where I demonstrate no trend had the force of causing as much or considerably more damage, by today's dollar equivalent."

      I must have missed the "demonstration"; all I saw was an assertion. But more on that later.

      "And the death tolls for many of those were in the thousands."

      Not that many, actually, but it did happen, for instance in Galveston. Hardly surprising, in that they had essentially zero forecasting capability, no mass media, and limited communication and transportation options.

      "Again, you are focusing on the present, without considering the trend of the past."

      Not at all; I'm simply critiquing the selection of data you made.

      "Greater property density today causes more property to get destroyed."

      True, but that does not demonstrate that there is not a trend toward stronger and more destructive storms. That is a result expected from the fundamental physics of hurricanes, and which is consistent with observations. Again, more on that later...

      "Rather, I feel confident that my grasp of what is happening is greater than the people who hype alarming trends in extreme weather."

      Including people whose professional duty it is to study such trends, apparently.

      "I do not pretend that "nothing is happening"... What I do is to express confidence that what is happening is no more severe or frequent than what has always happened."

      If you can find a period in which the state of South Carolina suffered catastrophic damage from hurricanes (plus one historic flooding event influenced by a hurricane) in *five consecutive years*, I'll be extremely surprised. (And the US also had Maria and Harvey in that same span, for what that's worth--which was upwards of $50 billion, IIRC.)

      As for the trend you don't see, yes, it is there. Carefully compare the distance between the red trend line and the horizontal scale line just below it, and you'll see that it's perceptibly farther away at the right edge than at the left, indicating a positive slope. Small, yes.

      To be sure that I wasn't fooling myself, I zoomed in as far as the software allowed, then actually put a ruler up to the screen. 2 mm at the left, 3 at the right... which allows a rough quantitative estimate. The measured distance on the scale was 25 mm between 100 ACE and 150, so that would be an increase of 2 ACE points over 50 years. Not impressive, I'd agree, but it's certainly still an increase.

      And remember that the current consensus on this is that while storms will probably get/may already be getting stronger on average, there will be a concomittent decrease in overall frequency due to increasing wind shear (which tends to 'kill off' the weaker storms early in their development). So we may have offsetting trends, in terms of total ACE over a season.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Brad, let me respond very briefly to your points.

      "And the Paris Accord says China won't even try until 2030?"

      No, that's not the case, as explained in my last comment. They promise to *succeed* by 2030.

      "That is conservation, and conservation once again isn't a solution in an expanding world population."

      I don't see how what I said is "conservation", nor what the claim that conservation isn't a solution in a world with an expanding population really means.

      "Worth what?"

      Worth taking effort to protect. Worth taking science seriously. Worth sacrificing something, if that's what it takes. Worth taking the trouble to find that out.

      "This tells you that they don't really believe it..."

      Think about it, Brad. If you are a national leader, and you had to choose between a few years of economic sanctions and 'bad dog' scoldings on the one hand, or on the serious and essentially permanent degradation of your nation's public health and economy, which would you choose? Me, I'd take the sanctions. And if that's the case more generally, why impose penalties that don't have the teeth to deter?

      "Yes, that really sounds like a sense of urgency for what you believe are predictions of catastrophes. This is nothing like the decade of putting a man on the Moon."

      Transforming the world energy economy is a much tougher task, and will take longer than a decade. Moreover, it requires the cooperation of the overwhelming majority of nations. If you think that's easy, you're living in a different world than I am.

      For a current example, look at the Brexit paralysis that is making fools of the entire British political establishment: there's little doubt that crashing out of the Union would be disastrous, yet Parliament still can't get their act together and agree what a deal should look like. And that's within one relatively homogeneous country.

      "What you are describing sound more like the UN organizing a dinner party?"

      Well, if you are suggesting giving the UN more authority to deal with a bona fide global crisis... ;-) But good luck getting Security Council Members to agree. They may not agree on much, but they do all agree that each tiniest scrap of their national sovereignty will be only be pried from their cold, dead fingers... which may be a possibility, unfortunately.

      "Do you have any idea how many planes are in the air (etc)..."

      Yes.

      Have you not been listening when I point out that the task we face is monumental?

      "China has the most High Speed Trains and rails in the world, but they are just starting their car and highway revolution as people and there are over a billion in China that are going to start to drive."

      Yes, and they'll be driving electric ones. Chinese-built electric ones... and so will the US, if we're not careful and much more forward-thinking than we have been. All those Chinese solar panels could have been American-built, but we squandered the advantage we had for years in renewable energy tech, and now China has the pole position.

      "The Toll road was started in 1993 and over 20 years later imagine how much co2 and other pollutants the vehicles that were gridlocked and dumped into residential neighborhoods back on to the I5 were generated because of that plan."

      So, which is it? Do we condemn China for 'using processes most nations have outlawed' and thereby wrecking the environment, or do we blame American problems on outlawing processes that the Chinese use? You can do one or the other, but I fail to see how you can consistently do both. TAANSTAAFL--we have to choose.

      'How do the patents help when cars are the major problem..."

      The point of citing the the Forbes article mentioning patents was to point out the Chinese lead in cleantech research. You're thinking that 'China won't start til 2030.' But 50% more patents than the US says otherwise--not to mention the Chinese deployment of RE. According to IRENA, the world had 2,350,755 MW of renewable generation capacity as of the end of 2018:

      https://irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publi...

      (That's more than double the total at the end of 2009, by the way--how's that for some 'urgency'?)

      Anyway, the US, nominally the world's largest economy for the moment, had an impressive 245,245 MW, or ~10.4% of the global total. Not bad at all!

      But compare China's renewable energy capacity: it came in at 695,865 MW, or ~29.6%--basically triple that of the US.

      Want to tell me again how China will "start" in 2030?

      Don't get me wrong here: I hate China's human rights record and highly imperfect and politicized legal system. And I think that those things will come back to bite China somehow, sometime.

      But they are very visibly 'turning the ship' on emissions by doing the work to transform their energy economy--even if there is much to be done still.

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      5 weeks ago

      Doc, thanks for helping me clarify things further by contributing your comments that provide anchors for deeper discovery. I will now address some of those comments.

      ["What you made clear was that the change in mean temperature is very small relative to the total range of observed terrestrial temperatures."]

      And this is quite an important point to make clear, because a less-than-one-degree variation for the ENTIRE PLANET over many decades is remarkably stable, first of all. Second of all, less than one degree of change is simply not a sensible change for the human body.

      This is quite an important observation, because it deals with practical human tolerance for temperature changes. If you cannot see the importance of this most basic observation, then I really cannot help you, other than to say place your hand in 50 F water, place your hand in 50.8 F water, and then tell me whether you can feel any difference. I venture to say that you could not tell any difference.

      How is it, then, that the entire globe is more sensitive to less than a degree variation over decades, when a human being cannot detect such a difference within ten seconds?

      The whole planet gave rise to us humans, and if 0.8 degrees made this much difference over multiple decades, then I dare say that we would not be here having this conversation. Are we to believe that Earth is more sensitive to temperature-change than the very beings that it spawned?

      The voluminous scientific literature, thus, does exactly what I have claimed originally, which is to make very questionable attributions regarding this insignificant temperature change.

      ["All you do is to imply, by the simple expedient of making that change look "very, very small" on the scale of the graph, that it 'must be' unimportant. But not only don't you make that case, it's a case that really can't be made. Too many impacts are already seen too clearly."]

      No, all you do is to take a small change out of its context, and then compare this small change to any small change in any context (such as with poison, say), to imply a false analogy between systems with proven small thresholds (i.e., human body to arsenic, say) and systems of entirely different physical complexity.

      Just because one system responds to a small change does not mean that all small changes cause significant responses. Each unique context has to be considered. Each unique system-configuration has to be considered.

