*

rtpoe

  • Old Fart
  • 12420
Re: Jenny McCarthy MERGED
« Reply #15 on: February 28, 2015, 10:45:25 PM »
1) It's the annual average for final minus the annual average for raw.
2) The source data is USHCN / NCDC. You can replicate the plot yourself if you wish, the data is publicly available. Here's the post by the guy who did this one: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/ncdc-hits-new-milestones-of-fake-data/

What they do is they take the raw data and they adjust it. They also have estimated data. They have their reasons which would take a while to explain. They do more adjustments every year. If you subtract data from 1999 from data for 2014 you'll find the past was changed. As can be seen with this plot is that their adjustments are imposing their theory upon the data. That is they are making the data match theory through adjustment.

This is just one example of the sort of thing one can find by looking for oneself.

And if you look for yourself, you'll see that "Steven Goddard" is actually Tony Heller. And his claim that temperature data was fudged to make it look warmer now than it really is - well, that has been thoroughly and completely debunked -

"The missing piece in Goddard’s analysis, Hausfather said, was he ignored that the network of weather stations that feed data to the government today is not the one that existed 80 years ago."

Mark  C. Serreze, professor of geography at the University of Colorado-Boulder, said no fabrication has taken place.

"Goddard's results stem from an erroneous analysis of the data," Serreze said.

Anthony Watts, a popular skeptic of most climate change data, posted his objection to Goddard’s claim.

"I took Goddard to task over this as well in a private email, saying he was very wrong and needed to do better," Watts wrote.

And for people who think, like Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), that the presence of snow or an unusually cold winter means the global warming is bunk, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D- RI) has a message for you:



I'd also encourage you to check out real climate scientists instead of random "science" bloggers:
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://climate.gov/

rtpoe

Well, it's a marvelous night for a Moondance
With the stars up above in your eyes
A fantabulous night to make romance
'Neath the cover of October skies
And all the leaves on the trees are falling
To the sound of the breezes that blow...

Van Morrison, Moondance

*

Palomine

  • Moderator
  • 24024
  • Modern Male Mammal, Linux enthusiast.
Re: Jenny McCarthy MERGED
« Reply #16 on: March 01, 2015, 12:02:32 AM »
....Ridicule, social pressure, etc are being deployed...

I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you this zeo, but ridicule is the appropriate and to-be-expected response to ridiculousness.

*

rtpoe

  • Old Fart
  • 12420
Re: Climate change
« Reply #17 on: March 02, 2015, 07:37:09 PM »
One unpleasant symptom of the problem:

Craters in the Siberian permafrost.

Quote
So, to recap: Siberia is warming. Permafrost thaws and spews methane, and blasts out a burst of highly flammable gas. Who could have guessed global warming would do all of that?

What makes it truly scary is that methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. More warming releases more methane, which causes more warming...

It's truly black humor to think that civilization can be ruined because the Earth is farting....

rtpoe

Well, it's a marvelous night for a Moondance
With the stars up above in your eyes
A fantabulous night to make romance
'Neath the cover of October skies
And all the leaves on the trees are falling
To the sound of the breezes that blow...

Van Morrison, Moondance

*

Robin_K2

  • A Cup
  • 3443
Re: Climate change
« Reply #18 on: March 03, 2015, 07:42:39 AM »
It would be a shame if we cleaned up the planet, and global warming turned out to be a myth.

(Read that somewhere else.)

*

gOOber

  • Pic-O-Matic
  • 25236
Re: Climate change
« Reply #19 on: June 13, 2015, 03:35:28 PM »
SACRAMENTO (The Borowitz Report) – A new poll shows that Americans who were unconcerned about climate change as it wreaked havoc around the world are beginning to worry, now that global warming is affecting the appearance of their lawns.

According to the poll, conducted by the University of Minnesota’s Opinion Research Institute, rising sea levels, the destruction of habitats, and catastrophic weather conditions, such as hurricanes and tsunamis, have not served as the wake-up call to Americans that their lawns’ unsightly barrenness has.

In interviews across the state of California, residents expressed anger and outrage that climate change had been allowed to worsen to the point that it has now severely limited their choice of ground cover, shrubs, and other decorative plantings.

“We are being forced to create a front lawn out of stones and, yes, cacti,” said Harland Dorrinson, a resident of suburban Sacramento. “I’m not sure that this is a world I would want to leave to my children.”

“Right now we’re looking at a situation where we have to choose between saving our climbing hydrangeas or our roses,” said Tracy Klugian, of San Diego. “We are no longer living like humans.”

Carol Foyler, a San Mateo resident who has watched her lawn turn from a gorgeous green to a hideous brown during California’s drought, said she blamed scientists “for failing to warn us of the true cost of climate change.”

“They always said that polar bears would starve to death,” she said. “But they never told us our lawns would look like crap.”
....rejoicing in the fullness thereof....

*

Sawyer90

  • Rocket Jock
  • 1820
  • Game called on account of Naked Chick!
Re: Climate change
« Reply #20 on: June 13, 2015, 03:50:44 PM »
Yeah, we are in a drought. (Sacto native speaking, btw...) ANd yeah, a lot of lawns are going brown... but that's because most of the little water that remains available is currently tied up in political and legal wrangling. Do the farmers get it? Do we use it to protect wildlife that is found nowhere else, or is largely located in and dependent upon California and its water? It's all up in the air, just like anything else that can be even remotely tied to politics.  >:(

As for climate change... Yeah, it's real. The real question is... is it normal? Is this something that happens from time to time, and just doesn't show up in our (highly limited) climate records from fossils and corals and glaciers, etc.? Or is this something that was brought on by mankind?

Regardless of the cause, The big issue that keeps getting overlooked is, humanity is in a position to prevent an extinction-level event. Whether that be an asteroid, climate change, war, or a massive pandemic... We can avert a catastrophe. But will we?

That's the one that keeps me up at night.
My guide to life: Never argue with idiots, drunks, trolls, or conspiracy nuts. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

*

ROUNDandHEAVY

  • Rookie of the Year
  • 7613
  • My name is Bob, Round is just my favorite shape. ;
Re: Climate change
« Reply #21 on: June 16, 2015, 02:36:35 AM »
Stop watering your lawns, stop Nestle from pumping it into bottles and selling it out of state. The worst use of potable **94** water is toilets. Composting toilets would save water, provide fertilizer and eliminate sewage.
Call me Bob.

*

ROUNDandHEAVY

  • Rookie of the Year
  • 7613
  • My name is Bob, Round is just my favorite shape. ;
Re: Climate change
« Reply #22 on: June 16, 2015, 02:45:13 AM »
A lot of research is being done about algae. Grown in closed water tight systems, in vertical bioreactors, it can double its biomass every 16 hours, and just needs sunlight, so it can be grown in the desert. Algae is essentially the precursor to a lot of crude oil so chemically its very similar, but it is carbon neutral because it sequesters the carbon released when its burnt. Plus, unlike solar or wind, it can be used in plastics manufacture and for fertilizer.  Additionally it can be used to scrub smoke stack, filtering the poisons and carbon out of polluted emissions. So far there is issues with the energy required to extract the oil in its current method, but work continues. :)
Call me Bob.

*

Palomine

  • Moderator
  • 24024
  • Modern Male Mammal, Linux enthusiast.
Re: Climate change
« Reply #23 on: June 16, 2015, 12:03:18 PM »
A lot of research is being done about algae. Grown in closed water tight systems, in vertical bioreactors, it can double its biomass every 16 hours, and just needs sunlight, so it can be grown in the desert. Algae is essentially the precursor to a lot of crude oil so chemically its very similar, but it is carbon neutral because it sequesters the carbon released when its burnt. Plus, unlike solar or wind, it can be used in plastics manufacture and for fertilizer.  Additionally it can be used to scrub smoke stack, filtering the poisons and carbon out of polluted emissions. So far there is issues with the energy required to extract the oil in its current method, but work continues. :)

A century from now, biomass might very well be the primary energy source.

I'm a little unclear on one bit you said: "it is carbon neutral because it sequesters the carbon released when it's burnt." I don't know what that means... how can any fuel source be "self-sequestering" during combustion, assuming the spent exhaust gases are released to the atmosphere? Certainly, carbon scrubbers and sequestration equipment/methods CAN be used with ANY combustible, be it algae or coal, right? I know carbon sequestration for fossil fuel plants is currently VERY limited due to the cost (just a handful of plants use it, and I think some of those are running on an experimental basis, not for commercial power production).

Or is there something magic about burning algae that I'm unware of... where it can withold carbon during combustion?  ???

