Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[Chris]

http://www.dailywire.com/news/18537/...paign=dwbrand#

Left Blames Global Warming For Enormous Iceberg Breaking. There's Just One Problem.

Talk about burying the lede.

Time issued a tweet with a video alerting readers that a massive iceberg had broken off in Antarctica. As The Daily Wire reported last week:

An iceberg roughly the size of Delaware and 600 feet thick is about to break off from one of the largest floating ice shelves in Antarctica, and the prospect is precipitating fierce debate as to whether global warming is the cause. The iceberg is part of the Larsen C ice shelf in the Weddell Sea, south of the tip of South America. The calving has been expected; a crack in the ice shelf had grown to be over 100 miles long in recent months.

No matter; over video of the iceberg, Time intoned in a caption:

A 1.12-trillion ton iceberg has broken off from Antarctica.

Uh-oh.

Time continued:

Scientists say the vast iceberg, with twice the volume of Lake Erie, broke off between July 10-12.

OMG.

Time, on a roll now, added:

The process, known as calving, occurred when a 2, 240-square-mile section broke off.

AND YOU KNOW WHY THAT IS, DON’T YOU?

Of course, the natural response from climate change zealots would be that global warming was to blame, correct?

Correct. Time’s tweet elicited the usual coterie of climate change warriors to assert that dreaded global warming was melting the ice cap.

But no scientific evidence of global warming huh Mr President.

— David Watkins (@curbie50) July 12, 2017

But then, before the video ended, but after the climate change zealots had rushed to their computers to tweet their rage, unbeknownst to them, Time finally admitted:

It was a natural event that had been anticipated for months and was not caused by climate change.

Well, heck, everyone knows that.

Gee, Time, thanks for the tip!

[spurraider21]

@abqralph is the first thing i think of when somebody says "scientific community"

so time magazine prints an article where they cite to actual scientists who say it would be premature to assign this break to climate change. but i thought the scientists were all leftist alarmist shills?

so the purpose of the daily wire article is that... times magazine ran a story about the iceberg breaking off, where they show scientists are being cautious before blaming climate change, but some people on twitter said climate change.

this is newsworthy?

[Chris]

http://www.dailywire.com/news/18801/...paign=dwbrand#

Bill Nye: Old People Have To Die For Us To Stop Global Warming

One of the great fantasies of the Left is that if the older generation simply dies off, all their policy goals will be achieved. In 2013, Oprah Winfrey mused – after two elections of President Obama! – that it might require older white Americans to die for America to achieve racial progress. “There are still generations of people, older people, who were born and bred and marinated in it – in that prejudice and racism –and they just have to die.”

Now Bill Nye The-Purported-Science-Guy is thinking along the same track.

He told The Los Angeles Times on Wednesday, “Climate change deniers, by way of example, are older. It’s generational…We’re just going to have to wait for those people to ‘age out,’ as they say. ‘Age out’ is a euphemism for ‘die.’ But it’ll happen, I guarantee you – that’ll happen.”

These musings are not only pathetically immoral, they’re anti-democratic – the notion behind a representative republic is that people can be convinced on the issues. If Nye has failed to convince people that global warming is a catastrophic threat requiring massively burdensome government intervention, that’s his own fault – perhaps he’s too busy producing songs about “My Sex Junk” or cartoons with polysexual ice cream scoops.

But the fantasy of the Left that the demographics of the country will move in their direction if they can just get rid of undesirable populations has a pretty dark undertone: hoping your political opponents croak so that you can win legislative battles without having to win the argument smacks of nastiness. While conservatives sometimes joke about Leftists having fewer children and then losing the argument through demographics, we’re not actually rooting for it, nor do we think that lack of children from Leftists would be a necessity for political victory.

But on the left, the hatred for those old white Americans is quite real. And it’s one of the driving factors behind that cons uency’s hard turn toward candidates like President Trump.

[boutons_deux]

Satellite Snafu Masked True Sea Level Rise for Decades

Revised tallies confirm that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating as Earth warms and ice sheets thaw

The numbers didn’t add up.

Even as Earth grew warmer and glaciers and ice sheets thawed, decades of satellite data seemed to show that the rate of sea-level rise was holding steady—or even declining.

Now, after puzzling over this discrepancy for years, scientists have identified its source:

a problem with the calibration of a sensor on the first of several satellites launched to measure the height of the sea surface using radar.

Adjusting the data to remove that error suggests that sea levels are indeed rising at faster rates each year.

“The rate of sea-level rise is increasing, and that increase is basically what we expected,”

says Steven Nerem, a remote-sensing expert at the University of Colorado Boulder who is leading the reanalysis.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/satellite-snafu-masked-true-sea-level-rise-for-decades/

[RandomGuy]

CO2 concentration Today: 408.84ppm


10-10-2010 --thread start date, CO2 concentration: 384.38ppm



CO2 on my ST join date: 382.63
CO2 when my first son was born: 376.36
CO2 when I was married: 363.67
CO2 four years after I was born : 333.34

[spurraider21]

But there were no SUVs millions of years ago when co2 was higher

[boutons_deux]

But there were no SUVs millions of years ago when co2 was higher

no Bs of humans and civilization, either.

[RandomGuy]

But there were no SUVs millions of years ago when co2 was higher

Nope. You are correct.

Surprising Scientists, 2017 Could Be among Hottest on Record
Global temperatures this year have been 1.64 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th-century average

Each of the last three years have broken global high temperatures records. But temperatures since January have caught some researchers off guard, because they expected that the tapering off of an El Niño period, which typically raises temperatures, would hold down global heat levels. Instead, this year is on pace to top every record except the one set in 2016, researchers found. At this point in the year, 2015 was the third-hottest on record. It ended up breaking every heat record — until being topped by 2016.
There is a greater than 57 percent chance that 2017 will turn out to be the second-hottest year on record, according to Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Ins ute for Space Studies. There are greater odds that 2017 will be one of the top three hottest years ever recorded.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a.../?sf99476180=1

[Wild Cobra]

Satellite Snafu Masked True Sea Level Rise for Decades

Revised tallies confirm that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating as Earth warms and ice sheets thaw

The numbers didn’t add up.

Even as Earth grew warmer and glaciers and ice sheets thawed, decades of satellite data seemed to show that the rate of sea-level rise was holding steady—or even declining.

Now, after puzzling over this discrepancy for years, scientists have identified its source:

a problem with the calibration of a sensor on the first of several satellites launched to measure the height of the sea surface using radar.

Adjusting the data to remove that error suggests that sea levels are indeed rising at faster rates each year.

“The rate of sea-level rise is increasing, and that increase is basically what we expected,”

says Steven Nerem, a remote-sensing expert at the University of Colorado Boulder who is leading the reanalysis.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/satellite-snafu-masked-true-sea-level-rise-for-decades/

Once again, corrections, right or wrong, are made to get the desired results.

Shazbot... Are you too lazy to find the actual source article? I wonder if yours varies from the original?

http://www.nature.com/news/satellite...ecades-1.22312

[spurraider21]

they're the same thing... verbatim

[spurraider21]

Once again, corrections, right or wrong, are made to get the desired results.

Shazbot... Are you too lazy to find the actual source article? I wonder if yours varies from the original?

http://www.nature.com/news/satellite...ecades-1.22312

corrections are also made to correct what was incorrect

[boutons_deux]

corrections are also made to correct what was incorrect

... not in WC's ideology

[Wild Cobra]

corrections are also made to correct what was incorrect

Like I said, right or wrong.

Besides, there is no argument when it comes to if the sea level rises or not. Just like the AGW argument, it isn't if it is happening or not, but by how much is really man's doing and how much is natural.

I laugh every time someone cites an argument that has no bearing of the real issues involved.

[spurraider21]

Like I said, right or wrong.

Besides, there is no argument when it comes to if the sea level rises or not. Just like the AGW argument, it isn't if it is happening or not, but by how much is really man's doing and how much is natural.

I laugh every time someone cites an argument that has no bearing of the real issues involved.

you mean like your last post about the merits of corrections, generally?

[Wild Cobra]

you mean like your last post about the merits of corrections, generally?

There are too many variables to correctly "correct" temperatures of the past A thermometer does not need corrections, and they often "correct" a reading when they use other locations than were a monitoring site is physically located. This simly does not work for any accuracy, especially if the evapotranspiration rates of the two different locations vary.

Satellites are more accurately "corrected," but I still place little faith in their results. Especially when they are attempting to resolve millimeter levels, and satellites are lucky to accurately resolve to 1 meter.

[RandomGuy]

satellites are lucky to accurately resolve to 1 meter.

How do you know that?

Link to source?

[boutons_deux]

"Jason-1, launched in late 2001 as the successor to T/P, continues this record by providing an estimate of global mean sea level every 10 days with an uncertainty of 3-4 mm. Although Jason-1 was designed to replace TOPEX/Poseidon, scientists took advantage of TOPEX/Poseidon’s unexpected longevity by placing the satellites in a tandem orbit.

The Jason 2 satellite seen below, orbits at an Al ude of 1,336 km Launch into the same orbit as Jason 1 and maintains the same measurement accuracy of Jason (3.3 cm) with a goal of achieving 2.5 cm. It also maintains the stability of the global mean sea level measurement with a drift less than 1 mm/year over the life of the mission."

http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/measuring-sea-level.html

[Wild Cobra]

How do you know that?

Link to source?

I understand the electronics of how they very work. Variances are similar to line of sight microwave communications, of which was a past career of mine. Atmospheric changes would change the envelope delay very significantly for just a 10 mile link, and unless they can monitor exactly what their path through the atmosphere is doing, they have a serious unknown variable. If the atmosphere was constant, then measurements could be resolved to the levels they claim. However, the atmosphere is a changing variable that slightly alters the microwave signals enough to create a large error range. If you read how they claim a refined sea level height, it is by multiple passes and using statistics to resolve to a finer number. They also use given landmarks, but the atmospheric density and humidity changes widely as you move away from these few scattered points of reference. Tidal interference from the moon makes the calculations even more complex.

This is nothing like GPS which can resolve locations and height to a rather fine degree, because they are using one satellite instead of several.

They can make all the claims they want. It works in a controlled environment, but not in practice.

[Wild Cobra]

"Jason-1, launched in late 2001 as the successor to T/P, continues this record by providing an estimate of global mean sea level every 10 days with an uncertainty of 3-4 mm. Although Jason-1 was designed to replace TOPEX/Poseidon, scientists took advantage of TOPEX/Poseidon’s unexpected longevity by placing the satellites in a tandem orbit.

The Jason 2 satellite seen below, orbits at an Al ude of 1,336 km Launch into the same orbit as Jason 1 and maintains the same measurement accuracy of Jason (3.3 cm) with a goal of achieving 2.5 cm. It also maintains the stability of the global mean sea level measurement with a drift less than 1 mm/year over the life of the mission."

http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/measuring-sea-level.html

Specs do not always pan out, and they assume a maximum of a 1mm annual drift, but again. the field often does not resemble the modeled expectations.

[RandomGuy]

I understand the electronics of how they very work. Variances are similar to line of sight microwave communications, of which was a past career of mine. Atmospheric changes would change the envelope delay very significantly for just a 10 mile link, and unless they can monitor exactly what their path through the atmosphere is doing, they have a serious unknown variable. If the atmosphere was constant, then measurements could be resolved to the levels they claim. However, the atmosphere is a changing variable that slightly alters the microwave signals enough to create a large error range. If you read how they claim a refined sea level height, it is by multiple passes and using statistics to resolve to a finer number. They also use given landmarks, but the atmospheric density and humidity changes widely as you move away from these few scattered points of reference. Tidal interference from the moon makes the calculations even more complex.

This is nothing like GPS which can resolve locations and height to a rather fine degree, because they are using one satellite instead of several.

They can make all the claims they want. It works in a controlled environment, but not in practice.

Your claim was very specific. You said they were lucky to be accurate to within a meter.

Do I understand you correctly then:

You have never tested the accuracy of these satellites with some sort of measurement or data. Because nowhere in that word salad do I see anything that resembles data.

[RandomGuy]

Specs do not always pan out, and they assume a maximum of a 1mm annual drift, but again. the field often does not resemble the modeled expectations.

No data here either.

That smell is getting stronger.

[RandomGuy]

They can make all the claims they want. It works in a controlled environment, but not in practice.

How do you know that?

Do you build satellites?

[RandomGuy]

I understand the electronics of how they very work. Variances are similar to line of sight microwave communications, of which was a past career of mine. Atmospheric changes would change the envelope delay very significantly for just a 10 mile link, and unless they can monitor exactly what their path through the atmosphere is doing, they have a serious unknown variable.

The Poseidon-3 radar altimeter, provided by Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES), is the mission's main instrument. It accurately measures the distance between the satellite and the mean sea surface. Derived from the Poseidon-2 altimeter on Jason-1, it emits pulses at two frequencies (13.6 and 5.3 gigahertz) to the ocean surface and analyzes very precisely the time it takes for the signals to return.

The Advanced Microwave Radiometer (AMR), provided by NASA, is an advanced version of the microwave radiometer that flew on Jason-1. It measures radiation from Earth's surface at three frequencies (18, 21 and 37 gigahertz) to determine the amount of water vapor present in the atmosphere. This water vapor affects the accuracy of altimeter measurements by delaying the time it takes for the altimeter's signals to make their round trip to the ocean surface and back.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/o...aft/index.html

One is a radar, and the other measures that exact thing you say creates an "unknown variable".

Looks like they seem to know a thing or two about microwaves too.

[Wild Cobra]

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/o...aft/index.html

One is a radar, and the other measures that exact thing you say creates an "unknown variable".

Looks like they seem to know a thing or two about microwaves too.

The atmospheric density to those frequencies changes in ways that cannot be accurately accounted for.

I've used this type of equipment before:

link: http://www.highfrequencyelectronics....11_Stevens.pdf

[RandomGuy]

The atmospheric density to those frequencies changes in ways that cannot be accurately accounted for.

I've used this type of equipment before:

link: http://www.highfrequencyelectronics....11_Stevens.pdf

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

The atmospheric density can be accurately accounted for.

NASA has two satellites, with instruments that appear to correct for the thing you say is impossible.

Your handwaving is insufficient to make your case.

I do, however, find it useful in illustrating to my children the quality of arguments used in climate change denial.