      For example, people who imply that CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is like arsenic in the human body are doing a more direct comparison that you are implying with your suggestion that I am not understanding small changes. You are making a contextual error leading to a false analogy, as I see it.

      Furthermore, quoting recent hurricane death tolls and dollar figures does little to strengthen your case, Doc, since quite a few hurricanes during the period where I demonstrate no trend had the force of causing as much or considerably more damage, by today's dollar equivalent. And the death tolls for many of those were in the thousands.

      Again, you are focusing on the present, without considering the trend of the past. Greater property density today causes more property to get destroyed. More people experiencing hurricanes causes more people to suffer from hurricanes. More news stations pumping out more hurricane hype [minute-to-minute updates ad nauseam] make people hurricane hyper-conscious. This is an awareness phenomenon, a property density phenomenon, a frequent-report phenomenon, NOT a storm number/intensity phenomenon. It is a social/economic phenomenon, NOT a climate phenomenon.

      I do not pretend that "nothing is happening". Rather, I feel confident that my grasp of what is happening is greater than the people who hype alarming trends in extreme weather. What I do is to express confidence that what is happening is no more severe or frequent than what has always happened. Tragic, yes. For sure. But more tragic, because more or bigger or more frequent storms are happening? Positively no.

      The truth is that too many people have elevated emotions above rational thinking.

      I looked at the chart that you linked to: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/tropical-cyclones/2...

      You ARE looking at the red line, right? I still see ZERO trend, proceeding into 2018. There is NOT a trend. How are you seeing a "small increasing trend"! It's NOT there!

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      NOYFOB 

      5 weeks ago

      Doc Snow

      "The conclusion is that we need to be doing as much as we possibly can, as fast as we possibly can, to reduce our carbon emissions to the atmosphere. "

      And the Paris Accord says China won't even try until 2030?

      ---------------------------

      "And how is it helping us today?"

      It isn't helping us today, and it won't help us next year, either, because, as the saying has it, "You can't turn the Titanic on a dime." Had we started serious abatement measures in the 1980s, when concerns were starting to pile up that maybe global warming wasn't as benign as the early researchers assumed (utterly without evidence, be it said) then we'd be doing better today. But that's just a 'what if.' Action today will benefit those of us alive after mid-century. (Unlikely to include me, for what that's worth.)

      B:

      That is conservation, and conservation once again isn't a solution in an expanding world population.

      That conservation isn't going to protect lower Manhattan from flooding when the next super storm hits it. That is the protection we need, if you believe in the predictions.

      --------------------------------------

      Do we think our kids or grandkids are worth it? I do.

      B:

      Worth what?

      ---------------

      "Not in 2030 when China will voluntarily reduce their co2?"

      All actions (included US ones) under the Paris Accord are voluntary. For one thing, there is no conceivable penalty or sanction remotely as severe as the consequences of failure already are.

      B:

      That tells you that they don't really believe it they are just going through the motion.

      -----------------

      But I have to say that you slightly, but significantly, mis-state the Chinese commitment. It is to achieve peak CO2 emissions--meaning, put themselves on a declining emissions trajectory--*no later than* 2030. It has often been thought, or at least claimed, that that means they do nothing prior to that date. But given the "Titanic" adage already mentioned, that isn't true. If you want to turn the ship by 2030, you must start ASAP.

      B:

      Yes, that really sounds like a sense of urgency for what you believe are predictions of catastrophes. This is nothing like the decade of putting a man on the Moon. There was a commitment, a real schedule. Money, resources and training were given deadlines, schedules and program management.

      What you are describing sound more like the UN organizing a dinner party?

      Come if you want, leave a check if you want!

      ----------------

      Given that China is the world's leading manufacturer and deployer of renewable energy (and, to a lesser extent, nuclear power); that China has a lot to lose under serious warming; that China's Party elite has a strong representation of engineers, scientists and other technocrats who give every indication of appreciating the threat they face; and, not least, that following the US-China emissions deal that led up to Paris, Chinese emissions flat-lined for a full 3 years before ticking up again in 2017; there is good evidence that China has in fact started to turn the ship.