*

Sawyer90

  • Rocket Jock
  • 1820
  • Game called on account of Naked Chick!
Re: Climate change
« Reply #24 on: June 16, 2015, 02:51:34 PM »
He's saying that all the carbon dioxide produced during combustion is offset by the fact that it was consumed by the growth of the algae in the first place. Alternately, if you're still growing the algae, the CO2 you produce during combustion can be recaptured by fresh algae.
My guide to life: Never argue with idiots, drunks, trolls, or conspiracy nuts. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

*

pedonbio

  • Oh My God Cup
  • 22949
Re: Climate change
« Reply #25 on: June 16, 2015, 07:17:11 PM »
Realistically if we were going to avoid major dislocations the time to do it was probably the late 1970s when President Carter tried to start the transition away from carbon-generating fuels. The Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush period reversed the direction and effectively ended the chance to do much without dislocations. Any efforts we make will simply be compensations, and biomass fuel looks like a promising mitigation.

Much of the irony that we are seeing now is that the strongest political forces preventing mitigation in the U.S. are in the areas that will be most affected. For example, Florida real estate south of Orlando will be worthless by 2050. 25 years ago a "property rights" group successfully sued the state of North Carolina to prevent zoning of ocean beachfront; now most of the area "protected" has been washed away. Texas will probably see the same climate patterns of the past few years--Long droughts broken by massive flooding. This will effectively end agriculture there by the end of the century.
Someday, chi1dren, this entire fuck-up will be yours.

*

Palomine

  • Moderator
  • 24024
  • Modern Male Mammal, Linux enthusiast.
Re: Climate change
« Reply #26 on: June 16, 2015, 07:39:49 PM »
He's saying that all the carbon dioxide produced during combustion is offset by the fact that it was consumed by the growth of the algae in the first place. Alternately, if you're still growing the algae, the CO2 you produce during combustion can be recaptured by fresh algae.

Is that the case though? Are the combustion gasses created by burning 1 lb. of algae (of which CO2 is just one component) actually offset by however much CO2 the algae absorbed during the (presumably) short period of time it grew until "harvest?" By way of a semi-related example, an average car outputs about 6 TONS of CO2 per year... by looking at the mostly invisible exhaust coming out of the tailpipe you'd never think it was that much, but it is. An average home outputs about 7.5 TONS of CO2 per year. That's a surprisingly large amount of CO2 per year that every person with a house and car are responsible for (not counting those relatively few folks with off-grid homes and electric cars), and that's before you even count food production/transport, consumer items, etc... Makes you wonder...

Don't get me wrong... I'm all for clean energy, technological solutions, etc... (my home is 100% solar for more than a decade) but I always get a little wary about generalizations/claims like that... where there are unavoidable variables, unspecified units of measurement, various caveats, etc... that's all. :)
« Last Edit: June 16, 2015, 07:51:31 PM by Palomine »

*

Robin_K2

  • A Cup
  • 3443
Re: Climate change
« Reply #27 on: June 16, 2015, 07:52:08 PM »
Is that the case though?

We're getting into perpetual motion, here. Maybe possible in a completely closed system, I guess. But even then, we have to deal with entropy.

*

Sawyer90

  • Rocket Jock
  • 1820
  • Game called on account of Naked Chick!
Re: Climate change
« Reply #28 on: June 16, 2015, 08:05:50 PM »
Agreed on both counts. There's always losses in the system. That's why I think that we need to beat the NIMBYs off with whatever leverage we can get and start building MODERN nuclear reactors to tide us over until someone can make a fusion reactor into an energy generator instead of an energy consuming lab toy.

Side bonuses of a modern reactor design? Easy to generate hydrogen gas for fuel cell cars, and they can drive a desalinization plant to prove fresh **94** water. And they're totally safe. Think about it: how old are all the reactors that have had issues in the last forty years? They're all 50's and 60's designs and tech. No wonder they're having issues.  ;)
My guide to life: Never argue with idiots, drunks, trolls, or conspiracy nuts. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

*

rtpoe

  • Old Fart
  • 12420
Re: Climate change
« Reply #29 on: June 16, 2015, 09:43:46 PM »
His Holiness Pope Francis is going to release an encyclical on climate change later this week. A first draft has already been leaked, and he comes down very strongly that the issue is a moral one, and that the poor will be affected the most. He makes it clear that this is an issue for everyone, not just Catholics.

Needless to say, a lot of Catholics on the right wing of American politics aren't pleased.

"I would just say this: The church has gotten it wrong a few times on science, and I think that we probably are better off leaving science to the scientists and focusing on what we're really good at, which is theology and morality." - Rick Santorum, presidential aspirant.

By the way, Pope Francis has a degree in chemistry and worked in that field before he entered the seminary. I'd say that qualifies him as a scientist....
rtpoe

Well, it's a marvelous night for a Moondance
With the stars up above in your eyes
A fantabulous night to make romance
'Neath the cover of October skies
And all the leaves on the trees are falling
To the sound of the breezes that blow...

Van Morrison, Moondance