What's new
By:

Not clouds

Status
Not open for further replies.
In 1975 new regulations required the installation of Catalytic Converters on most new gasoline powered vehicles. Although they certainly reduced and now virtually eliminate emissions of carbon monoxide and unburned fuel, these pollutants are converted to CO2 and water vapour, with water vapour being far greater in contributing to the greenhouse effect, than CO2. Anyone recall reading a study/scientific report about this subject ????

Here's something a few of you may have heard about.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48795264
Amazing huh ? Convinced we are all gonna die ?
Well, not so fast....
For many years I have been fact checking these kinds of sensationalist news stories against their local Aviation METAR reports.
In almost every case where I have done so, usually when the news dwells large on such reporting as "proof" of AGW, I have found the same as you can see here.....

These charts are all based on actual temps recorded at Orly Airport in Paris, Fr., with the last chart showing how urban heat islands, which all larger airports are, have higher temps than their surrounding areas of development. Air Safety is dependent in part on accurate temperature readings, especially when determining how much runway an aircraft will require in order to get off the ground and climb. These reporting facilities, unlike the media or environmental scientists are not allowed to alter or fudge the results, or to rely on computer modelling in any way.
 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

Attachments

  • Paris temps Jun 29 2019.webp
    Paris temps Jun 29 2019.webp
    28.9 KB · Views: 56
  • Orly apt temps 2.webp
    Orly apt temps 2.webp
    39.8 KB · Views: 60
  • LFPO temps June 28 2019.webp
    LFPO temps June 28 2019.webp
    37.7 KB · Views: 63
  • Typical heat island chart.webp
    Typical heat island chart.webp
    7.1 KB · Views: 195
Here's the last available METAR for Orly/LFPO, which shows the current temp at 81F for 9:30 pm local time.

Anyone think Phoenix is going to be that balmy by the same time tonight, especially at the airport ?
 

Attachments

  • LFPO METAR 2130 Jun 29 2019.webp
    LFPO METAR 2130 Jun 29 2019.webp
    54.5 KB · Views: 55
somehiker said:
These reporting facilities, unlike the media or environmental scientists are not allowed to alter or fudge the results, or to rely on computer modelling in any way.
Click to expand...

A scientist caught fudging or faking data, risks retraction, censure and peer condemnation, not to mention loss of job and funding, or being forced to pay back grants. Of course a number of scientists will always continue to manipulate or outright fake data.

However, there are independent analyses and peer reviews done all the time, and now that software and statistical techniques are readily available, fake data is easily outed these days.

But let me ask you this:

When 34 national science academies, the Interacademy Council, 13 Federal agencies led by the NOAA, the Intergovernmental Artic Council (them ice cores again), the Royal Society, African Academy of Sciences, the national science academies of the G8, plus Brazil, China, and India, all have agreed that climate change is unquestionably real and human caused,

do you therefore propose that all of the major industrial countries of the world are all engaged in a massive, gigantic, global conspiracy? If so, to what profit and end?

Or that they all were fooled by "fudged data"?

Just for fun, I'll just make a brief list of a fraction of obscure organizations that have also taken the position that climate change is real:

American Academy of Pediatrics
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Medical Association
American Public Health Association
Australian Medical Association
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization
American Society for Microbiology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Institute of Biology (UK)
Society of American Foresters (Mad Machinist, are you a member?)
The Wildlife Society
American Astronomical Society
American Statistical Association
Canadian Council of Professional Engineers
The Institution of Engineers Australia
International Association for Great Lakes Research
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
The World Federation of Engineering Organizations

A more complete list can be found here:

List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations - Office of Planning and Research
 

deducer said:
Just for fun, I'll just make a brief list of a fraction of obscure organizations that have also taken the position that climate change is real:

American Academy of Pediatrics
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Medical Association
American Public Health Association
Australian Medical Association
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization
American Society for Microbiology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Institute of Biology (UK)
Society of American Foresters (Mad Machinist, are you a member?)
The Wildlife Society
American Astronomical Society
American Statistical Association
Canadian Council of Professional Engineers
The Institution of Engineers Australia
International Association for Great Lakes Research
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
The World Federation of Engineering Organizations
Click to expand...