      B:

      Those ships have their exports and they manufacture most of the goods in the world, and they uses processes that we and most of the other countries outlawed.

      -------------------------------

      (Though there are cross-currents to this, including a report that construction has resumed on a number of suspended Chinese coal projects. I hope these will not come to fruition, and think there's a good chance that will be the case, since the economics for coal just keep getting worse--and even in the state-dominated Chinese economy, that matters.)

      B:

      Do you have any idea how many planes are in the air in one day, and how many gallons of jet fuel that they require to stay in the air. And with new aircraft from the EU, the US and even China and Russia coming off the drawing board that is going to stop because of the Paris Accord? Not a chance.

      ------------------------

      There's an additional reason, too. Renewable energy means increased energy independence around the world--and China sees a potential geopolitical advantage, not only in achieving energy independence themselves, but in selling everybody else the tools to achieve it, too. Here's what that well-known socialist rag Forbes has to say about it:

      B:

      China has the most High Speed Trains and rails in the world, but they are just starting their car and highway revolution as people and there are over a billion in China that are going to start to drive.

      ------------------------

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2019/01...

      A pertinent extract:

      "China has taken a lead in renewable energy and is now the world’s largest producer, exporter and installer of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and electric vehicles.

      "China also has a clear lead in terms of the underlying technology, with well over 150,000 renewable energy patents as of 2016, 29% of the global total. The next closest country is the U.S., which had a little over 100,000 patents, with Japan and the E.U. having closer to 75,000 patents each.

      B:

      In the US, it is the environment people that prevent much of the sources of renewable energy from happening?

      In S Cal a Toll was supposed to go from North Orange County to San Onofre bypassing the Interstate 5 and its heavy traffic.

      --------------

      "The TCA Board of Directors, local elected officials who represent the areas adjacent to the toll road routes, certified the project's Environmental Impact Report in 2006.

      The route was selected by a collaborative group that included the Federal Highway Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, Fish & Wildlife Service, the Army Corps of Engineers and Caltrans.

      The route would have extended the toll road to connect to Interstate 5 at the San Diego County line near San Onofre, where the TCA projects traffic to increase 60 percent by 2025. The final four miles (6 km) of the roadway would have been located on Camp Pendleton Marine Base. The road would have gone through a section of the San Onofre State Park, which is leased from the United States Marine Corps. The Marine Corps reserved the right to grant easements for rights of way when the lease with the California Department of Parks and Recreation was signed in 1971. Eventually, spokespeople from Camp Pendleton would deny permission to build the road on the base, but approved the road's construction through the portion of the base that hosts the state park.[9][10] The TCA estimates that by 2025, Foothill-South would alleviate traffic on Interstate 5 by 2.6% - 8%.

      On February 6, 2008, the California Coastal Commission voted 8-2[11] to reject a 16-mile (26 km) southern segment of the 241, Foothill-South, which was planned for the Foothill Toll Road. The TCA appealed the Coastal Commission's decision to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce.[12] On December 18, 2008, the Department of Commerce announced that it would uphold the California Coastal Commission's ruling that found the TCA's proposed extension of the 241 Toll Road inconsistent with the California Coastal Act.[13] In a release issued by the Department of Commerce, the DOC noted that at least one reasonable alternative to the project existed, and that the project was not necessary in the interest of national security.[14] "

      B:

      The Toll road was started in 1993 and over 20 years later imagine how much co2 and other pollutants the vehicles that were gridlocked and dumped into residential neighborhoods back on to the I5 were generated because of that plan.

      --------------------------------

      "While not all patents are useful or valuable, these figures give an indication of how much investment different countries have been putting into the industry. By contrast, major oil exporters such as Russia, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia had negligible numbers of renewable energy patents."

      B:

      How do the patents help when cars are the major problem, and it is a source of huge revenue for CA.

