Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[SageBrush]

North Carolina didn't like science on sea levels … so passed a law against it

The title is misleading. The Pols did not like the report so they required that the study extrapolate out to 30 years instead of 100 years.

I agree that the framing is short-sighted, but that is what bought Pols do. The science remains +/- accurate.

 

[jrad6515]

If the underlying raw data shown in the video is accurate and not fabricated, can that data be ignored? As we all know, statistics can be manipulated and cherry picked to support one view or another. So that begs the question, why did the New York Times choose to ignore data before the 1950s?

Again, assuming the data was accurate, what mechanism caused the warming early last century?

The answer is obvious: the NYT has an alarmist agenda so they cherry-picked the data to support their case. If you look at the entire series dating back to 1895 you can verify the NYT's deception and see that the Heller video is correct. The data in the video is taken from government servers and is accurate and not fabricated. I have downloaded all the daily data myself and confirmed the conclusions in the video I linked to above. Check it out:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/

BTW, the NYT's fakery does not just apply to Illinois but to the entire country. The number of 90+ degree days has actually decreased since the 1930's.

 

[mspohr]

The title is misleading. The Pols did not like the report so they required that the study extrapolate out to 30 years instead of 100 years.

I agree that the framing is short-sighted, but that is what bought Pols do. The science remains +/- accurate.

They'll all be dead in 30 years so it will be someone else's problem.

 

[SageBrush]

They'll all be dead in 30 years so it will be someone else's problem.

I think more to the point they will have taken the profits and scampered, leaving the losses and bills to others.

I would not be surprised though to learn that the local populace favored the 30 year timeframe. They do not want property values and taxes to drop anymore than the Pols. This is a good example of an earlier discussion: the Pols are corrupt morons, but they well represent their voters.

 

[ohmman]

The answer is obvious: the NYT has an alarmist agenda so they cherry-picked the data to support their case. If you look at the entire series dating back to 1895 you can verify the NYT's deception and see that the Heller video is correct. The data in the video is taken from government servers and is accurate and not fabricated. I have downloaded all the daily data myself and confirmed the conclusions in the video I linked to above. Check it out:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/

BTW, the NYT's fakery does not just apply to Illinois but to the entire country. The number of 90+ degree days has actually decreased since the 1930's.

Can you export your area averages here? This data set includes discrete locations, so if you post your methodology for averaging over geographic areas, I’d like to compare those.

 

[mspohr]

I think more to the point they will have taken the profits and scampered, leaving the losses and bills to others.

I would not be surprised though to learn that the local populace favored the 30 year timeframe. They do not want property values and taxes to drop anymore than the Pols. This is a good example of an earlier discussion: the Pols are corrupt morons, but they well represent their voters.

Looks like reality will catch up with everyone this weekend... not 30 or 100 years from now.

N Carolina hog farmers spray feces around black communities, Florence will spread it everywhere

 

[nwdiver]

The answer is obvious: the NYT has an alarmist agenda so they cherry-picked the data to support their case. If you look at the entire series dating back to 1895 you can verify the NYT's deception and see that the Heller video is correct. The data in the video is taken from government servers and is accurate and not fabricated. I have downloaded all the daily data myself and confirmed the conclusions in the video I linked to above. Check it out:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/

BTW, the NYT's fakery does not just apply to Illinois but to the entire country. The number of 90+ degree days has actually decreased since the 1930's.

One question I've never seen an answer to... how would increasing CO2 levels >30% NOT cause warming??? Physics is Physics... the math says ~1.5w/m² (BEFORE feedbacks)... 24/7/365; the Earth is >500Tm²; That's A LOT of energy. A LOT of energy. When you run the numbers you get roughly the amount of thermal energy increase we observe mostly in the ocean... weird coincidence.

Context... how much energy is added annually by the ~120ppm increase in CO2?

(1E-12TW/m²)(24hr/day)(365days/yr)(510Tm²) = 4,467,600 TWh/yr

For context all of humanity uses <200,000TWh/yr of energy (Total US electricity use is 4,000TWh/yr). ALL energy. Every drop of oil, every g of Uranium, every ounce of coal. The additional CO2 in the atmosphere is dumping >20x more energy every year to the earth than the globe uses. Add in Methane, feedbacks from H2O and the change in albedo and the real number is much higher. Physics.

