AGW is relative

[bigpup]

1 degree C global warming is causing people to set bush fires in Australia.
https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/news/news ... w9MQ%3D%3D

The NSW Police Force has taken legal action against more than 180 people for bushfire-related offences since late last year.

Numerous bush and grass fires have impacted the state, claiming the lives of 18 people and destroying hundreds of millions of animals and livestock, thousands of homes, and more than 4.9 million hectares of land, so far this bushfire season.

Since Friday 8 November 2019, legal action – which ranges from cautions through to criminal charges – has been taken against 183 people – including 40 juveniles – for 205 bushfire-related offences.

Of note:

24 people have been charged over alleged deliberately-lit bushfires
53 people have had legal actions for allegedly failing to comply with a total fire ban, and
47 people have had legal actions for allegedly discarding a lighted cigarette or match on land.

[Terry H]

1 degree C global warming is causing people to set brush fires in Australia.
https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/news/news ... w9MQ%3D%3D

The NSW Police Force has taken legal action against more than 180 people for bushfire-related offences since late last year.

Numerous bush and grass fires have impacted the state, claiming the lives of 18 people and destroying hundreds of millions of animals and livestock, thousands of homes, and more than 4.9 million hectares of land, so far this bushfire season.

Since Friday 8 November 2019, legal action – which ranges from cautions through to criminal charges – has been taken against 183 people – including 40 juveniles – for 205 bushfire-related offences.

Of note:

24 people have been charged over alleged deliberately-lit bushfires
53 people have had legal actions for allegedly failing to comply with a total fire ban, and
47 people have had legal actions for allegedly discarding a lighted cigarette or match on land.

Unfortunately this is only in NSW. Victoria probably has similar numbers, with the lesser populated states slightly less. Overall though, it makes what was always going to be a bad fire season far worse.

[RetroTechGuy]

This post is likely to get longer and be corrected / clarified as I go.

I'll use it to comb through the National Academies and Institutes of Sciences
in search of the number of members, and see what I can find out.
Maybe I'll get to the number 50,000, maybe not! But it's already more than 77!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Australian Academy of Science

From 1954 to 2019, there have been 824 Fellows elected to the Academy.

Source
Retrieved Jan 11 2020.

China Academy of Sciences : 738 -- as of 2014
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... f_Sciences
Retrieved Jan 11 2020.

And you asked each of those 738 members if they agreed with your conjecture? Present the answers they provided to your scientific survey.

Of course you didn't ask them. You're promoting snake oil, just like the 97% claim did. You apparently still don't know where that number came from.

Here's a hint for you. Science isn't done by popular opinion or vote. Prove your various climate claims, or we may safely reject your conjectures and assertions. Historical data shows that anything you point to in contemporary data is far from anomalous. Demonstrate that your data exceeds natural variations.

[RetroTechGuy]

I think a degree Rankine is the same as a degree F. Try plotting your graph on a Rankine scale instead of 0-100 Fahrenheit and you'll see what s243a was trying to get across.

Kelvin is perhaps more useful. Flash is apparently complaining that the scale is too large to produce a scary looking graph.

Vostok Antarctica has demonstrated a range of temperatures from 183 Kelvin, up to 259 Kelvin. These are historically contemporary measurements, not proxies.

Put those measured temperatures (or "variations", if you believe those) on your graph, and get back to us on whether the presented graph data was meaningful on a real world scale.

Of course, the Kelvin temperature scale is also useful when we decide to check various claims and erroneous assertions against Planck's Law... (do I smell a prediction there?... )

[RetroTechGuy]

Theoretical like that it doesn't mean anything. Where on the scale is it? 0 C does not equal 0 F, 1 C does NOT equal 1.8 F, 2 C does NOT equal 3.6 F, and so on.

Do you have a reliable source for this, or are you just sharing a childhood memory from your beloved grade school in Kansas?

What are you on about now? What part of 1C = 1.8F is unclear? This is a straight forward conversion ratio. If you add 1C to your baseline, you add 1.8F to your baseline value. If you get stuck, start at a temperature of -40, and work your way up.

The ratio 9/5 is 1.8, do a search for "NIST temperature conversion". Note the 1.8 scaling factor in their conversion.

