"None of us will ever experience a year that cool again" - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15207674
late wrote:"In the middle of a historically sweltering summer, a NASA researcher stood before Congress and declared the unvarnished, undeniable scientific truth: “The greenhouse effect has been detected,” James Hansen said. “And it is changing our climate now.”The year was 1988.

So was James Hansen proposing severe cuts in NASA's greenhouse gas emission? Has NASA substantially reduced its Greenhouse gas emissions? What plans does NASA have to reduce its own Green House gas emissions, those of the combined US space industry and those of the world space industry.

You see I'm sorry to have to break this to people but I'm not particularly interested in listening to moral lectures from the likes of Prince Charles, Prince Andrew, Hollywood jet-setting liberals or those pursuing absurd vanity projects like setting up a manned base on Mars.
#15207675
Rich wrote:
So was James Hansen proposing severe cuts in NASA's greenhouse gas emission? Has NASA substantially reduced its Greenhouse gas emissions? What plans does NASA have to reduce its own Green House gas emissions, those of the combined US space industry and those of the world space industry.

You see I'm sorry to have to break this to people but I'm not particularly interested in listening to moral lectures from the likes of Prince Charles, Prince Andrew, Hollywood jet-setting liberals or those pursuing absurd vanity projects like setting up a manned base on Mars.



That whine was dumber than sh*t, a generation ago, when Big Oil propagandists came up with it.

What we need is to dramatically reduce carbon emissions. The way you do that is with an incrementing Carbon Tax, which would also hit NASA.

NASA does a lot of scientific work studying climate change, and it needs to do more.
#15207679
Rich wrote:So was James Hansen proposing severe cuts in NASA's greenhouse gas emission? Has NASA substantially reduced its Greenhouse gas emissions? What plans does NASA have to reduce its own Green House gas emissions, those of the combined US space industry and those of the world space industry.

You see I'm sorry to have to break this to people but I'm not particularly interested in listening to moral lectures from the likes of Prince Charles, Prince Andrew, Hollywood jet-setting liberals or those pursuing absurd vanity projects like setting up a manned base on Mars.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

    Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin Tū quoque, for "you also") is a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy. This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack. "Whataboutism" is one particularly well known instance of this technique. The Oxford English Dictionary cites John Cooke's 1614 stage play The Cittie Gallant as the earliest use of the term in the English language.[1]

NASA is verifiably correct that fossil fuel use must be massively reduced in order to reduce the negative impacts of anthropogenic climate change, even if NASA hypocritically uses significant amounts of fossil fuels.
#15207686
Pants-of-dog wrote:

NASA is verifiably correct that fossil fuel use must be massively reduced in order to reduce the negative impacts of anthropogenic climate change, even if NASA hypocritically uses significant amounts of fossil fuels.




It's not a hypocrisy.

We need the climate science they do. We need the other work they do, like learning how to deflect a killer asteroid.

If we ever get serious about climate change, we will need a bunch of instruments in orbit to closely track progress (and just as importantly, where there is a lack of progress.).
#15207704
Unthinking Majority wrote:Not worried about crop yields.

Because they have continued to increase BECAUSE OF higher temperatures and CO2 fertilization.
By 2090 a raspberry will be the size of a cantaloupe.

Lots of things will be very different by then, and we can't predict what or how.
People are assuming technology in 100 years will be the same as now. It will be vastly different. We'll have AI to solve most of our complex problems.

Right. It's almost pointless to speculate about conditions on the other side of the Singularity: the point at which artificial intelligence exceeds human intelligence. We just don't know if that will happen in 10 years or 50. It will almost certainly be less than 100.
I think flooding will be the worst issue.

Flooding is not difficult to control if we are willing to invest in appropriate hydrological infrastructure. Unfortunately, governments find such projects difficult to finance because the value they create has to be given away to private landowners in return for nothing.
#15207722
Truth To Power wrote:After he secretly arranged to have the air conditioning in the building disabled in order to lend credence to his blatant lies.


