'Al Gore's hockey stick is correct

[freebeard]

VOC is related to ground level ozone becoming dangerous

Our trouble is not with ground level ozone but the sheer emissions amounts of specific types of voc that can weaponize manmade and natural ozone sources.

Weaponize? Who? Where?

Data from the Copernicus Sentinel-5P mission were used to produce global maps of methane and ozone emissions. Now, climate models will be able to more accurately project climate changes and temperature increases in the coming years and better target the source of emissions.


Global methane, Image Credit: ESA/Copernicus data (2018–19), processed by SRON

“Like all gases that enter the atmosphere, methane is spread by the wind, so it is unclear where it originates,” said Jochen Landgraf, from the SRON Netherlands Institute for Space Research, said in an ESA news article. “But thanks to Tropomi’s ability to measures at a spatial resolution of 7 x 7 km and global coverage every 24 hours, we can see daily methane emissions on regional scales and also larger point sources.”

The ice age comments were spread by people in Texas during the 1970’s snow storms....

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#Concern_pre-1970s

J. Murray Mitchell showed as early as 1963 a multidecadal cooling since about 1940.[1] At a conference on climate change held in Boulder, Colorado in 1965, evidence supporting Milankovitch cycles triggered speculation on how the calculated small changes in sunlight might somehow trigger ice ages. In 1966, Cesare Emiliani predicted that "a new glaciation will begin within a few thousand years." In his 1968 book The Population Bomb, Paul R. Ehrlich wrote "The greenhouse effect is being enhanced now by the greatly increased level of carbon dioxide... [this] is being countered by low-level clouds generated by contrails, dust, and other contaminants... At the moment we cannot predict what the overall climatic results will be of our using the atmosphere as a garbage dump."

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I mean, we're still coming out of the current ice age. I believe the definition of ice age is polar ice caps; a condition which Earth has rarely had in geologic history. That's not an argument for rapid warming, clearly.

The definition of an interglacial has to do with a specific sea level, agreed upon within the scientific community.
It's been exceeded.

[freebeard]

Did Permalink #7 scroll off your page?

I forget why I thought you might find it interesting.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Did Permalink #7 scroll off your page?

I forget why I thought you might find it interesting.

I watched 4:20 of it. ( no pun intended ).
I don't have my climate stuff with me today.
Having read the SCIENCE and NATURE articles following the controversy, I recall that certain political appointments were made in those days, and some in Congress, of a certain persuasion, were passing legislation intended to allow anyone access to the raw data, from which they might 'reinterpret' it, with the sole purpose of casting doubt upon the 'science' of global warming; because of the implications of what policymakers might do with the 'facts.'
'Facts' cannot be argued, so it's of critical importance that 'facts' not see the light of day.
There's a suite of about a dozen paleoclimate tools ( not mentioned in the video ) which have been used to compare the dendrochronology results from the University of Arizona, Max Planck Institute, and others.
The US Navy had declassified it's secret records, historical ships logs were still being discovered and contents entered into the master database by hand.
I recently posted a list for all anthropogenic greenhouse gases, all of them must be factored into he calculus.
Data is just data. What people do with it was the issue. Obviously, where the data led was of great concern to purveyors of fossil-fuels and the Congressmen they own. Patron / client relationships dating to the Roman Empire and beyond. People doing what people do.

[oil pan 4]

You know, every time I look up global warming court cases they failed spectacularly.
I don't think the church of global warming has been able to win a single court case anywhere.
So that's why the believers try to scare people and manipulate people with emotion, because that's all they got.
They don't have anything actionable and they know it. They can't prove their case, can't agree on a solution and push for illogical counter intuitive bandaids to fix the problem.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by aerohead

'Facts' cannot be argued, so it's of critical importance that 'facts' not see the light of day.
[vs]
Data is just data. What people do with it was the issue.

fact vs data?

Originally Posted by aerohead

People doing what people do.

No doubt on that one.

IIRC the video THIS GRAPH IS WRONG hinged on a reassessment of the hockey stick that put a hump in the middle.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

You know, every time I look up global warming court cases they failed spectacularly.
I don't think the church of global warming has been able to win a single court case anywhere.
So that's why the believers try to scare people and manipulate people with emotion, because that's all they got.
They don't have anything actionable and they know it. They can't prove their case, can't agree on a solution and push for illogical counter intuitive bandaids to fix the problem.

The lawyers seem stupid.
A legal precedent was established in 1672, in England, with 'de Graaf v Swammerdan,' involving the discovery of ovaries and eggs.
No one outside the scientific community was considered fit to hear the case, so it was adjudicated at the British Royal Society, London.
In the United States there is a mechanism called ' Trial by Certificate' which shares the spirit of de Graaf v Swammerdan.
Attorneys can petition to have the case tried only at a venue where specialized knowledge of certain facts could be found.
Julianna v United States, for instance, should never have gone to a US District Court. It should have been 'tried' at the NASA - JPL, of Cal Tech, in Pomona, California. It's the only place in the USA where the 'facts' would be properly understood. Fossil-fuel industry-paid attorneys defending EXXON-MOBIL, wouldn't have an ice-cube's chance in hell of defending their client.
There's no arguing with the facts!

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

fact vs data?



No doubt on that one.

IIRC the video THIS GRAPH IS WRONG hinged on a reassessment of the hockey stick that put a hump in the middle.

The 'reassessment' was conducted by a Heartland Institute ( Exxon-Mobil original funder ) creature. There can be no presumption of objectivity.
Playbook:
1) manufacture uncertainty
2) compete with the body of fact
3) establish a controversy
4) disingenuously demand proof over prediction
5) dispute any conclusion that might support regulation
6) deem data irrelevant
7) deem data not representative
8) deem expose' data not reliable
9) prepare for release, unfavorable studies before studies are published.
10) feed for-hire scientists contrarian sound bites which play well with ignorant reporters whom presume there's actually two sides to every story.
11) even though your product kills Americans, forbid regulators from lowering exposure limits, unless they can prove to the molecule what the exact 'safe' limit should be.
12) intimidate regulators
13) out gun regulators
14) infiltrate the federal government
15) shape government policy
16) replace national experts with lackeys, industry lobbyists on pertinent advisory committees, panels.
17) debate the science to delay the policy debate
18) vilify any corporate-profit-threatening research as 'junk science'
19) sanctify corporate' bought-and-paid-for research as 'sound science'
20) product defense consultants do your bidding while you remain camouflaged
21) weaken federal regulatory agencies from the inside
22) elect your puppet president
23) staff the White House
24) nominate presidential appointees to all departments, agencies

[aerohead]

BBC One produced this show, based upon the manufactured controversy surrounding the 'hockeystick.'
It aired on Earth Day.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0010s10#:~:text=Conspiracy%20thriller%20based%20o n%20the,'Climategate'%20scandal%20in%202009.