Impressive list, yes. But deducer, the point is that, other than the mainstream media narrative, there really is not a consensus regarding the effects of "man-caused climate change". Here's another list (citations available in the wikipedia article). Obviously, the issue is debatable.


Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the 21st century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes


Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.

Deceased scientists

These scientists published material indicating their opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming prior to their deaths.

 

sdcfia said:
Impressive list, yes. But deducer, the point is that, other than the mainstream media narrative, there really is not a consensus regarding the effects of "man-caused climate change". Here's another list (citations available in the wikipedia article). Obviously, the issue is debatable.


Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the 21st century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes


Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.

Deceased scientists

These scientists published material indicating their opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming prior to their deaths.

Click to expand...


No offense, but you have listed a mere 71 individuals.

Dr. James Powell did an analysis of scholarly papers published in peer reviewed journals concerning climate change.

He analyzed 54,195 peer-reviewed literature concerning climate change, by an estimated 150,000 authors or scientists.

He found that 99.94% of these authors or scientists agreed that climate change was real.

The study can be found here:
The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters
 

Anyway, we're in for an interesting "experiment". With the sun going into a Grand Solar Minimum it's going to be interesting to see what happens.

If the Atlantic Ocean flips into a cold phase while this is happening, its gonna get damn cold for alot of people.
 

Mad Machinist said:
Anyway, we're in for an interesting "experiment". With the sun going into a Grand Solar Minimum it's going to be interesting to see what happens.

If the Atlantic Ocean flips into a cold phase while this is happening, its gonna get damn cold for alot of people.
Click to expand...
maybe it will cool arizona down..it was 116 here yesterday8-)
 

There are something like 54 or 55 volcanoes erupting right now pumping ash and SO2 into the atmosphere. SO2 has a serious cooling effect on our planet. So if is thrown in with the Grand Solar Minimum and the ADO, well, better prep for some damn cold weather.

And now I found this: https://www.sciencealert.com/harvar...aking-solar-geoengineering-experiment-in-2019

I think we are going to wipe ourselves out over stupidity.
 

Mad Machinist said:
It was 108 here and I was drinking beer and had all my welding gear on. If I have a choice between 10 degrees and 110 degrees, I'll take 110 all day long.
Click to expand...
i'm with you on that...they can have that cold..i'll take heat any old day
 

azdave35 said:
i'm with you on that...they can have that cold..i'll take heat any old day
Click to expand...

Yeah buuuuuuuuuuut................... you are comparing on the extremes. Just one hundred miles North of you it is consistently twenty degrees cooler than in Phoenix. That is why I live here.

Mike
 

gollum said:
Yeah buuuuuuuuuuut................... you are comparing on the extremes. Just one hundred miles North of you it is consistently twenty degrees cooler than in Phoenix. That is why I live here.

Mike
Click to expand...
cold in the winter though
 

gollum said:
Yeah buuuuuuuuuuut................... you are comparing on the extremes. Just one hundred miles North of you it is consistently twenty degrees cooler than in Phoenix. That is why I live here.

Mike
Click to expand...

Damn, didn't realize you lived here in Arizona. We are really active up around the Dewey-Humbolt area. Have to let you know when I'm up there again. Maybe we can get together.
 

Scientific consensus regarding an unproven and flawed hypothesis is not science. It’s activism, politics, or something else based on the organizational need for money or the individual need for influence. Science, on the other hand, is the unrelenting challenge of everything in the pursuit of learning something new.

There exists in any hierarchy of people, those who protect the old thinking of yesterday against challenges from new people, ideas and technology. We’ve all seen this at our places of work, in government, and in our universities. THAT is consensus. Knuckle under, toe the party line, or get steamrolled. This is happening to an unprecedented extent in so-called “climate science”.

The IPCC, thought by many to be the last word on climate science, is actually not a scientific organization. It’s made up of government representatives, who fund it, staff it, select participants, and edit every single scientific report. This is not how real science works.

The IPCC has no mission to identify all possible sources of climate change. Its only mission is to identify human caused climate change. It’s in their mission statement. This standard is rigorously adhered to. If you want their money, their praise, or their connections to media and fame in the “industry”, you will focus only on proving human caused global warming. If you buck the system, you will be ridiculed, defunded, and set upon by governmental agents. One recent climatologist, who testified before congress, did not toe the party line. Politicians of a certain bent are now investigating the source of that person’s funding in the hopes of applying political pressure to get it turned off.