[RetroTechGuy]

It has been stated (perhaps accurately):
0F is as cold as water can be by adding salt.
freezing to boiling were picked to be 180 Degrees apart.

The former is correct.

I heard that boiling was the result that Mrs. Fahrenheit was used as the reference for 100 degrees -- and we know now that she apparently ran a chronic elevated temperature (since "normal" is 98.6). Once she established the second point, boiling water was just another number...

Also if you know that boiling is 212F a very good approximation for PI is easier to remember.

PI = 666 / 212

It is waaaaaaaaaay better than 22/7

Nice Moose. Haven't seen that one. I found 355/113 which is a bit more accurate, but much harder to remember.

On a similar note, sometimes when you are performing calculations you need the number of seconds in a year. Rather than computing 60*60*24*365.24 (those last 2 digits are leap years and leap centuries), just remember that there are about Pi x 10^7 seconds in a year.

[jafadmin]

I think a degree Rankine is the same as a degree F. Try plotting your graph on a Rankine scale instead of 0-100 Fahrenheit and you'll see what s243a was trying to get across.

Kelvin is perhaps more useful. Flash is apparently complaining that the scale is too large to produce a scary looking graph.

My use of 0F - 100F is an intentional attempt to create useful information from the data. Where I grew up smack dab in the middle of CONUS, those two temperatures were the usual low/high extremes.

Using that scale lends a real-world frame of reference to understand the data.

I stand by the practice, as the whole purpose of statistics is to convert data into useful information.

I staunchly maintain that the feature is particularly awesome.

[musher0]

Theoretical like that it doesn't mean anything. Where on the scale is it? 0 C does not equal 0 F, 1 C does NOT equal 1.8 F, 2 C does NOT equal 3.6 F, and so on.

Do you have a reliable source for this, or are you just sharing a childhood memory from your beloved grade school in Kansas?

What are you on about now? What part of 1C = 1.8F is unclear? This is a straight forward conversion ratio. If you add 1C to your baseline, you add 1.8F to your baseline value. If you get stuck, start at a temperature of -40, and work your way up.

The ratio 9/5 is 1.8, do a search for "NIST temperature conversion". Note the 1.8 scaling factor in their conversion.

I was asking where the 1.8 = 1 equivalent came from.
I finally had to figure it out myself.
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... st#1047377

Except bigpup who did try, neither you nor jafadmin was able to explain it.
Both of you basicly told me: "Believe this!!!"

[musher0]

Ok. Let's start doubting the doubters!
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview ... -breitbart

[RetroTechGuy]

I think a degree Rankine is the same as a degree F. Try plotting your graph on a Rankine scale instead of 0-100 Fahrenheit and you'll see what s243a was trying to get across.

Kelvin is perhaps more useful. Flash is apparently complaining that the scale is too large to produce a scary looking graph.

My use of 0F - 100F is an intentional attempt to create useful information from the data. Where I grew up smack dab in the middle of CONUS, those two temperatures were the usual low/high extremes.

Using that scale lends a real-world frame of reference to understand the data.

I stand by the practice, as the whole purpose of statistics is to convert data into useful information.

I staunchly maintain that the feature is particularly awesome.

-90 C to 60 C would cover observed temperatures on the Earth...

But wait, that's even a larger range...

[RetroTechGuy]

Theoretical like that it doesn't mean anything. Where on the scale is it? 0 C does not equal 0 F, 1 C does NOT equal 1.8 F, 2 C does NOT equal 3.6 F, and so on.

Do you have a reliable source for this, or are you just sharing a childhood memory from your beloved grade school in Kansas?

What are you on about now? What part of 1C = 1.8F is unclear? This is a straight forward conversion ratio. If you add 1C to your baseline, you add 1.8F to your baseline value. If you get stuck, start at a temperature of -40, and work your way up.

The ratio 9/5 is 1.8, do a search for "NIST temperature conversion". Note the 1.8 scaling factor in their conversion.

I was asking where the 1.8 = 1 equivalent came from.
I finally had to figure it out myself.
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... st#1047377

Except bigpup who did try, neither you nor jafadmin was able to explain it.
Both of you basicly told me: "Believe this!!!"

I see... "do a search for "NIST temperature conversion"." didn't tell you where it came from. It's a definition.

