No
No
"existential" as in humans go extinct? No. That is completely ridiculous. Humans are already adapted to living in the range of climates that will prevail on a hotter Earth. They are even concentrated in the hotter parts.
as in civilization as we know it becomes unsustainable - no more giant megacities, superhighway systems, massive industrialization, exploding population? Probably, but that was going to happen anyway. It's only been that way for about 100 years in the first place, hardly a tragedy.
uhhhh wrote:
Actual Engineer wrote:
Changes in climate are going to happen as long as humans exist. Changing our environment to better suit us is what we do. Unless you want us to go back in caves this is going to happen.
The idea that climate change is going to be this insurmountable threat is absurd. We will deal with it the same way we do every other challenge, by developing technology to adapt. The actual studies show the impact on global GDP due to climate change is we develop technology to adapt is minimal, while trying to limit emissions has a severe negative impact and far greater impact on the poorest segment of the population. The idea that there will be mass starvation or other ills from climate change is not factually supported.
You point out the Texas failure. Besides the point that was a once in a 100 year event for the locale the renewable energy production that we have been subsidizing went almost to 0 during the event. Yes, fossil fuel production decreased but far less than renewables. If Texas had more renewable which is what the climate change activists call for they would have been in worse shape. This is a major problem with the climate change grift. They push for wind and solar which are not economical or useful while pushing against nuclear which is the real solution. This has nothing to do with the best solution but because the climate activists are largely invested in solar and wind. This is where the crony capitalists are.
Exactly. You simply can’t run a country our size on only renewable energy.
Yes, you actually can. Stanford and Davis researchers got together a few years ago and found that the United States could convert entirely to renewable energies by 2050 and it would cost less than the Apollo space program.
Climate catastrophe is a religion. It is pure speculation, not fact, and not science.
No.
Tatar wrote:
fisky wrote:
Sure. Let's start with this one. A survey of US surface stations found that the majority of US surface stations were noncompliant with accepted standards for accuracy due to proximity to heat sinks: buildings, AC outlets, walls, asphalt, jet runways, and so on. When noncompliant stations are excluded from the data, the temperature change/decade dropped from the NOAA official measurement of .324 to .204 degrees. Take a look at this, form your own opinion, and we can move to the next issue.
https://everythingclimate.org/the-us-surface-temperature-record-is-unreliable/A more technical, but less understandable, paper can be found here.
https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pdfI'm not sure it's the zinger you think. If you exclude 90% of the weather stations you likely don't have enough data to be accurate. And while the criticism is legitimate but the amount difference it makes is kind of small, 0.12C per ten years between the official and revised data.
Good points. Let me add that the NOAA has published papers rebutting this claim so you have that on your side as well.
If this was a debate, I would defend my position as follows.
1. The 10% of remaining stations provide as much or even better coverage in square miles than that found on most continents throughout the rest of world, yet the NOAA considers the data from those stations to give us a reliable measure of those continents. Actually, large areas in Russia, China, the rest of Asia, Canada, and the Antarctic have no stations at all. The NOAA uses formulas to calculate (i.e., guess) what the temperature would have been in those phantom stations. Some of those stations used in the calculation could be subject to the same unreliability issues I've previously mentioned.
2. The NOAA's own standards admit that the less reliable stations have an error range of 2 degrees C. That's nearly an order of magnitude higher than the variability they are attempting to measure.
3. Volunteer studies of surface stations around the world have found similar reliability issues with surface temperature stations.
4. Satellite lower atmosphere temperatures show less warming than surface temp, yet climate change theory predicts lower atmosphere temperatures should increase faster than land temperatures. This anomaly is easily explained if you consider the land measurements to be inaccurate.
fisky wrote:
Tatar wrote:
I'm not sure it's the zinger you think. If you exclude 90% of the weather stations you likely don't have enough data to be accurate. And while the criticism is legitimate but the amount difference it makes is kind of small, 0.12C per ten years between the official and revised data.
Good points. Let me add that the NOAA has published papers rebutting this claim so you have that on your side as well.
If this was a debate, I would defend my position as follows.
1. The 10% of remaining stations provide as much or even better coverage in square miles than that found on most continents throughout the rest of world, yet the NOAA considers the data from those stations to give us a reliable measure of those continents. Actually, large areas in Russia, China, the rest of Asia, Canada, and the Antarctic have no stations at all. The NOAA uses formulas to calculate (i.e., guess) what the temperature would have been in those phantom stations. Some of those stations used in the calculation could be subject to the same unreliability issues I've previously mentioned.
2. The NOAA's own standards admit that the less reliable stations have an error range of 2 degrees C. That's nearly an order of magnitude higher than the variability they are attempting to measure.
3. Volunteer studies of surface stations around the world have found similar reliability issues with surface temperature stations.
4. Satellite lower atmosphere temperatures show less warming than surface temp, yet climate change theory predicts lower atmosphere temperatures should increase faster than land temperatures. This anomaly is easily explained if you consider the land measurements to be inaccurate.
congratulations on being smarter than 99 percent of the scientific community!!!
fisky wrote:
Tatar wrote:
I'm not sure it's the zinger you think. If you exclude 90% of the weather stations you likely don't have enough data to be accurate. And while the criticism is legitimate but the amount difference it makes is kind of small, 0.12C per ten years between the official and revised data.
Good points. Let me add that the NOAA has published papers rebutting this claim so you have that on your side as well.
If this was a debate, I would defend my position as follows.
1. The 10% of remaining stations provide as much or even better coverage in square miles than that found on most continents throughout the rest of world, yet the NOAA considers the data from those stations to give us a reliable measure of those continents. Actually, large areas in Russia, China, the rest of Asia, Canada, and the Antarctic have no stations at all. The NOAA uses formulas to calculate (i.e., guess) what the temperature would have been in those phantom stations. Some of those stations used in the calculation could be subject to the same unreliability issues I've previously mentioned.
2. The NOAA's own standards admit that the less reliable stations have an error range of 2 degrees C. That's nearly an order of magnitude higher than the variability they are attempting to measure.
3. Volunteer studies of surface stations around the world have found similar reliability issues with surface temperature stations.
4. Satellite lower atmosphere temperatures show less warming than surface temp, yet climate change theory predicts lower atmosphere temperatures should increase faster than land temperatures. This anomaly is easily explained if you consider the land measurements to be inaccurate.
These are all legitimate criticisms of the data but you don't have any more accurately gathered data to show real global temperatures. All you've done is point out the stations are somewhat unreliable. This is true of all science, data collection can be refined and improved with better technology or practices. Unreliable data might mean temperatures are increasing at a higher rate than observed.
If we manage to get stations in northern Russia or Canada the data will be better. Until then we have to estimate using the tools we have available in 2021. The fact remains the data we have got are indicating significant rise in temperatures over the next 80 years which is why the topic is receiving much attention and ways to avoid it are considered.
Your criticisms just mean we need more research. But that doesn't stop us taking action now. If we wait until 2050 or 2100 and the technology is available to show the specifics of where and when temperatures are changing; we'll have missed the opportunity.
I’m a D2 female runner. Our coach explicitly told us not to visit LetsRun forums.
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
adizero Road to Records with Yomif Kejelcha, Agnes Ngetich, Hobbs Kessler & many more is Saturday