Sound like science we can all trust?

Unfortunately, all this political interference in science is happening at a time when our front-line scientists in this (climatologists and meteorologists) are suffering from a reduced curriculum in physics and mathematics. People can now receive degrees in these fields without first completing stringent physics and mathematics requirements. (This is done in the name of keeping grades up and attracting more people into the field) The days of physicists becoming climatologists are seemingly over. Now we have people who don’t understand the physics, can’t do the math, and are little better than analysts of data being spit out of modeling software.

The “fudging”, as posters have called it, of climate change data is real and pervasive. Good for you guys that have picked up on that. Wayne’s data on the airports is a breath of fresh air. I’ve never seen anything like the data manipulation going on, in any field of science. Good examples of this are “smoothing” of data to account for early temperature readings/methods, extending arctic temperature station readings to cover areas of over 1500km (yes, this silliness is really happening, resulting in parts of the arctic that are actually 30F to be “smoothed” into a reading of 50F) and other such shenanigans. Such as placing temperature stations in urban environments, or engaging in confirmation bias while suppressing contradictory research.

What this all means, is the world isn't going to end, oceanic thermal expansion hasn't been and definitely won't be nearly as bad as they've predicted, and every one of us should be very skeptical of "scientists" who serve politicians and their own desire to be media celebrities. It's gotten so bad that to be recognized, or stand out from the crowd, these types are actively looking for the next latest and greatest dire prediction that can be backed up with even the most questionable data. Caveat emptor.
 

PotBelly Jim said:
Scientific consensus regarding an unproven and flawed hypothesis is not science. It’s activism, politics, or something else based on the organizational need for money or the individual need for influence. Science, on the other hand, is the unrelenting challenge of everything in the pursuit of learning something new.

There exists in any hierarchy of people, those who protect the old thinking of yesterday against challenges from new people, ideas and technology. We’ve all seen this at our places of work, in government, and in our universities. THAT is consensus. Knuckle under, toe the party line, or get steamrolled. This is happening to an unprecedented extent in so-called “climate science”.

The IPCC, thought by many to be the last word on climate science, is actually not a scientific organization. It’s made up of government representatives, who fund it, staff it, select participants, and edit every single scientific report. This is not how real science works.

The IPCC has no mission to identify all possible sources of climate change. Its only mission is to identify human caused climate change. It’s in their mission statement. This standard is rigorously adhered to. If you want their money, their praise, or their connections to media and fame in the “industry”, you will focus only on proving human caused global warming. If you buck the system, you will be ridiculed, defunded, and set upon by governmental agents. One recent climatologist, who testified before congress, did not toe the party line. Politicians of a certain bent are now investigating the source of that person’s funding in the hopes of applying political pressure to get it turned off.

Sound like science we can all trust?

Unfortunately, all this political interference in science is happening at a time when our front-line scientists in this (climatologists and meteorologists) are suffering from a reduced curriculum in physics and mathematics. People can now receive degrees in these fields without first completing stringent physics and mathematics requirements. (This is done in the name of keeping grades up and attracting more people into the field) The days of physicists becoming climatologists are seemingly over. Now we have people who don’t understand the physics, can’t do the math, and are little better than analysts of data being spit out of modeling software.

The “fudging”, as posters have called it, of climate change data is real and pervasive. Good for you guys that have picked up on that. Wayne’s data on the airports is a breath of fresh air. I’ve never seen anything like the data manipulation going on, in any field of science. Good examples of this are “smoothing” of data to account for early temperature readings/methods, extending arctic temperature station readings to cover areas of over 1500km (yes, this silliness is really happening, resulting in parts of the arctic that are actually 30F to be “smoothed” into a reading of 50F) and other such shenanigans. Such as placing temperature stations in urban environments, or engaging in confirmation bias while suppressing contradictory research.

What this all means, is the world isn't going to end, oceanic thermal expansion hasn't been and definitely won't be nearly as bad as they've predicted, and every one of us should be very skeptical of "scientists" who serve politicians and their own desire to be media celebrities. It's gotten so bad that to be recognized, or stand out from the crowd, these types are actively looking for the next latest and greatest dire prediction that can be backed up with even the most questionable data. Caveat emptor.
Click to expand...