[RetroTechGuy]

Ok. Let's start doubting the doubters!
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview ... -breitbart

Hahahahaha.... From your own link:

"Of the 200 signers we checked, 40% are retired or professors emeritus, indicating they are not actively involved in scientific research and may not be up to date on the latest findings."

Professors emeritus are quite often still involved in research. For example, I knew someone who was working in research with Hans Bethe, when he was well into his 90s. But I understand your desire to again invoke the fallacy of "No True Scotsman".

Those professors emeritus are keepers of all sorts of scientific knowledge and skills. They are among the most skilled scientists that you are likely to meet -- you've apparently known none of these sorts of individuals. I'd take their guesses as more credible than "facts" presented by the likes of Michael Mann, or Gavin Schmidt.

But since you believe in numerical headcount superiority as "proof" of scientific validity, more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting your conjecture is valid.

As I have repeatedly pointed out to you, the larger the number of people who believe in a religion doesn't make that religion true. That is a fallacy of logic. This cuts both ways -- don't waste our time telling us that you have a gang of thugs who wish to impose global genocide (err...Democide), and that they rest of us must agree.

The sciences operate under the idea of "present proof, or go home". Show that whatever changes you want to point to are without historical precedent. Show that your positions and claims are consistent with well known Laws of physics... (hmmm... I seem to have already alluded to this in a previous post... ). Present your proof(s).

[musher0]

[RetroTechGuy]

Hey, RTG.

You, go home! What's this?
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

Gosh, would you look at that? NASA thinks that "The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit".

Informed scientists understand thermodynamics enough to recognize that the Earth does not exhibit that thermodynamic property known as "temperature" (which is an equilibrium condition), and therefore an "average surface temperature" is not a thermodynamic quantity, and thus a meaningless quantity... Indeed, one published journal paper pointed out that this average was as meaningful as an "average phone number".

My subtle hint about posting claims that conflict with basic physics, things like Planck's Law, was apparently too subtle... Yes, one can disprove the claim that the average is a temperature using this basic Law.

Oh well, I've followed these claims long enough to realize that they aren't based in the sciences...

While one is at it, they should consider carefully NASA's graph of CO2 levels. This attempt to mix causation with correlation is poor. Ignoring Beer's Law is yet another violation of basic physics. Shame on you.

NASA is apparently unaware that the IPCC said this:

Code: Select all

For CO2, part of the main 15 micron band is saturated over quite short vertical distances, so that some of the upwelling radiation reaching the lower stratosphere originates from the cold upper troposphere. When the CO2 concentration is increased, the increase in absorbed radiation is quite small and increased emission leads to a cooling at all heights in the stratosphere.

How unfortunate for NASA that at least some of the scientists involved in the IPCC recognize the validity of Beer's Law. NASA is blithely unaware...

Meanwhile, it is trivial to discover that current and recent (going back a few hundred thousand years) CO2 levels indicate that the Earth is in a CO2 drought. Historical levels call the claims of catastrophe into question. Feel free to prove your claims.

Oceans warm? Until 2003 we didn't have enough ARGO buoys to provide any such data. Even now, with some 3,000 buoys, each buoy must represent an ocean area approximately the size of Lake Superior. Their claim is simply false -- any data claiming that they have detailed knowledge for deep ocean temps going back to 1969 is an outright lie. Even now, their ocean measurements are so sparse as to be barely usable.

If you are sufficiently informed on this particular system, we can also discuss the erroneous methods that they implemented in ARGO (yes, the result of mathematical massaging rather than direct, unambiguous measurements -- these buoys rise too fast for the instrumentation to stabilize, and therefore the output is "corrected"...or perhaps more correctly, falsified...).

3 of the first 3 claims found in error, I'm not going to bother continuing down through the list of false claims, hoping to find crumbs of truth. You are unaware that I've seen their nonsense before.

You'll have to present your proof, since you have only posted a fraud filled page.

And this?
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
The graph at the top is from not one, but four institutes.

And once again you attempt to invoke the same logical fallacy that has been rejected multiple times. Get with the program already!

BTW, any time you present claims and Reference 1 is "J. Cook, et al", you've lost all credibility with me. And also don't waste our time by posting links to his website...

But tell me, why does their graph start at 1880? Why yes, that's because approximately 1850 was recognized as the end of the Little Ice Age. The period was selected to conceal the variations that occurred starting about 1300, and bottoming out about 1650. They don't want to show that, better hide natural variations in order to promote your lie.