No.

James Hansen did no such thing.

Tim Wirth (one of the politicians involved in setting up the hearing) made up a story about choosing the hottest day of the year and opening the windows to overwhelm the air conditioning, but the story turned out to be fictional. You apparently heard this story and then incorrectly ascribed Wirth’s actions to Hansen.

The windows were never opened. The air conditioning worked just fine, but the room was a bit hot from all the cameras and people in the room.

Full fact checking article here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... e-hearing/
#15207724
Truth To Power wrote:No, that was a lie. The real "pre-industrial" average -- i.e., the average temperature of the earth for at least the last several hundred million years -- was in fact at least several degrees higher than the temperature in 1988. What Hansen and the other anti-fossil-fuel hysteria mongers incorrectly and deceitfully call the "pre-industrial" average was actually the temperature at the end of the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years. By dishonestly choosing that cold period as their basis for comparison, and falsely and dishonestly calling it the "pre-industrial" average when it is in fact only the Little Ice Age average, they falsely and dishonestly make it seem like the world has warmed beyond the limits of natural variation when it indisputably has not.


No.

Hansen never discussed the pre-industrial average at all in his 1988 testimony.

He claimed that “the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements”.

You seem to be confusing the factual statements made by he author of the article and the claims made by Hansen himself.

The transcript of his testimony can be found here:

https://www.sealevel.info/1988_Hansen_S ... imony.html
#15207727
Truth To Power wrote:After they falsified the temperature records of the 1930s to make them cooler. However, temperatures plunged immediately afterwards, in September 1988, putting the lie to Hansen's claims.


These claims are so vague as to be unverifiable.

Truth To Power wrote:2008 was that cool or cooler.
.


    The British office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, the world’s oldest, most comprehensive center for global climate analysis, collected data from more than 1,000 weather stations on land and sea around the world and found that the average year-round air temperature of the Earth in 1988 was 0.61 degrees higher than the average of 57 degrees for the period 1950-79.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html

So, 57.61 in 1988.

    The combined global land and ocean surface temperature from January-December was 0.88 degree F (0.49 degree C) above the 20th Century average of 57.0 degrees F (13.9 degrees C). Since 1880, the annual combined global land and ocean surface temperature has increased at a rate of 0.09 degree F (0.05 degree C) per decade. This rate has increased to 0.29 degree F (0.16 degree C) per decade over the past 30 years.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 163206.htm

So, 57.88 in 2008.

Apparently, 2008 was hotter according to the evidence.
#15207731
late wrote:It's not a hypocrisy.

We need the climate science they do. We need the other work they do, like learning how to deflect a killer asteroid.

If we ever get serious about climate change, we will need a bunch of instruments in orbit to closely track progress (and just as importantly, where there is a lack of progress.).

I'm certainly not against everything NASA do. But the Mars nonsense needs to stop. We need to accept that long term in weightlessness and probably partial gravity is highly unhealthy. Exploration should be unmanned (unwomaned and unnonbinaried). Manned space flight should be geared towards mining of extremely high valuable resources. There may possibly be a role for some very specialised off world manufacture. Setting up a moon base is a realistic and credibly useful goal.

We don't need to start getting obsessive about asteroids. we've got by without asteroid defences for the last 66 million years so to wing it for another 100, strikes me as a highly acceptable risk. And remember even during the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event Earth was a Garden of Eden idyll compared to Mars.

I'm not demanding perfection, I'm just demanding the Liberals actually start acting like its serious, rather than just lecturing others. I've actually got a bit more time for Greta Thunberg, than these other types, because I feel she is actually trying to walk the walk a bit. Where were the protests when Germany shut down its nuclear programme. If Greens really cared about Greenhouse emissions the way they claim, they would have been suicide bombing the German government and demanding they keep open Germany's nuclear power stations.
#15207732
Pants-of-dog wrote:Prior to the last few years, it was the hottest year on record (i.e. since they started measuring temperature globally in 1850 or so).