Jim, here's another thing for you to consider. Something unrelated yet corroborating with what's going on with the environment, the health of this planet.

It took all of human history from the dawn of the human age to 1800, for the human population to reach one billion.
124 years after that, to reach 2 billion.
33 years to reach 3 billion.
15 years to reach 4.
12 years to reach 5.
Another 12 years to reach 6.

And we are projected to reach 8 billion by 2024.

This coincides with the industrial revolution, and also with the spiking of the amount of carbon found, trapped in ice, in Antartica.

Do you not think that a difference of 7 billion people inhabiting this planet in the mere course of 200 years, has altered the ecosystem of this planet?
 

PotBelly Jim said:
Scientific consensus regarding an unproven and flawed hypothesis is not science. It’s activism, politics, or something else based on the organizational need for money or the individual need for influence. Science, on the other hand, is the unrelenting challenge of everything in the pursuit of learning something new.

There exists in any hierarchy of people, those who protect the old thinking of yesterday against challenges from new people, ideas and technology. We’ve all seen this at our places of work, in government, and in our universities. THAT is consensus. Knuckle under, toe the party line, or get steamrolled. This is happening to an unprecedented extent in so-called “climate science”.

The IPCC, thought by many to be the last word on climate science, is actually not a scientific organization. It’s made up of government representatives, who fund it, staff it, select participants, and edit every single scientific report. This is not how real science works.

The IPCC has no mission to identify all possible sources of climate change. Its only mission is to identify human caused climate change. It’s in their mission statement. This standard is rigorously adhered to. If you want their money, their praise, or their connections to media and fame in the “industry”, you will focus only on proving human caused global warming. If you buck the system, you will be ridiculed, defunded, and set upon by governmental agents. One recent climatologist, who testified before congress, did not toe the party line. Politicians of a certain bent are now investigating the source of that person’s funding in the hopes of applying political pressure to get it turned off.

Sound like science we can all trust?

Unfortunately, all this political interference in science is happening at a time when our front-line scientists in this (climatologists and meteorologists) are suffering from a reduced curriculum in physics and mathematics. People can now receive degrees in these fields without first completing stringent physics and mathematics requirements. (This is done in the name of keeping grades up and attracting more people into the field) The days of physicists becoming climatologists are seemingly over. Now we have people who don’t understand the physics, can’t do the math, and are little better than analysts of data being spit out of modeling software.

The “fudging”, as posters have called it, of climate change data is real and pervasive. Good for you guys that have picked up on that. Wayne’s data on the airports is a breath of fresh air. I’ve never seen anything like the data manipulation going on, in any field of science. Good examples of this are “smoothing” of data to account for early temperature readings/methods, extending arctic temperature station readings to cover areas of over 1500km (yes, this silliness is really happening, resulting in parts of the arctic that are actually 30F to be “smoothed” into a reading of 50F) and other such shenanigans. Such as placing temperature stations in urban environments, or engaging in confirmation bias while suppressing contradictory research.

What this all means, is the world isn't going to end, oceanic thermal expansion hasn't been and definitely won't be nearly as bad as they've predicted, and every one of us should be very skeptical of "scientists" who serve politicians and their own desire to be media celebrities. It's gotten so bad that to be recognized, or stand out from the crowd, these types are actively looking for the next latest and greatest dire prediction that can be backed up with even the most questionable data. Caveat emptor.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 

deducer said:
A scientist caught fudging or faking data, risks retraction, censure and peer condemnation, not to mention loss of job and funding, or being forced to pay back grants. Of course a number of scientists will always continue to manipulate or outright fake data.

However, there are independent analyses and peer reviews done all the time, and now that software and statistical techniques are readily available, fake data is easily outed these days.

But let me ask you this:

When 34 national science academies, the Interacademy Council, 13 Federal agencies led by the NOAA, the Intergovernmental Artic Council (them ice cores again), the Royal Society, African Academy of Sciences, the national science academies of the G8, plus Brazil, China, and India, all have agreed that climate change is unquestionably real and human caused,

do you therefore propose that all of the major industrial countries of the world are all engaged in a massive, gigantic, global conspiracy? If so, to what profit and end?

