The Donald vs Big Tech

[Ducky]

That's how science works - it's discussed and acted on to the best of our (well, climate scientists) understanding. It's not gospel, it's open to revisions. Heck, it's open to be blown wide open. But until such time that the climate-change deniers can back their shite-talk conspiracy theories up, I think going with the people who have M.Sc. and Ph.Ds in the topic is the safer bet.

Genuine question - would you question the validity of the claims of say an aeronautical engineer when they say "this is how planes stay in the sky"? Or when say a construction engineer or architect says "this is why that 100 storey building doesn't collapse under its own weight"?

[ochoill]

Genuine question - would you question the validity of the claims of say an aeronautical engineer when they say "this is how planes stay in the sky"?

Time for my favourite piece of trivia

[ochoill]

Climate change is real yes and also there are people making money off us from it, both stances are real and not actually independent of each other.  Post-industrial human existence has completely changed the face of the planet.  There are many causes of climate change but it is very heavily consumer driven, on levels beyond what we can see immediately around us.  But to think we can't irrevocably alter the earth around us and it not have an impact on the balance of the planet itself is the absurd stance.

There is money to be made in convincing everyone it isn't happening too.  Lots of it, as it happens.

[astfgyl]

That's how science works - it's discussed and acted on to the best of our (well, climate scientists) understanding. It's not gospel, it's open to revisions. Heck, it's open to be blown wide open. But until such time that the climate-change deniers can back their shite-talk conspiracy theories up, I think going with the people who have M.Sc. and Ph.Ds in the topic is the safer bet.

Genuine question - would you question the validity of the claims of say an aeronautical engineer when they say "this is how planes stay in the sky"? Or when say a construction engineer or architect says "this is why that 100 storey building doesn't collapse under its own weight"?

Those are actual concrete examples that can be proven by experiment whereas the climate change science is the experiment right now because nobody knows how it will turn out. It's theoretical stuff. Those examples are something different

[astfgyl]

Climate change is real yes and also there are people making money off us from it, both stances are real and not actually independent of each other.  Post-industrial human existence has completely changed the face of the planet.  There are many causes of climate change but it is very heavily consumer driven, on levels beyond what we can see immediately around us.  But to think we can't irrevocably alter the earth around us and it not have an impact on the balance of the planet itself is the absurd stance.

There is money to be made in convincing everyone it isn't happening too.  Lots of it, as it happens.

Nobody said we couldn't inadvertently fuck it up. It's the idea of being able to fix it on purpose by using the consumer as the guinea pig that I think is ridiculous.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

They speak about this shit as if it's gospel and can't be challenged. There are thousands of variables and temperature is only one of them. This notion that it can all be fixed by trying to maintain some optimal global average temperature simply by reducing carbon emissions for the losers at the bottom is just fucking ridiculous, as is the scientism that follows it.

I don't know who this "they" is in your mind, but I can tell you it's not the serious climate scientists, none of whom believe "reducing carbon emissions for the losers at the bottom" is anywhere near sufficient or even priority action to take.

[Ollkiller]

answers below

Average over how long?
Well we have weather station since approx 1880. We now use thousands of satellites. Before that there's ways to see what temperature the earth is.

Have the measuring methods changed at all since the pre industrial age?
Yes. Weather stations years ago, now satellites. They used to put a bucket into the ocean and measure the temperature hundreds of years ago. Pre industrial you're going into studying the levels of oxygen 16 in fossils.

Could it be the case that the change in method has simply given a more accurate reading?
Yes

Can the global average be stable and yet some places have extra drought and others extra rain?
Of course it can. You have been to other places.

Is climate localised at all?
For the most part yes, but not always.

Is there evidence of previous global temperature changes?
Back to fossils.

Do I care if death Valley is record hot when it's freezing in Ireland?
I highly doubt it, and neither do i.

No I'm afraid I have to conclude that a global measure of temperature is useless but it makes for great terror headlines.

Its not useless. Why wouldn't you use a global temperature. If you want an average isn't that what you use. For all your conspiracies about it you're not showing anything that says climate change is not happening. Once again, carbon released makes the world hotter. That is a fact. We dump around 30 billion tons of Co2 each year, roughly 60 times what volcanos do. So us, humans are making the world hotter. I know two people who work in the ERI (Environmental Research Institute) in UCC on climate change modelling. One of them advises government committees on climate change. They are very intelligent people who are rightly scared about what the world will be like in 50 years for their children. They would love nothing better for climate change to be a hoax. It isn't.

[Ollkiller]

Back on topic there were 2 cardiac arrests at trump's latest rally in pennslyvania. After the 2nd one instead of taking questions he played tunes for 40 mins and waddled round like a pleb. Hes losing it. Still tight in the polls though.

[astfgyl]

answers below

Average over how long?
Well we have weather station since approx 1880. We now use thousands of satellites. Before that there's ways to see what temperature the earth is.

Have the measuring methods changed at all since the pre industrial age?
Yes. Weather stations years ago, now satellites. They used to put a bucket into the ocean and measure the temperature hundreds of years ago. Pre industrial you're going into studying the levels of oxygen 16 in fossils.

Could it be the case that the change in method has simply given a more accurate reading?
Yes

Can the global average be stable and yet some places have extra drought and others extra rain?
Of course it can. You have been to other places.

Is climate localised at all?
For the most part yes, but not always.

Is there evidence of previous global temperature changes?
Back to fossils.

Do I care if death Valley is record hot when it's freezing in Ireland?
I highly doubt it, and neither do i.

No I'm afraid I have to conclude that a global measure of temperature is useless but it makes for great terror headlines.