 

[mspohr]

Global warming ‘double whammy’ may be steering Florence into the Carolinas, says researcher

Looks like hurricane Florence is unusual in that 33 names storms since 1851 have been in Florence's position and ALL of them have veered to the North and missed mainland US.
It appears that a "blocking high pressure area" caused by global warming has diverted Florence directly to the US coast.

 

[ohmman]

The answer is obvious: the NYT has an alarmist agenda so they cherry-picked the data to support their case. If you look at the entire series dating back to 1895 you can verify the NYT's deception and see that the Heller video is correct. The data in the video is taken from government servers and is accurate and not fabricated. I have downloaded all the daily data myself and confirmed the conclusions in the video I linked to above. Check it out:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/

BTW, the NYT's fakery does not just apply to Illinois but to the entire country. The number of 90+ degree days has actually decreased since the 1930's.

Since I get the feeling you don't have an analysis to upload, I've done some more research on the methodology. But I'd like to point out how you fell right into the original trap - this isn't the NYT's data. It's data and analysis from the Climate Impact Lab. The visualization and reporting are from the NYT.

Helpful FAQ from the Climate Impact Lab here, for those who don't like the way I phrased things in my post above. Basically says the same thing, and you can validate the data by using their methodology.

http://www.impactlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Climate-Impact-Lab-FAQ-NYT-90-degrees.pdf

 

[SageBrush]

But I'd like to point out how you fell right into the original trap

I don't think you are getting the right flavor here. For people like jrad, Fox news is 'truth' and any other source is "fake news" or "alarmist" or "manipulated."

 

[mspohr]

An Insurance Executive Explains Why We Need a Carbon Tax Opinion | An Insurance Executive Explains Why We Need a Carbon Tax

At least the insurance industry gets it.

 

[ggies07]

An Insurance Executive Explains Why We Need a Carbon Tax Opinion | An Insurance Executive Explains Why We Need a Carbon Tax

At least the insurance industry gets it.

You know what else we need? A carpool tax - if you have an ICE car and idle in the school carpool lane, then you should be taxed. I've decided this needs to be done because my health is being lowered while I have to stand outside in the carpool area and open doors for the kids to get out while your car is running or sitting idle waiting to be pulled up. Extreme? Maybe....but I'm tired of inhaling fumes.

 

[nwdiver]

An Insurance Executive Explains Why We Need a Carbon Tax Opinion | An Insurance Executive Explains Why We Need a Carbon Tax

At least the insurance industry gets it.

I think we should call it a carbon tariff. Because apparently Republicans forgot how tariffs work....

 

[ohmman]

You know what else we need? A carpool tax - if you have an ICE car and idle in the school carpool lane, then you should be taxed. I've decided this needs to be done because my health is being lowered while I have to stand outside in the carpool area and open doors for the kids to get out while your car is running or sitting idle waiting to be pulled up. Extreme? Maybe....but I'm tired of inhaling fumes.

Many municipalities (mine included) have an anti-idling ordinance. The problem, of course, is that it’s basically unenforceable.

 

[mspohr]

You know what else we need? A carpool tax - if you have an ICE car and idle in the school carpool lane, then you should be taxed. I've decided this needs to be done because my health is being lowered while I have to stand outside in the carpool area and open doors for the kids to get out while your car is running or sitting idle waiting to be pulled up. Extreme? Maybe....but I'm tired of inhaling fumes.

There is a movement in California to help school districts to replace diesel busses with electric. This will keep the bus fumes away from kids.

 

[Skotty]

Many municipalities (mine included) have an anti-idling ordinance. The problem, of course, is that it’s basically unenforceable.

Another high point for electric cars. Idle all you want when you drive electric.

 

[jrad6515]

Since I get the feeling you don't have an analysis to upload, I've done some more research on the methodology. But I'd like to point out how you fell right into the original trap - this isn't the NYT's data. It's data and analysis from the Climate Impact Lab.

I am well aware that it is not the NYT's data. It is heavily 'adjusted' data designed to fit an alarmist agenda. My data is the official unaltered data set from NCDC/NOAA that I linked to above.

In the attached zip file is the original analysis I did for Mt. Vernon, Ill., the location referenced by Heller in his video, that clearly shows the area is experiencing many less hot days over the last century, opposite of what the doctored NYT data file says.

BTW, here is what my hometown has experienced since 1902 when the data first was recorded (Weatherford, TX, USHCN station# USC00419532):

Unlike the NYT I use the entire unaltered NOAA data series rather than an adjusted cherry-picked one like the Times uses and it paints a completely different picture. The NYT wants us to believe that my hometown is burning up but, in fact, it is clear that the area is cooling - even since 1960 when the NYT's cherry-picked data series starts. You might want to run the numbers for yourself rather than blindly depending on the "newspaper of record" for your climate news.

 

[ggr]

I am well aware that it is not the NYT's data. It is heavily 'adjusted' data designed to fit an alarmist agenda. My data is the official unaltered data set from NCDC/NOAA that I linked to above.

In the attached zip file is the original analysis I did for Mt. Vernon, Ill., the location referenced by Heller in his video, that clearly shows the area is experiencing many less hot days over the last century, opposite of what the doctored NYT data file says.

BTW, here is what my hometown has experienced since 1902 when the data first was recorded (Weatherford, TX, USHCN station# USC00419532):

View attachment 334905

Unlike the NYT I use the entire unaltered NOAA data series rather than an adjusted cherry-picked one like the Times uses and it paints a completely different picture. The NYT wants us to believe that my hometown is burning up but, in fact, it is clear that the area is cooling - even since 1960 when the NYT's cherry-picked data series starts. You might want to run the numbers for yourself rather than blindly depending on the "newspaper of record" for your climate news.

You use the data for a single place, but complain about cherry picking? It is to laugh, ha ha.

 

[ohmman]

I am well aware that it is not the NYT's data.

Are you?

the NYT has an alarmist agenda so they cherry-picked the data

verify the NYT's deception

the NYT's fakery

the doctored NYT data file

Unlike the NYT

The NYT wants us to believe

I'm out today but will download some data sets - again you haven't averaged over the same area - you selected A STATION reading, probably didn't do any TOBs or other corrections, and assumed that meant you did "better research." But I'm willing to give it a shot and see for myself.

 

[nwdiver]

I am well aware that it is not the NYT's data. It is heavily 'adjusted' data designed to fit an alarmist agenda. My data is the official unaltered data set from NCDC/NOAA that I linked to above.

In the attached zip file is the original analysis I did for Mt. Vernon, Ill., the location referenced by Heller in his video, that clearly shows the area is experiencing many less hot days over the last century, opposite of what the doctored NYT data file says.

BTW, here is what my hometown has experienced since 1902 when the data first was recorded (Weatherford, TX, USHCN station# USC00419532):

View attachment 334905

Unlike the NYT I use the entire unaltered NOAA data series rather than an adjusted cherry-picked one like the Times uses and it paints a completely different picture. The NYT wants us to believe that my hometown is burning up but, in fact, it is clear that the area is cooling - even since 1960 when the NYT's cherry-picked data series starts. You might want to run the numbers for yourself rather than blindly depending on the "newspaper of record" for your climate news.

... how would increasing CO2 levels >30% NOT cause warming??? Physics is Physics... the math says ~1.5w/m² (BEFORE feedbacks)... 24/7/365; the Earth is >500Tm²; That's A LOT of energy. A LOT of energy. When you run the numbers you get roughly the amount of thermal energy increase we observe mostly in the ocean... weird coincidence.

Context... how much energy is added annually by the ~120ppm increase in CO2?

(1E-12TW/m²)(24hr/day)(365days/yr)(510Tm²) = 4,467,600 TWh/yr

For context all of humanity uses <200,000TWh/yr of energy (Total US electricity use is 4,000TWh/yr). ALL energy. Every drop of oil, every g of Uranium, every ounce of coal. The additional CO2 in the atmosphere is dumping >20x more energy every year to the earth than the globe uses. Add in Methane, feedbacks from H2O and the change in albedo and the real number is much higher. Physics.