Or that they all were fooled by "fudged data"?

Just for fun, I'll just make a brief list of a fraction of obscure organizations that have also taken the position that climate change is real:

American Academy of Pediatrics
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Medical Association
American Public Health Association
Australian Medical Association
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization
American Society for Microbiology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Institute of Biology (UK)
Society of American Foresters (Mad Machinist, are you a member?)
The Wildlife Society
American Astronomical Society
American Statistical Association
Canadian Council of Professional Engineers
The Institution of Engineers Australia
International Association for Great Lakes Research
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
The World Federation of Engineering Organizations

A more complete list can be found here:

List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations - Office of Planning and Research
Click to expand...

It's never hard to get someone to take part in a survey, sign a petition, or even to, as in the case of the many who have joined the AGW club, to publish something/anything to support what they have learned will govern their acceptance within the club and with that, their present and future income and status. In essence, their motives are actually no different than those who the left decry as being the spokesmen for or in the pocket of "Big Oil". Just how many of the associations on that list are advocating or lobbying for a shutdown of their own country's production of, or dependence on oil ? Have you a "list" for that as well ? And since, as I'm sure you must believe in the oft used mantra " the science is settled " as well, do you not agree that most of the funding that might be awarded to the "estimated 150,000 authors and scientists" for ongoing and future study of AGW, should be re-directed to other projects designed to mitigate the disasters they are convinced are coming. After all, a lot can be done with that money in the next fifty years or so that they claim is left for mankind.

Conspiracy.....no, not really as a plot hatched by a few muckety mucks sitting around a table in some boardroom....but more the result of how independents are so often viewed and treated by their so-called peers, who are merely marching in lockstep to the beat of the only band they are allowed to follow.


NOAA ? Since you mentioned it, they and NASA also publish temperature figures, charts and graphs online. It takes a bit of effort, since they usually lag a day or so behind the aviation metar reports, which you will have to save to a file in order to compare them later on with the NASA/NOAA numbers for any given day, but doing so may help you see why I have so little trust in these and most other IPCC signatory's conclusions and especially any "consensus" of 99.94%.

More examples for independent thinkers :

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/JAWF_Monitoring/Europe/temperature.shtml
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145249/heatwave-scorches-europe
Flight Utilities ? Metar/Taf Reader Online
 

Last edited:
Impressive Jim.
And speaking of the IPCC, they happen to be in the news themselves today.....

"Saudi Arabia has successfully lobbied for a major climate change report to be scrubbed from international negotiations on limiting global temperature rise to 1.5C.
The Saudis led a loose coalition of oil-producing nations, including the US, Russia and Iran, that objected to the science behind the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The report emphasized the need to keep warming down to 1.5C as a matter of survival for many countries and called for drastic action to reach this goal, with the whole world needing to hit zero emissions by 2050.
However, as a result of the Saudi-led intervention, this landmark report was blocked from formal climate talks at Bonn this week. This will substantially weaken its influence on future policy.

The final UN report had just five watered-down paragraphs on IPCC findings, explaining that they were based on the “best science available” without including more concrete information on how countries should reduce emissions targets. "

https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...e-change-report-removed-un-bonn-a8979201.html
 

There are of other lists available to all of us who care enough....or dare....to question the "scientology" of AGW.
One such list would include everything to which the 42 USG contents of a barrel of oil contributes in today's world. I've seen some which can be as much as 6,000 items in length.
While handy for reference, we don't actually need one at hand, since all we have to do is look around, to scan whatever falls within our view, and to take note of what we now have, and indeed can afford to have, due to the harvesting and use of oil and natural gas.

Graphic....https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.php?page=oil_home
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Superstition Toponymy with Prof. Aubrey Drury

⬅️ Previous Thread

Fire

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Similar threads

jeff of pa
Mysterious black ring appears in the sky over Williamsburg
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
tamrock
tamrock
tamrock
The clouds are starting to clear
Replies
9
Views
592
billb
billb
jeff of pa
CHINESE GENERAL believes that UFO's seen over weekend are part of a UFO fleet.
Replies
0
Views
108
jeff of pa
jeff of pa

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
metaldetector

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom