Science & Technology News

[CatNewBee]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Well thanks, that saved some time.

Consider this:

• the smartest people in the world want us to be concerned about the climate crisis.
• the richest people in the world want us to ignore the smartest people.

It's that, in a nutshell.

No, the richest people finance the "smartest people" to concern us about climate change to profit from the hype by dumping working things and consuming new stuff and producing more pollution. They just create new markets.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

In all humbleness, when I stumbled across this observation this morning while sipping black coffee, I thought it was interesting and relevant to the many discussions on CF.

The most reasoned conclusion one could draw is that currently there is a very small pause in the warming of the planet as indicated by the measurement data sets. In addition, the the atmospheric CO2 continues on monotonically upward and is seemingly uncorrelated to the pause. Maybe someone could offer an explanation.

Because of all the threads talking warming on CF, I think it is truely insightful to periodically look at the massaged actual data.

Lastly, do we really only want the warmists to post. How could we argue then?

Limiting the discourse is kind of like drinking your own bathwater.

I basicly gave up trying to keep things in reality and out of mms ano politics but the actual science means nothing it's all about power over others. Yes money = power.

With real science there is no such thing as a consensus. They drank the kool aid

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

No, the richest people finance the "smartest people" to concern us about climate change to profit from the hype by dumping working things and consuming new stuff and producing more pollution. They just create new markets.

That defies logic, capitalism, and Occam's razor.

Yes there is and will be money to be made from new and sustainable technologies, but when you can dig up a barrel of dead dinosaurs for a few bucks, and sell it for $60+... no oil exec wants that gravy-train to end any time soon.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Seems like another case of Watts Up With That cherry picking a data set. I think the correct conclusion is that 2016 and 2017 where very warm and so that makes the subsequent years look like cooling, but if you look at the overall trend, 2019, 2020 and 2021 look like they are pretty much in line with the trend line from 1979.. or even earlier if you want look back as far as 1880.

Interesting.

The graphs you attached to your post were obviously created in the last decade.

In classic 1984 Ministry of Truth style, these do not agree with the reality at the time. Focusing on the (in)famous "warming hiatus", let's dig:


This graph is included in this NOAA article dated 31 December 2009....





Compare closely with the graph shown in this NOAA article dated September 4, 2018


For convenience, both these NOAA articles can be accessed from this single NOAA page

This NOAA newsletter article dated October 2016 provides an insight for the skeptical observer into the techniques used to erase the past. In short form, you homogenize the data then re-evaluate based on the homogenisation, to wit...

A new study published online today in the journal Science finds that the rate of global warming during the last 15 years has been as fast as or faster than that seen during the latter half of the 20th century. The study refutes the notion that there has been a slowdown or “hiatus” in the rate of global warming in recent years.

If you've stayed engaged long enough to reach here, and don't know what the heck I'm on about, compare the differential between 1998 and 2005 from the different time periods.

[Thumbs Up]

These guys are talking about how to leverage the next pandemic to get the public to accept a universal messenger type RNA flu vaccine. This was December 29 2019! This video is making my skin crawl.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?465845...al-flu-vaccine

[jimbunyard]

Apparently, even you don't know 'what the heck you're on about', because you're comparing two different data sets, 'global temperature anomaly' and 'average global temperature', as well as data representing two different periods of time, a definite no-no when analyzing trends

Just another example of

When 'data' is consistently provided that proves to be manipulated, misinterpreted , cherry-picked, or outright lies and generally a literal waste of time (since it must be analyzed to be proved incorrect), it is entirely appropriate to critique the 'messenger', or, as some thin-skinned, hypocritical members are wont to claim, "attack" the 'messenger'.

If you want to be taken seriously, try providing serious (i.e. real) data...

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Apparently, even you don't know 'what the heck you're on about', because you're comparing two different data sets, 'global temperature anomaly' and 'average global temperature', as well as data representing two different periods of time, a definite no-no when analyzing trends

Just another example of

Come on in, spinner...

[SailOar]

An interesting article, if long-winded, about the progress being made to develop fusion reactors.

Can Nuclear Fusion Put the Brakes on Climate Change?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

That defies logic, capitalism, and Occam's razor.

Yes there is and will be money to be made from new and sustainable technologies, but when you can dig up a barrel of dead dinosaurs for a few bucks, and sell it for $60+... no oil exec wants that gravy-train to end any time soon.

You really think it's cheap to explore , drill, and then setup all the equipment to pump oil out of the ground ? THATS CUTE.

