AGW is relative

[RetroTechGuy]

NASA is apparently unaware that the IPCC said this:

Code: Select all

For CO2, part of the main 15 micron band is saturated over quite short vertical distances, so that some of the upwelling radiation reaching the lower stratosphere originates from the cold upper troposphere. When the CO2 concentration is increased, the increase in absorbed radiation is quite small and increased emission leads to a cooling at all heights in the stratosphere.

How unfortunate for NASA that at least some of the scientists involved in the IPCC recognize the validity of Beer's Law. NASA is blithely unaware...
(...)

Take as much paper as you need.

Rally Behind the Science!

Indeed! How curious that you instead rally behind falsehoods that violate known Laws of science.

As I said, take it out on the proper persons in the proper organizations, send your criticisms to them, don't use me as a punching bag.

You cited those claims as "proof" of your claims, so you get to defend those claims. No one forced you to present those as your purported proof...

But y'know, when I was a little kid the snow was waist deep -- now it's only knee deep... SOMETHING must has changed... Hahahaha...

BTW, some posts back you mentioned that you are not a scientist. My degrees are in the sciences -- Physics.

Now if only you supported the sciences as robustly as you defend your political agendas... I know where believers in this religion are taking this agenda.

Rest of the silliness skipped.

[RetroTechGuy]

Climate is changing and always will change.
Humans affect on climate is only one, of many things, that affect it.

I regularly point out that albedo changes are the most obvious contribution to any shifts. That is...changes as a result of land use.

Curiously I've not found any believers in the AGW religion who are willing to do what they need to reverse this change. That would involve them restoring the site of their home to its prior condition (whether that be forest, swamp, prairie, or tundra...). Then they would need to stop purchasing any goods produced in factories -- as those sites have changed the albedo. And anything which was shipped -- as the roads also change the albedo.

Then they would need to stop eating any farmed foods, including gardens. Those lands needed to be cleared to grow crops, and that's a no-no...

But once they realize that this pain would become personal and fall directly upon them, they instead promote the idea that the government should kill other people by imposing these conditions, in order to "save humanity"...

But a good start would be for them to go outside and turn off the gas line providing heat to their home, and to switch off the electricity. No more coal powered computers or internet for them. No more electric lights. No safe and comfortable heat in the winter... Will they do it? Not a chance.

But they will deny 3rd world countries those very luxuries that we enjoy. Things like refrigeration for food preservation, and clean water... All as part of their crusade "for a better world".

[RetroTechGuy]

[jafadmin]

Keep in mind that NASA if far from homogeneous. That outfit up in Maryland is about as far from the "Right Stuff" NASA as you can get.

My personal prejudices force me to consider them a "rogue" agency. They seem to have decided there is no intelligible difference between enlightenment and persuasion.

[musher0]

What do you call the fact that now everybody -- including scientists -- agrees that
stuff -- including apples ! -- falls from high places.

Would I be correct in stating that there is a "scientific consensus" on gravity?
Or do physicists still feel the need to validate Newton's theory every day?

~~~~~~~~~
I'll agree with you that saying there is a "consensus" on climate change is an
exaggeration. A consensus means, e.g., that a certain company policy on HR,
for example, has met with 100 % approval among employees.

There is such a thing in Japanese (and partially in Dutch [ back with a book
reference ]) business practice, known as management by consensus. A certain
proposal is circulated among all employees until it includes (through various edits)
all employees' opinions, criticisms and improvements. It can go around multiple
times until every one is happy with the final statement. (Q.v. the Wikipedia article
"Consensus decision-making".) Difficult but not impossible, it's being done.

It's the most satisfactory way to run a co-op. Unfortunately, some co-op admins
think a co-operative is just a regular company with a different way of raising
capital, and don't go through the trouble of gathering consensus, and apply
majority rule. (And create a lot of skeptics doing so...)

~~~~~~~~~
So IPCC, NOAA, NASA, etc., didn't do such a fine job at gathering consensus.
They obviously delegated the consensus-seeking to the various scientists'
associations. And a number of qualified people -- including you -- are
understandingly mad at this masquerading process.

So now what?
-- We change the word "consensus" to "vast majority"?
-- We pluck a clothes pin on our nose and we live with the inappropriate word
( and odor! ) ?
-- We petition IPCC et al. to start the consensus process over?

Now,
-- Is it really the "body of science" on Climate Change you object to? In this case,
of course, it would mean that the entire science process has to be redone, not just
the consensus process.

-- Or are you incensed at the cavalier way international-level organizations trashed
the divergent opinion of a number of scientists? On this latter theme, I'm sure you
won't be learning anything from me if I tell you that bosses do that a lot, not only
to scientists, but to linguists as well, and to all kinds of trades people. ( A sad side
of management. )

Just a few thoughts.

[s243a]

Climate is changing and always will change.
Humans affect on climate is only one, of many things, that affect it.

I regularly point out that albedo changes are the most obvious contribution to any shifts. That is...changes as a result of land use.

That's interesting but I haven't looked into it though. I will note that people in the "AGW religion" do mention how forest fires affect the albedo of glaciers".

Curiously I've not found any believers in the AGW religion who are willing to do what they need to reverse this change. That would involve them restoring the site of their home to its prior condition (whether that be forest, swamp, prairie, or tundra...). Then they would need to stop purchasing any goods produced in factories -- as those sites have changed the albedo. And anything which was shipped -- as the roads also change the albedo.

Then they would need to stop eating any farmed foods, including gardens. Those lands needed to be cleared to grow crops, and that's a no-no...

But once they realize that this pain would become personal and fall directly upon them, they instead promote the idea that the government should kill other people by imposing these conditions, in order to "save humanity"...

This is only really part of the argument because if one believes in AGW then it is a tragedy of the commons...but then again making the atmosphere a private good won't save us either! Cap and trade type systems to me are a form of eco-imperialism just as wars related to rare earth elements (Afghanistan?) are also a form of echo imperialism and war is horrible on the enviornment!

But a good start would be for them to go outside and turn off the gas line providing heat to their home, and to switch off the electricity. No more coal powered computers or internet for them. No more electric lights. No safe and comfortable heat in the winter... Will they do it? Not a chance.

That's a bit hyperbolic but if we want to be hyperbolic we could ask them if they would send their children to go mine cobalt in the Congo. We don't know really though how much electricity the average person could afford if we completely got rid of fossil fuel and nuclear but my guess is that electricity would be far more expensive than people in the AGW relegion expect!

But they will deny 3rd world countries those very luxuries that we enjoy. Things like refrigeration for food preservation, and clean water... All as part of their crusade "for a better world".

The leaders are a bit schizophrenic here. On the one hand they want to give the third world more carbon credits relative to their current output than the developed world. On the other hand they want to offset their C02 usage of first world nations by buying carbon credits from the third world. This however, means less land will be cleared for farming in third world nations.

[jafadmin]

What do you call the fact that now everybody -- including scientists -- agrees that
stuff -- including apples ! -- falls from high places.

We call it a Straw Man Fallacy.

I hope this helps ..

[musher0]

What do you call the fact that now everybody -- including scientists -- agrees that
stuff -- including apples ! -- falls from high places.

We call it a Straw Man Fallacy.

I hope this helps ..

Ok. Things don't fall, according to jafadmin.
(Funny guy.)

[jafadmin]

What do you call the fact that now everybody -- including scientists -- agrees that
stuff -- including apples ! -- falls from high places.

We call it a Straw Man Fallacy.

I hope this helps ..

Ok. Things don't fall, according to jafadmin.
(Funny guy.)

Here you go. The most highly qualified expert on the subject. Watch, if you dare ..
Professor of Meteorology at MIT for 30 years:
Prof Richard Lindzen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2q9BT2LIUA

.

[musher0]

I'll read a summary of his position but won't watch 55 minutes of his boring lecture.
Especially with the kind of voice he has.

[jafadmin]

I'll read a summary of his position but won't watch 55 minutes of his boring lecture.
Especially with the kind of voice he has.

Not even to save a planet? You've spent more time than that in this thread writing nonsense and trolling. I'm shocked that you would find a 55 minute lecture by a world renowned atmospheric physicist, "boring". I would have thought you would be all over that like a chicken on a June Bug.

At any rate, his existence and lectures completely refutes your "consensus" argument. He is literally the "Einstein" of atmospherics and "climate".