      --------------------------------------

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      The conclusion is that we need to be doing as much as we possibly can, as fast as we possibly can, to reduce our carbon emissions to the atmosphere. There are legitimate debates to be had about the best ways to achieve that goal, but they are hard to have when there are folks so completely bent on insisting that there isn't a problem in the first place, no matter what the evidence says.

      "And how is it helping us today?"

      It isn't helping us today, and it won't help us next year, either, because, as the saying has it, "You can't turn the Titanic on a dime." Had we started serious abatement measures in the 1980s, when concerns were starting to pile up that maybe global warming wasn't as benign as the early researchers assumed (utterly without evidence, be it said) then we'd be doing better today. But that's just a 'what if.' Action today will benefit those of us alive after mid-century. (Unlikely to include me, for what that's worth.)

      Do we think our kids or grandkids are worth it? I do.

      "Not in 2030 when China will voluntarily reduce their co2?"

      All actions (included US ones) under the Paris Accord are voluntary. For one thing, there is no conceivable penalty or sanction remotely as severe as the consequences of failure already are.

      But I have to say that you slightly, but significantly, mis-state the Chinese commitment. It is to achieve peak CO2 emissions--meaning, put themselves on a declining emissions trajectory--*no later than* 2030. It has often been thought, or at least claimed, that that means they do nothing prior to that date. But given the "Titanic" adage already mentioned, that isn't true. If you want to turn the ship by 2030, you must start ASAP.

      Given that China is the world's leading manufacturer and deployer of renewable energy (and, to a lesser extent, nuclear power); that China has a lot to lose under serious warming; that China's Party elite has a strong representation of engineers, scientists and other technocrats who give every indication of appreciating the threat they face; and, not least, that following the US-China emissions deal that led up to Paris, Chinese emissions flat-lined for a full 3 years before ticking up again in 2017; there is good evidence that China has in fact started to turn the ship.

      (Though there are cross-currents to this, including a report that construction has resumed on a number of suspended Chinese coal projects. I hope these will not come to fruition, and think there's a good chance that will be the case, since the economics for coal just keep getting worse--and even in the state-dominated Chinese economy, that matters.)

      There's an additional reason, too. Renewable energy means increased energy independence around the world--and China sees a potential geopolitical advantage, not only in achieving energy independence themselves, but in selling everybody else the tools to achieve it, too. Here's what that well-known socialist rag Forbes has to say about it:

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2019/01...

      A pertinent extract:

      "China has taken a lead in renewable energy and is now the world’s largest producer, exporter and installer of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and electric vehicles.

      "China also has a clear lead in terms of the underlying technology, with well over 150,000 renewable energy patents as of 2016, 29% of the global total. The next closest country is the U.S., which had a little over 100,000 patents, with Japan and the E.U. having closer to 75,000 patents each.

      "While not all patents are useful or valuable, these figures give an indication of how much investment different countries have been putting into the industry. By contrast, major oil exporters such as Russia, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia had negligible numbers of renewable energy patents."

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      NOYFOB 

      5 weeks ago

      Doc

      A lot of words, what is the conclusion, the solution, and what should be done?

      And how is it helping us today? Not in 2030 when China will voluntarily reduce their co2?

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      "Actually, the CO2 man is releasing today was sequestered millions of years ago from an age when atmospheric CO2 was much higher than today and the Earth was warm and lush."

      Correct. Humanity is releasing in a couple of centuries what nature took millions of years to sequester. What could possibly go wrong?

      "We have gone through ice ages and tropical ages and I'm betting that tropical is better."

      I think that may be a tad over-simplistic.

      "In any case, the real driver of climate change is our sun. When solar activity is higher, all planets warm, not just Earth, and vice versa. The opposite is also true. When the sun cools, we have ice ages."