Do your homework.
It costs upwards of a million five just to drill the hole even if it doesn't produce any oil.
That's just the cost to actually drill.
Overall, 74% of a typical Permian’s total cost, excluding vertical Spraberry areas, is comprised of five key cost drivers:
Drilling:
o Rig related costs (rig rates and drilling fluids) –17% or $1.28 MM
o Casing and cement – 13% or $0.98 MM
Completion:
o Hydraulic fracture pump units and equipment (horsepower) – 26% or $1.95 MM
o Completion fluids and flow back disposal – 19% or $1.43 MM
o Proppants – 17% or $1.28 MM

Are you starting to understand a tiny bit about the oil and gas industry.

https://www.oilgasequity.com/resourc...pletion-facts/

[CatNewBee]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

These guys are talking about how to leverage the next pandemic to get the public to accept a universal messenger type RNA flu vaccine. This was December 29 2019! This video is making my skin crawl.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?465845...al-flu-vaccine

Thanks, very reassuring. One more reason not to trust them and hopefully bring them to a tribunal one day, they deserve it.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Come on in, spinner...

Ah yes, another who needs to familiarize themselves with reflective technology.

Won't even grace this with a cursory review of the links, because, if one looks at the various yearly anomalies, one can easily see that the data points (that is, the information the graph is supplying, i.e. trends) on the two graphs are exactly the same.

The main point of contention is, ultimately, with the rate of warming, or if it's even warming at all.

That the temperature scales are placed differently could mean any number of things, from an unfortunate mistake to the two graphs having different sources to one or the other's use of adjusted data (not, as some non-understanders-of-science would have you believe, an invalidatory flaw, but a common, indeed necessary, part of the scientific method).

That someone would attempt to use such cherry-picked, unreferenced (as in no referential dialogue from the source) illustrations shows nothing at all about the articles cited, but everything one needs to know about the ingenuousness, or not, of the cherry-picker attempting their nefarious use.

[GordMay]

Spencer & Christie, at UAH, so beloved of climate skeptics, have changed their 30-year averaging period [30-year baseline], from which they compute anomalies, to 1991-2020, from the old period 1981-2010. This change does not affect the temperature trends.

The linear warming trend since January, 1979 is +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).

The reason the UAH dataset crops up so much, in the denialist community, is because it is the temperature data analysis, that shows the least warming.

“A Comparative Analysis of Data Derived from Orbiting MSU/AMSU Instruments” ~ by R. Eric Swanson
➥

➥ https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10...21-0-25-deg-c/
➥ https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-cont...-blog-post.pdf

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Ah yes, another who needs to familiarize themselves with reflective technology.

Won't even grace this with a cursory review of the links, because, if one looks at the various yearly anomalies, one can easily see that the data points (that is, the information the graph is supplying, i.e. trends) on the two graphs are exactly the same.

The main point of contention is, ultimately, with the rate of warming, or if it's even warming at all.

That the temperature scales are placed differently could mean any number of things, from an unfortunate mistake to the two graphs having different sources to one or the other's use of adjusted data (not, as some non-understanders-of-science would have you believe, an invalidatory flaw, but a common, indeed necessary, part of the scientific method).

That someone would attempt to use such cherry-picked, unreferenced (as in no referential dialogue from the source) illustrations shows nothing at all about the articles cited, but everything one needs to know about the ingenuousness, or not, of the cherry-picker attempting their nefarious use.

The graphs are exactly the same are they? I guess that's proof enough the "ministry of truth" strategy is effective on those of your ilk.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Spencer & Christie, at UAH, so beloved of climate skeptics, have changed their 30-year averaging period [30-year baseline], from which they compute anomalies, to 1991-2020, from the old period 1981-2010. This change does not affect the temperature trends.

The linear warming trend since January, 1979 is +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).

The reason the UAH dataset crops up so much, in the denialist community, is because it is the temperature data analysis, that shows the least warming.

“A Comparative Analysis of Data Derived from Orbiting MSU/AMSU Instruments” ~ by R. Eric Swanson
➥

➥ https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10...21-0-25-deg-c/
➥ https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-cont...-blog-post.pdf

Ditto.
You're a bit more technically inclined then jimbo. How do those anomalies compare? What about 2005 becoming hotter than 1998? I'm sure there's a literal myriad of studies justifying these "adjustments" that can be quoted.

[GordMay]

My point was that climate trends are not measured in [cherry picked] short-term years, but in standardised 30-year standard reference periods, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), to create average ‘climate normals’, that represent what can be considered a typical climate for that period.

Changing the baseline does not change how much we’ve warmed, how fast we’ve warmed, and how much we will warm, if we continue to emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

In climate change studies, temperature anomalies are more important than absolute temperature.
A temperature anomaly is the difference from an average, or baseline, temperature.
The baseline temperature is typically computed by averaging 30 or more years of temperature data.
A positive anomaly indicates the observed temperature was warmer than the baseline, while a negative anomaly indicates the observed temperature was cooler than the baseline.

WMO Guidelines on the Calculation of Climate Normals [2017]
➥ https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=4166

New Two-Tier approach on “climate normals” [2015]
➥ https://public.wmo.int/en/media/news...rmals%E2%80%9D

The choice of baseline period is essentially arbitrary and does not affect the end result.
➥ http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=8879