[jafadmin]

[sarcasm]
Compared to Dr Richard Lindzen, Michael Mann is a three year old child talking about where babies come from ..
[/sarcasm]

[musher0]

I'll read a summary of his position but won't watch 55 minutes of his boring lecture.
Especially with the kind of voice he has.

Not even to save a planet? You've spent more time than that in this thread writing nonsense and trolling. I'm shocked that you would find a 55 minute lecture by a world renowned atmospheric physicist, "boring". I would have thought you would be all over that like a chicken on a June Bug.

At any rate, his existence and lectures completely refutes your "consensus" argument. He is literally the "Einstein" of atmospherics and "climate".

Well then, be shocked!

[jafadmin]

Well then, be shocked!

You don't really want to re-enforce the stereotype that leftist are fact-averse, do you?

.

[RetroTechGuy]

[sarcasm]
Compared to Dr Richard Lindzen, Michael Mann is a three year old talking about where babies come from ..
[/sarcasm]

No sarcasm required there. That's a pretty apt comparison...

I've run some Modtran calculations, and I get results that look virtually identical to Lindzen's calculations. Beer's Law dominates, adding CO2 does almost nothing (for believers in that particular false position).

The most disturbing thing about Mann is that when shown that he was performing his calculations incorrectly, he stamped his feet and screamed... He could have said "Oops, let me redo those calculations and see if they show the same thing" -- but instead he insisted that his erroneous method was correct, until numerous statisticians stepped in and pointed out it was wrong.

The Left claimed he was "vindicated" when his claim that we are "the warmest in 2,000 years" instead became "the warmest in 400 years". 400 years ago we were in the bottom of the Little Ice Age... Claiming that we are warmer now, than we were then is no great "prediction"...

If these people REALLY wanted to improve the world, for about $10 a pop they can buy DDT treated mosquito nets, to help infested regions break the cycle of the terrible epidemic of malaria. Instead they want to impose taxes to enrichen cronies of people in government, over "climate change".

For example: https://www.cdcfoundation.org/bednets

[jafadmin]

Yeah, once CO2 saturates, adding CO2 after that does nothing.

Thanks for the post about malaria. Most people don't realize that the US was the first nation to eradicate malaria. It wasn't easy, but the ROI has been off the friggin scale. 1000-1

For the kids that have school tomorrow, atmospheric pressure has more effect on the temperature of a planet than the makeup of the gases in the atmosphere ..

[RetroTechGuy]

But once they realize that this pain would become personal and fall directly upon them, they instead promote the idea that the government should kill other people by imposing these conditions, in order to "save humanity"...

This is only really part of the argument because if one believes in AGW then it is a tragedy of the commons...but then again making the atmosphere a private good won't save us either! Cap and trade type systems to me are a form of eco-imperialism just as wars related to rare earth elements (Afghanistan?) are also a form of echo imperialism and war is horrible on the enviornment!

It becomes more clear when you look at it as a means to seize power. If they could license and sell air to the public, they would. Control water, to keep control? Those first two are harder to prevent access without government permission. It is well recognized that Mao used control of food to tyrannize his people.

Controlling access to energy, to heat, to protection from the cold and elements is just another thinly veiled power grab.

They really don't want inexpensive, clean, available energy sources -- they want to control the access to energy, in order to control the populace.

Some of them think that we should reduce the population of the Earth to 1/2 billion people, quickly. It's OK to kill the other 7 billion (as long as they are not part of that vast culling).

[jafadmin]

The US is the world's only remaining superpower. Imagine the UN having control by treaty over the US energy policy.

"When you have them by the short hairs, their hearts and minds will follow .."

[s243a]

The US is the world's only remaining superpower. Imagine the UN having control by treaty over the US energy policy.

"When you have them by the short hairs, their hearts and minds will follow .."

Perhaps that's why they didn't sign on to the Kyoto or Paris Accords.

[jafadmin]

The US is the world's only remaining superpower. Imagine the UN having control by treaty over the US energy policy.

"When you have them by the short hairs, their hearts and minds will follow .."

Perhaps that's why they didn't sign on to the Kyoto or Paris Accords.

Ya reckon?

Yeah, the globalists have settled on a tactic of ensnaring nations in global "treaties", then gradually escalating the scope of the treaty to gain control over the signatory nations. That's what they did with the EU treaty and NAFTA.

We're wise to their game ..

.