I.e., more accurately and honestly, since the final years of the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years.
If @Truth To Power is trying to use 1998 as an argument that the last few years are not the hottest on record, he is implicitly agreeing that the temperatures of the last few years are comparable to the very hottest.

Contrary to your disingenuous pretenses, I have said many times that in the 20th century, the highest sustained solar activity in thousands of years restored the earth to more normal Holocene surface temperatures following the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years. Pretending that a return to normal temperatures is an excursion into abnormal temperatures by assuming the temperature at the end of an extremely cold period is the reference point for normality is dishonest and anti-scientific, so I don't do it.
#15207734
Rich wrote:
1) I'm certainly not against everything NASA do. But the Mars nonsense needs to stop.

2) We need to accept that long term in weightlessness and probably partial gravity is highly unhealthy.

3) Exploration should be unmanned.

4)Manned space flight should be geared towards mining of extremely high valuable resources. There may possibly be a role for some very specialised off world manufacture. Setting up a moon base is a realistic and credibly useful goal.

5) We don't need to start getting obsessive about asteroids. we've got by without asteroid defenses for the last 66 million years so to wing it for another 100, strikes me as a highly acceptable risk.

6) I'm not demanding perfection, I'm just demanding the Liberals actually start acting like its serious, rather than just lecturing others. I've actually got a bit more time for Greta Thunberg, than these other types, because I feel she is actually trying to walk the walk a bit. Where were the protests when Germany shut down its nuclear programme. If Greens really cared about Greenhouse emissions the way they claim, they would have been suicide bombing the German government and demanding they keep open Germany's nuclear power stations.



1) That's Elon Musk..

2) We don't know that, and we won't until we build a proper Space station, one that rotates.

3) Of course.

4) I agree completely.

5) We don't need to get obsessive, but there is a very real chance of a big asteroid strike this century. So something more than we are doing now, and something less than obsessive. Btw, call what we are doing now is obsessive is wildly incorrect.

6) That's not Space, meaning it's not relevant to this discussion.
#15207735
"Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a cooling trend. However global temperatures continue to increase. If the sun's energy is decreasing while the Earth is warming, then the sun can't be the main control of the temperature.

Some people try to blame the sun for the current rise in temperatures by cherry picking the data. They only show data from periods when sun and climate data track together. They draw a false conclusion by ignoring the last few decades when the data shows the opposite result."

Image
#15207762
Truth To Power wrote:I.e., more accurately and honestly, since the final years of the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years.


So you deliberately chose the hottest year prior to the current era in order to make it seem like the current temperatures are normal, but instead we can see that they compare to the highest temperatures in 500 years.

Contrary to your disingenuous pretenses, I have said many times that in the 20th century, the highest sustained solar activity in thousands of years restored the earth to more normal Holocene surface temperatures following the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years. Pretending that a return to normal temperatures is an excursion into abnormal temperatures by assuming the temperature at the end of an extremely cold period is the reference point for normality is dishonest and anti-scientific, so I don't do it.


And in the 21st century, solar activity has markedly (that means significantly) decreased while temperatures increased.

Even Solanki, whom you have previously cited, does not think solar activity is responsible for global warming.
#15207770
Truth To Power wrote:Again, calling the temperature at the end of the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years the "pre-industrial" average is a bald lie designed to divert attention from all the natural factors that affect climate, and pretend that only increasing CO2 emissions from industrial civilization have affected climate in the last 200 years.


That is not how pre-industrial temperature is defined.

    In principle, ‘pre-industrial levels’ could refer to any period of time before the start of the industrial revolution. But the number of direct temperature measurements decreases as we go back in time. Defining a ‘pre-industrial’ reference period is, therefore, a compromise between the reliability of the temperature information and how representative it is of truly pre-industrial conditions. Some pre-industrial periods are cooler than others for purely natural reasons. This could be because of spontaneous climate variability or the response of the climate to natural perturbations, such as volcanic eruptions and variations in the sun’s activity. This IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C uses the reference period 1850–1900 to represent pre-industrial temperature. This is the earliest period with near-global observations and is the reference period used as an approximation of pre- industrial temperatures in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report.

