The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[oil pan 4]

I went back to 1885, but that wasn't good enough.
Probably because the data can't be manipulated.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I went back to 1885, but that wasn't good enough.
Probably because the data can't be manipulated.

Do you believe the data from PNAS.org was manipulated to suggest more degradation than actually is happening?

[oil pan 4]

I don't think a sample size of 40 years is going to show anything useful on a system as large and as complicated as the earth.
Especially since the definition of climate change is change over at least a century time scale.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Nope, repeating mini nova stars have been known about for quite a while now.

I just completed a 24-lecture series on astronomy, published last year,and no mention of a mini-nova.
They covered from the Big-Bang,to present day (2017),ongoing research.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

[1] Ten known recurrent micro-nova in 100 years of observation. That's a small sample size. Covered in the first three minutes here (then it goes on to the age of the Sphinx. I know your opinion of S0):

Back ontopic at 10:08.

[2] Do you know of C. S. Lewis' Two Cultures argument?

[3] The Sahara was created within human history. Isaac Arthur suggests if we pay for the energy instead of getting it for free from the Sun, it can be 1000 times as efficient. [shrug]

I've read The Chronicles of Narnia and Mere Christianity by him.
He's not the type of writer I'm drawn to.None of his stuff resonated with me.
As to Isaac Arthur,these videos require so much time for the little actual content they contain,that you almost need wild horses to drag me to them,since I have such little time each week,and nobody will do a synopsis to parse out the major themes presented.
I am not comprehending his comment about 1000-X as efficient.?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Meteorites don't make drill holes in solid rock.

If the glass beads had been there for a billion years or so then why where they sitting on the surface and why weren't they buried under lunar dust?

Ancient,extraterrestrial,low-mass,gas-filled,glass spheres,from ancient galactic cataclysms,slowly,gravitationally-accreted ,at near-zero velocity,near-zero impact, to the very low gravity lunar surface;from the conjoined, ecliptic,circumpolar debris and gas cloud in which the Moon is immersed.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The lunar meteor impact survey which only started in 2006 has recorded dozens of surface impact fireballs that we could see from 240,000 miles away.
But the satellite doesn't monitor the moon 24 hours a day.
So there are lots of impacts not seen because the satellite is not pointed at the moon or aren't bright enough to register as hits.
So I doubt it takes millions of years to turn over the dust.

As the Moon has no atmosphere,it would be impossible to have a fireball.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

How much were the oceans warming before the new instrumentation was added?

The United States has land falling hurricane data going back to 1885.
Of course the believers want to throw out this data because it doesn't fit their predetermined out come.

The change is to the quantity and quality of the data. The ocean is warming - and we now have a more accurate understanding of how much.

We now have much more data and much better data - on lots of things; including the GRACE satellites (for measuring drought and ice depth and ocean levels). We have a way to look directly at the sun's output. As we learn more, we have a more accurate understanding of how much the climate is changing, and why.

No comment on you straw man argument. It is you who are ignoring facts. Science - BY DEFINITION - takes all known data into account. Science and all the data, indicate that human activity is largely causing the climate to change, at this time - and as we learn more, we see that the rate of warming is more rapid than we thought, when we had less accurate data.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

How's that global warming in new England going for you?

Another interesting stat and possible proof of climate change.
The average number of tornadoes per year is down, way down for the last 4 or 5 yesrs.
I thought we were going to get more tornadoes because of man made global warming?
Man the only consistency with man made global warming is the never ending stream of failed predictions.

If you think that,why is that?
Can you recall a specific citation in which a qualified meteorologist made such a claim?
All I've 'heard' is that the intensity of storms might increase,due to the increase in available energy.
And perhaps you may have noticed the recent,rapidly intensifying tornadoes, which come without warning?

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Last year the antartic was only down 3% or 4% off its 1980 base line for ice coverage after being down what, 10 or 12%. I don't remember what the peak was.
What happens when the ice coverage exceeds 1980 levels?

We had a peak of Antarctic ice area in 2014. We are now seeing ice coverage that is much less than the 1980 level.

This is consistent with how we understand climate change is working. There is a lot more evaporation around the world on average, and that led to more snowfall in Antarctica. But now, the warming in the summer in the southern hemisphere is melting it faster - MUCH faster than it is accumulating. One of the new effects that we know more about is the amount of melting caused by warmer water under the floating portion of glaciers - and with sea level rise, more ice is lifted, and is then exposed to the warmer water.

This is an amplification feedback that we had underestimated before, and now with GRACE and other data, we see that the Antarctic ice has begun to collapse; as the Arctic ice has been for several decades.