      Over extremely deep time (hundreds of millions of years), it is true that the gradual warming of our sun is the predominant driver of climate. (Those interested can Google "faint sun paradox" for more on this.) However, changes in the sun itself do not drive glaciations and deglaciations; solar output doesn't vary much over time scales of a few short tens of millennia! ;-)

      What does drive those cycles, as far as present knowledge goes, is what are called Milankovitch cycles--cyclic changes in Earth's orbit. However, these changes in insolation are not even close to being enough to explain the magnitude of the temperature changes involved. (For context--and remembering Robert's temperature graph, with its ~80 degree C range--the difference between interglacials and glacials is only about 5-10C). It's believed that the difference is made up by CO2 feedbacks. In this scenario, the initial warming caused by insolation changes causes the release of CO2 from warming ocean waters and terrestrial sources, causing yet more warming in a feedback cycle. (There is also an albedo feedback, since ice tends to reflect lots of sunshine right back into space without warming the environment.)

      "I have a question for you...what is the optimal temperature for our Earth and how do you know?"

      "The earth" doesn't care much. However, the extant biosphere has spent a couple of million years adapting to the current Ice Age with its recurring glacials and interglacials. It'll be happiest if we don't depart too much on the high side of that range--remembering that, of course, we're already on the warm side of the range since we're in an interglacial.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      5 weeks ago from now on

      Well now that cuts right to the chase doesn’t it! Can’t wait to hear this non answer.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      5 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Actually, the CO2 man is releasing today was sequestered millions of years ago from an age when atmospheric CO2 was much higher than today and the Earth was warm and lush. We have gone through ice ages and tropical ages and I'm betting that tropical is better.

      In any case, the real driver of climate change is our sun. When solar activity is higher, all planets warm, not just Earth, and vice versa. The opposite is also true. When the sun cools, we have ice ages.

      I have a question for you...what is the optimal temperature for our Earth and how do you know?

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      And in many cases the active medical ingredient in a tablet is in a similar proportion in relation to binders and fillers as is CO2 in the atmosphere. You want to take sugar pills for that bacterial infection?

      Additionally, you're confusing fluxes with stocks, and understating CO2 by 10% (probably by not using up-to-date figures.)

      Taking the former aspect first, while human activity only contributes a small fraction of the total CO2 fluxes into the atmosphere, it is also the only source that is unbalanced by natural sinks. (This is evidenced by the fact that CO2 prior to the Industrial Revolution had been remarkably stable through the Holocene epoch.) So that 3.4%--I'll accept your figure for argument's sake--adds up over time. Specifically, since we started burning fossil fuels in significant volume, we've raised the atmospheric burden of CO2 by over 46% (~280 ppm to the current 410). We know this through a couple of lines of evidence, one being simple accounting of fossil fuels burnt, and one being isotopic study of atmospheric CO2.

      And yes, 410 ppm, the approximate current value is the 'updated number' I mentioned above. That would translate to 4.1%; the value of 3.6% that you give would only be 360 ppm, a value that was last observed sometime in the 1990s:

      http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/atmospheric_co2/pr...

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      5 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      78% of the atmosphere is nitrogen. 21% is oxygen, and .9% is argon. That accounts for 99.9% of the atmosphere, Only one tenth of one percent is greenhouse gas, and of that, 95% is water vapor. Of that one tenth of one percent (00.1%) only 3.62% is CO2 and of that 3.62%, only 3.4% is man-made.

      That means that of the total atmosphere, just 00.0000012% is man made CO2. The UN's IPCC claims that Earth's atmosphere is so delicate that that tiny amount will cause disaster.

      I have a bridge to sell to anyone who believes that.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Oh, an addendum. Here's what the current ACE data looks like, including those last 3 years I mentioned. The is a small increasing trend, just as I suggested. (And yes, it would be larger, if the numerous quiet years prior to 1950 were included.)

      https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/tropical-cyclones/2...

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      5 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Robert, your reply is well-written, but fundamentally wrong in asserting that I'm acting purely as debater here. Let's take the "honest" chart you discussed as example.

      You say that you "made quite clear and quite intelligible the very, very small change that climate alarmists blow way out of proportion." Not exactly.

      What you made clear was that the change in mean temperature is very small relative to the total range of observed terrestrial temperatures. However, you make no case whatever that that is an important observation, and indeed there is no good reason to think that it is. Quite the opposite; there is a voluminous scientific literature

      examining the consequences both of projected warming, *and of the warming already observed.*

      All you do is to imply, by the simple expedient of making that

      change look "very, very small" on the scale of the graph, that it 'must be' unimportant. But not only don't you make that case, it's a case that really can't be made. Too many impacts are already seen too clearly.

      Some summary details:

      https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/AR...

      Some perspective from my state and region. Here's the story of the last four hurricane seasons:

      Hurricane Michael October 10-11, 2018 49 killed, $25.2 billion

      Hurricane Florence September 13-16, 2018 53 killed, $24.2 billion

      Hurricane Irma September 9-16, 2017 97 killed, $51.5 billion

      Hurricane Matthew October 7-9, 2016 49 killed, $10.1 billion

      SC flooding October 7-9, 2015 25, $2.1 billion

      And, the city of Charleston is spending a quarter of a billion or so on a massive drainage project to keep their streets free of water, and the roads passable in the face of repeated 'thousand year' precipitation events and sea level rise. They're not doing it because it's politically fashionable, or because Al Gore gave a slideshow to the city council. They're doing it because they have to if they want the city to continue functioning.

      So, go ahead; pretend nothing's happening. Pretend I'm a 'debater.'

      But what I'm doing is telling it as it is--not as I wish it might be. I didn't want to have Michael and Florence pass over us (albeit, thankfully, in abated form by the time they got this far inland.) I didn't want to have my instate neighbors in the city of Conway under water for a solid month. And I really don't relish these stupid debates.

      But someone has to tell the truth. I know, you feel like you are. But you are kidding yourself.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      5 weeks ago from now on

      Will, “and they’re off”

      Lol !

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      5 weeks ago

      I am adding a couple more charts to my article today, 04/13/2019

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      5 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Robert,

      Here is a study of the adjusting done to global temperature readings dating back to the 1800's in order to show the desired warming trend:

      https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef...

    • Robert Kernodle profile imageAUTHOR

      Robert Kernodle 

      5 weeks ago

      Doc, I will attempt to address each of your points:

      ["Robert, I'm sorry to say that I think it's you who's doing the "deceiving with statistics" in this presentation."]

      Doc, I present statistics from well known, official sources that clearly indicate that all the hype over extreme weather being caused by climate change is completely unfounded.

      ["On temperature, your graph obfuscates, pure and simple; it's standard practice in graphing not to use a range disproportionate to the change you wish to display. Yet that's what you do."]

      I assume that the graph you are talking about is the Honest Global Warming Chart. How am I "obfuscating". "Obfuscate" means to render unclear and unintelligible, whereas I have made quite clear and quite intelligible the very, very small change that climate alarmists blow way out of proportion.

      ["On ACE readings, you inexplicably use data that only goes to 2015, even though the three (!) years since have all been above normal, and 2017 was classed as "hyperactive."]

      I use available data, Doc, and that's as far as the rendering of those charts extended. The period covered is 65 years for Atlantic hurricanes and 45 years for Pacific hurricanes. Look at those charts again, and notice that, in numerous three year periods, you could claim a "hyperactive" season.

      The trend is NOT for three years -- it is for the 65-year or 45-year period, and there is no special trend in the latest three years that has not occurred in other three year periods of the longer multi-year trends.

      Focusing on the latest three years, without knowing any future years beyond these latest three is simply ignoring the past long-term trend and just assuming that a recent hyperactive phase is the long-term trend, without having any real-world data to support it. You could have assumed hyper as the longer term in any number of prior years, and you would have been wrong. So, unless you have a crystal ball and magical future-telling powers, you are wrong now.

      ["On the other end of the data picked, 1950 was the first above-normal year since the 1930s; including all those quiet years at the beginning of the graphs would have given a very different impression--especially in conjunction with the three recent active years."]

      All you are doing here is selecting a year that does not include an active year in the past, in order to claim that a recent active stretch of years shows an upward trend. You still ignore the fact that this active year existed in the past in a similar interval of years. Again, nothing special about today, with respect to the longer trend.

      ["Similar points could be made in connection with the other graphs you cite, ..."]

      And similar replies could be made by me in connection with your attempts to ignore the reality.

      ["... but for brevity I'll only say that there is no claim that tornadoes are connected to climate change."]

      Doc, do a Google or Bing search, using the phrase, "tornadoes and climate change", and you will see that your statement here is quite mistaken.

      ["Some have speculated that warmer temps could potentially fuel more or stronger tornadoes, but there is no scientific evidence confirming that speculation that I know of, and no reputable source, such as the IPCC or the US National Climate Assessment, makes any claim about tornadoes, except to say that research is ongoing. So your tornado graph seeks to rebut a claim that no-one is making."]

      Doc, I'm afraid that the popular media that controls public perception and political action does not have this fine of a filter -- they lump all extreme weather into the same pot, using every instance of any sort of storm to conflate with every nuanced official determination of a possible connection with climate change.

      So, claims ARE being made to this effect, in very prominent news. It's very sloppy information flow, but I stand by the tornado charts as evidence to those who would do this sort of sloppy conflation.

      ["All in all, you seem to be acting as a tournament debater, not a truth-seeker. (And I've been a tournament debater!)"]

      Well, I think that you just pegged your own self, Doc. And by playing the debate game as well as you do, it is you who miss the truth in the game.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      NOYFOB 

      5 weeks ago

      "Climate change is not what humans cause, but rather what happens with or without humans in the Earth-atmosphere system. The human focus alone, therefore, is egotistical on the part of humans who think that they are this much in control."

      The proof is that after 4.5 billion years of existence the Earth is still here and its history without humans was very violent and with many changes all without humans.

      Adding humans changes one aspect and that is nature can take away everything they have built. That part is purely human arrogance or stupidity.

      People build homes and structures on known earthquake fault lines, and then they are surprised when earthquakes severely damage them. They build up to and into ocean waters, and then report the casualty of a storm as being the problem. Like they did after superstorm Sandy.

      The point is that nature has a system that works, but it doesn't take into consideration what man builds and wants.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      6 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      A-n-n-n-d they're off

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 

      6 weeks ago from Camden, South Carolina

      Robert, I'm sorry to say that I think it's you who's doing the "deceiving with statistics" in this presentation.

      On temperature, your graph obfuscates, pure and simple; it's standard practice in graphing not to use a range disproportionate to the change you wish to display. Yet that's what you do.

      On ACE readings, you inexplicably use data that only goes to 2015, even though the three (!) years since have all been above normal, and 2017 was classed as "hyperactive." On the other end of the data picked, 1950 was the first above-normal year since the 1930s; including all those quiet years at the beginning of the graphs would have given a very different impression--especially in conjunction with the three recent active years.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulated_cyclone_...

      Similar points could be made in connection with the other graphs you cite, but for brevity I'll only say that there is no claim that tornadoes are connected to climate change. Some have speculated that warmer temps could potentially fuel more or stronger tornadoes, but there is no scientific evidence confirming that speculation that I know of, and no reputable source, such as the IPCC or the US National Climate Assessment, makes any claim about tornadoes, except to say that research is ongoing. So your tornado graph seeks to rebut a claim that no-one is making.

      All in all, you seem to be acting as a tournament debater, not a truth-seeker. (And I've been a tournament debater!)

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      6 weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Excellent presentation, Robert and also, an excellent illustration of deceiving with statistics and in particular, graphs!

      Add in a little scientific 'adjusting' influenced by desired political outcome and we see a case for AGW and the need to surrender certain rights to the state.

      Well done!

    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)