Its not useless. Why wouldn't you use a global temperature. If you want an average isn't that what you use. For all your conspiracies about it you're not showing anything that says climate change is not happening. Once again, carbon released makes the world hotter. That is a fact. We dump around 30 billion tons of Co2 each year, roughly 60 times what volcanos do. So us, humans are making the world hotter. I know two people who work in the ERI (Environmental Research Institute) in UCC on climate change modelling. One of them advises government committees on climate change. They are very intelligent people who are rightly scared about what the world will be like in 50 years for their children. They would love nothing better for climate change to be a hoax. It isn't.

Where's the conspiracy in anything I said about global average temperature being a load of shit to measure anything and also pointing out that because the method has changed, the difference must be taken into account and the margin of error could be the same amount that it's supposed to have risen by worldwide. It's not a tough concept. Here's an example of things not going as planned:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shipping-rules-are-affecting-global-warming/

Bringing in the rules didn't consider that. The rest of it, lowering human carbon emissions to see if it will bring down the average temperature of the earth is an absolute experiment no matter how much one likes the idea or not

[astfgyl]

I see Walz is in a bit of hot water in time for the election. I wonder will the media treat it like hunter's laptop until the results are in?

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

It's not a tough concept. Here's an example of things not going as planned:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shipping-rules-are-affecting-global-warming/

Bringing in the rules didn't consider that.

That very article includes a link to an explainer of why that claim is erroneous (in fact, we even discussed it on here a couple years back already, though I'm not arsed searching for it):

A number of folks have argued that warming will happen faster than we expect because scientists are not accounting for falling emissions of planet-cooling aerosols as we reduce fossil fuel use. This is not the case – all our future scenarios account for rapid aerosol declines

https://x.com/hausfath/status/1444679408573419520

[astfgyl]

Human Influence on the Atmosphere and Surface
The likely range of human-induced warming in global-mean
surface air temperature (GSAT) in 2010–2019 relative to
1850–1900 is 0.8°C–1.3°C, encompassing the observed warming
of 0.9°C–1.2°C, while the change attributable to natural forcings
is only −0.1°C to +0.1°C. The best estimate of human-induced
warming is 1.07°C. Warming can now be attributed since 1850–1900,
instead of since 1951 as done in AR5, thanks to a better understanding
of uncertainties and because observed warming is larger. The likely
ranges for human-induced GSAT and global mean surface temperature
(GMST) warming are equal (medium confidence). Attributing
observed warming to specific anthropogenic forcings remains more
uncertain. Over the same period, forcing from greenhouse gases1
likely increased GSAT by 1.0°C–2.0°C, while other anthropogenic
forcings including aerosols likely decreased GSAT by 0.0°C–0.8°C. It is
very likely that human-induced greenhouse gas increases were the
main driver2
 of tropospheric warming since comprehensive satellite
observations started in 1979, and extremely likely that human-induced
stratospheric ozone depletion was the main driver of cooling in the
lower stratosphere between 1979 and the mid-1990s. {3.3.1}

Here's the source: https://t.co/s53LheLNvW

Table  3.1 | Estimates of warming in GSAT attributable to human influence for different periods in °C, all relative to the 1850–1900 base period.
Uncertainty ranges are 5–95% ranges for individual studies and likely ranges for the assessment. The results shown in the table use the methods described in the three studies
indicated, but applied to additional periods and the warming trend. Ribes et al. (2021) results were updated using a corrected natural forcing time series, and Haustein et al.
(2017) results were updated to use HadCRUT5.
1986–2005

There's another bit worth reading.

Have a read of the whole thing and then tell me that trying to reduce global temperature by reducing human carbon emissions is not a giant experiment. I've actually read all that but I couldn't take the time to examine each source to see what the foundations of the whole thing are but if I get bored enough one day I might go picking holes in the sources there and add further uncertainty to the mix. Not that it'll make a blind bit of difference to any of the disciples of Scientism who just like to follow the (theoretical. Yes!) science.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Climatologists say that there is a load of crap (so to speak) in the environment which is having, in the perspective of life as we know it on earth, a negative impact on the climate in terms of overall temperature, related shifts in atmospheric pressure, etc., and certain extreme weather events that these make more likely. They hypothesize that by reducing that crap to a minimum, these negative impacts may also be reduced to a minimum along with the likelihood of those extreme weather events.

I said pages back that it is a hypothesis. As a hypothesis, yes, it needs testing. And there is only one way to test it: by doing it. What you seem to be in denial of is the risk level of not testing that hypothesis. Like I said, you deny that risk for free, whereas pricks like Scott Pruitt (Trump's pick for head of the EPA but who even Trump had to eventually fire because of his levels of corruption) deny it for millions paid directly to them by some of the wealthiest and most powerful corporations on the planet: fossil fuel-based energy companies. Yet that doesn't seem to give you pause for thought.

[astfgyl]

And you think the climate doom crowd are doing it out of some sense of justice for all humanity? You think they're not being paid? You know they are

No, that's how very rich corporations and power hungry governments manufacture the consent required to use people's good nature against them.

Tell me, from your own experience: What thing is it that you see that indicates to you that you're living through some sort of climate crisis? Honestly, say what you see and how does your carbon emissions factor into that?

Be honest now in describing your own personal experience of the climate crisis

Edit: if you can while you're at it, can you show me one thing I've said in favour of fossil fuel companies and their obviously rotten business practices? I'll bet you can't

[son of the Morrigan]

There are two main problems I see with placing any trust in data that points to a rise in global temperature over the last century.
Firstly all the historical data was decided a number of years ago to be regarded as "raw" data and was "adjusted", In fact in many regions the raw data pointed to a cooling over the last century, others recorded no change. following the "adjustments" general warming emerged.
The "science" behind these adjustments is laughable.
Secondly there are three differing methods of calculating current average global temp., "climate anomaly method", "reference station method", and "first difference method" carried out by the three major climate centres, all producing differing results.