You still haven't explained how CO2 levels or humans caused the Younger Dryas period, and the variations observed during that period.

Take as much paper as you need.

Rally Behind the Science!

Indeed! How curious that you instead rally behind falsehoods that violate known Laws of science.

[s243a]

[RetroTechGuy]

Forbes has done several articles about why saying that there is a "Scientific Consensus"in global warming is problematic. In short, if you make the claim weak enough then you will get a lot of people to agree but if you try to make precise predictions about how much warming there will be then there will be no Consensus. The phrase "Scientific Consensus" is an oxymoron.

Just remember, Einstein was wrong because 100 authors said so...

https://archive.org/details/HundertAutorenGegenEinstein

[musher0]

[musher0]

Hey, RTG.

You, go home! What's this?
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

Gosh, would you look at that? NASA thinks that "The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit".

Informed scientists understand thermodynamics enough to recognize that the Earth does not exhibit that thermodynamic property known as "temperature" (which is an equilibrium condition), and therefore an "average surface temperature" is not a thermodynamic quantity, and thus a meaningless quantity... Indeed, one published journal paper pointed out that this average was as meaningful as an "average phone number".

My subtle hint about posting claims that conflict with basic physics, things like Planck's Law, was apparently too subtle... Yes, one can disprove the claim that the average is a temperature using this basic Law.

Oh well, I've followed these claims long enough to realize that they aren't based in the sciences...

While one is at it, they should consider carefully NASA's graph of CO2 levels. This attempt to mix causation with correlation is poor. Ignoring Beer's Law is yet another violation of basic physics. Shame on you.

NASA is apparently unaware that the IPCC said this:

Code: Select all

For CO2, part of the main 15 micron band is saturated over quite short vertical distances, so that some of the upwelling radiation reaching the lower stratosphere originates from the cold upper troposphere. When the CO2 concentration is increased, the increase in absorbed radiation is quite small and increased emission leads to a cooling at all heights in the stratosphere.

How unfortunate for NASA that at least some of the scientists involved in the IPCC recognize the validity of Beer's Law. NASA is blithely unaware...
(...)

Take as much paper as you need.

Rally Behind the Science!

Indeed! How curious that you instead rally behind falsehoods that violate known Laws of science.

As I said, take it out on the proper persons in the proper organizations, send your
criticisms to them, don't use me as a punching bag.

But if you want to get personal, here's some:
You a higher-up in the fossil fuel industry to get so emotional about Climate Change?

I am saying action has to be taken on the issue of Climate Change because of the 1998
Ice Storm. I live in that area.

I'm trying to make sense of the yo-yo behavior of weather that has been happening
ever since within the seasons. That did happen before, but at ~ 40 years intervals.
We used to have long stretches (1 week, say, or 10 days) of the same kind of weather
within a season and then a gradual move towards another kind of weather. We don't
anymore.

I don't care about your law of planks or your law of 2x4's. We're not in a lumber yard.

I care about getting the old seasons back,
I care about no floods and safe roads in winter,
I care about the farmers having a soil that's not gone through freeze-unfreeze-
refreeze all winter long, so they can properly grow food for people in the area to eat.

I care about summers not going from 30 C to 3 C to 33 C again within five days --
that is NOT normal.

BFN.

[bigpup]

Climate is changing and always will change.
Humans affect on climate is only one, of many things, that affect it.

The earth is going to run out of oil.
We must find, other ways to provide, what oil now provides.
These other ways, of providing energy, are going to cost more money.
People are going to resist the higher cost.
Using oil causes CO2 levels to rise.
That will be the big evil, to cause people to be willing to deal, with the higher cost, of energy

[jafadmin]

I care about summers not going from 30 C to 3 C to 33 C again within five days --
that is NOT normal.

BFN.

Correct. NOT "normal". OTOH, it isn't "uncommon", either. These flip-flops are caused by the Meanders (Rossby Waves) of the Northern Hemisphere's polar jet stream. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_stream#Description

It is hard for most to distinguish between "weather" and "climate". If something affects YOUR area, but not the area 200 miles away, it's a good bet it's "weather" not "climate". What you are witnessing in the short-term fluctuations in your area is a good example of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This has happened many times before.