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/faq/faq-chapter-1/

James Hansen does not use this term in 1988.
#15207847
Pants-of-dog wrote:So you deliberately chose the hottest year prior to the current era

What do you mean by "the current era"?
in order to make it seem like the current temperatures are normal,

They are indisputably normal for the current interglacial period known as the Holocene.
but instead we can see that they compare to the highest temperatures in 500 years.

<sigh> That is a period for most of which temperatures were abnormally low because solar activity was at a multi-millennium low -- as I have proved to you multiple times because you always ask for evidence of facts that I have already proved, and when I supply the evidence, you contrive some pretext to misinterpret and dismiss it and repeat your false claim that I never provide evidence. Just as you did in the post to which this post is a response. It's always the same.
And in the 21st century, solar activity has markedly (that means significantly) decreased while temperatures increased.

I've already proved to you multiple times that that is fallacious reasoning because you falsely assume that the earth's temperature reaches equilibrium immediately. If the temperature in your house is 18C, then the house will continue to get warmer if you turn the thermostat down from 23C to 21C. A kettle of 80C water on the stove will continue to get warmer if you turn the element DOWN from "High" to "Medium."

GET IT???
Even Solanki, whom you have previously cited, does not think solar activity is responsible for global warming.

<sigh> No, that claim is also false, as I have also proved to you multiple times. He only said it could not be the principal cause of the rapid warming in the last three decades of the 20th century, which we know was caused by the up-phase of the internal 60-year oceanic cycle. As I have proved to you multiple times, and for which you always then ask for evidence again, which I provide and you then contrive some pretext to misinterpret and dismiss, and claim I haven't provided evidence for. It's always the same.
#15207848
Truth To Power wrote:What do you mean by "the current era"?


The last seven years.

They are indisputably normal for the current interglacial period known as the Holocene.


No.

Why do you think record hot temperatures are normal when we should be heading into an ice age?

<sigh> That is a period for most of which temperatures were abnormally low because solar activity was at a multi-millennium low


I think you misunderstood.

The claim is that the last seven years are comparable to the hottest temperatures since 1850.

Are you arguing that the last seven years have been extremely hot because of low solar activity?

-- as I have proved to you multiple times because you always ask for evidence of facts that I have already proved, and when I supply the evidence, you contrive some pretext to misinterpret and dismiss it and repeat your false claim that I never provide evidence. Just as you did in the post to which this post is a response. It's always the same.

I've already proved to you multiple times that that is fallacious reasoning because you falsely assume that the earth's temperature reaches equilibrium immediately. If the temperature in your house is 18C, then the house will continue to get warmer if you turn the thermostat down from 23C to 21C. A kettle of 80C water on the stove will continue to get warmer if you turn the element DOWN from "High" to "Medium."

GET IT???


I see. You lost track of the conversation and jumped back into your weird solar claims that are sot imes decades off and sometimes millenia off.

Again, the last seven years have been extremely hot and the sun is putting out less energy.

<sigh> No, that claim is also false, as I have also proved to you multiple times. He only said it could not be the principal cause of the rapid warming in the last three decades of the 20th century, which we know was caused by the up-phase of the internal 60-year oceanic cycle. As I have proved to you multiple times, and for which you always then ask for evidence again, which I provide and you then contrive some pretext to misinterpret and dismiss, and claim I haven't provided evidence for. It's always the same.


This seems like an ad hoc hypothesis that you pulled out of nowhere because Solanki thinks you are wrong.

I predict you will provide absolutely no evidence for this claim.

Trump is much more middle of the road than you co[…]

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. You don't co[…]

more free shit for the free shit army. It fixes e[…]

Australian Federal Election

It’s hard to believe Frydenberg got booted and Dut[…]