Raw Temperature Data

[ksa8907]

Such heated debate and energy spent about climate change. It seems people sometimes forget that we don't live forever, earth won't either.
Lowering emissions to keep global temperatures in check is great, but at what cost? It really depends on what the end goal is and I suspect everyone's answer to that question is a little different.

The only thing that matters for our civilization is technological advancement.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

What do we do about it? Or should we? Can we even do something about it? Can we . . . ?

There are far more questions about simply stating that the world is warming.

Yes, 500+ page books, by the field scientists doing the research.
And 64-years of peer-reviewed science articles by the experts.
That's where I've been spending my time.
That's hard to reduce into a few soundbites or keystrokes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as what to do, I'll go with spending the soda-pop money, and getting off fossil fuel, while simultaneously beginning to remove GHGs from the atmosphere, back down to 320-ppmv.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fact: human extinction = 5-C over 1850 temp. Whether we should is in the hands of many.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes we can. Off-the-shelf technology. It will be painful for some, halcyon days for others.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

The adult decision would be to harden and ruggedize everything everywhere; proof against hot and cold.

Via today's S0, www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28573-5


The problem is the time lag between the climate's cycles and any political response. As Marshall McLuhan said, we proceed into the future with our eyes on the rear-view mirror.

1) The problem is anthropogenic greenhouse gases causing the warming.
2) The warming resulting in massive pulses of freshwater from the melting poles is what will affect the AMOC in the first place.
3) It's impossible to argue that reducing carbon dioxide would be a 'driver' for an impotent AMOC when it is the causation of its impotency.
4) The adult thing is to 'do the Greta Thunberg,' follow the scientists recommendations.
5) Take the 'haircut' now, and skip 'decapitation' later.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Argumentation opens the door.


Do better.

I've never made an appeal to 'purity', I've only pointed out structural constraints, laid down in scripture, which defines the operational environment within this belief system, qualifying an individual for 'membership.'

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by ksa8907

Such heated debate and energy spent about climate change. It seems people sometimes forget that we don't live forever, earth won't either.
Lowering emissions to keep global temperatures in check is great, but at what cost? It really depends on what the end goal is and I suspect everyone's answer to that question is a little different.

The only thing that matters for our civilization is technological advancement.

1) There's a lot at stake.
2) The very knowledge of our own mortality may be driving many parents to introspect on the legacy of what they'll be handing to their offspring and future generations.
3) Good planets are hard to come by.
4) Without anthropogenic climate change, we were guaranteed many billions of years to address our future.
5) Currently, we're on track to lose habitability in a few hundred years.
6) Some economists estimate that Earth provides $33-trillion a year worth of free services.
7) Seems like we don't want to spend $8.2-trillion over the next 30-years to protect the $990- trillion we'll get for free.
8) That's pretty twisted 'capitalism'. Not what Adam Smith was about.
9) As I learned in basic training: ' It's your world, I just live in it.'

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by ksa8907

The only thing that matters for our civilization is technological advancement.

The Ur-environmentalist proposed as a solution a Design Science Revolution.

Design science revolution
R. Buckminster Fuller coined the term design science revolution to describe his proposed scientific and socio-economic revolution accomplished by shifting from "weaponry to livingry" through the application of what he called comprehensive anticipatory design science. His World Design Science Decade, proposed to the International Union of Architects in 1961, was an attempt to catalyze the revolution.

Originally Posted by aerohead

3) It's impossible to argue that reducing carbon dioxide would be a 'driver' for an impotent AMOC when it is the causation of its impotency.

And yet the journal Nature published a paper on 2022-0301 that makes that very argument. Since you obviously did't follow the link, here's the abstract:

Abstract
It is well established that a collapse or strong reduction of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) would substantially cool the northern high latitudes. Here we show that there is a possibility that such cooling could be amplified under deliberate CO2 removal and result in a temporary undershoot of a targeted temperature level. We find this behaviour in Earth system models that show a strong AMOC decline in response to anthropogenic forcing. Idealized simulations of CO2 removal with one of these models indicate that the timing of negative emissions relative to AMOC decline and recovery is key in setting the strength of the temporary cooling. We show that the pronounced temperature-fluctuations at high northern latitudes found in these simulations would entail considerable consequences for sea-ice and permafrost extent as well as for high latitude ecosystems.

4) Without anthropogenic climate change, we were guaranteed many billions of years to address our future.

Now that is one bold claim.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

The Ur-environmentalist proposed as a solution a Design Science Revolution.




And yet the journal Nature published a paper on 2022-0301 that makes that very argument. Since you obviously did't follow the link, here's the abstract:




Now that is one bold claim.

If you'll revisit the paper, and dwell on their wording, methodology, caveats, and limitations of their modelling, you'll see very little there.
What they've modeled does not reflect the real world, for the reasons given, and their conclusions don't reflect what would happen in reality, for the reasons explained.
They've completely omitted the most important factors governing climate change.
Garbage in, garbage out.
' Possibility' was a giveaway.
There's a possibility it won't do as their model shows.
It's the 'probability' which we'd want to know, and that is not offered.
It looks like confirmation bias on the part of B.D.
Fuel for his RV is off the charts, and he's got to sell a lot of subscriptions.
A corrupting influence.
I left the Cosmic Catastrophe thread over this S-O corrupting bias
'The line which shows itself to be straight shows also what line is crooked'
David Wooten
PS Someone I know refers to S-O as 'Snake-Oil'. Apropos?

[freebeard]

Hope it's not Thunderfoot. He managed to get himself [oopsie] in the mainstream of news.

I'll grant you your rebuttal. I don't think it's case closed or anything. My confirmation bias is to see a shifting margin to the Overton Window.

LOL at the dig at Big Burb. I haven't followed that, too Cummins-centric. Do you think he will put a boat tail on it?

'The line which shows itself to be straight shows also what line is crooked' --David Wooten

According to Goethe's Color Theory, everything has Fresnel.

https://www.youtube.com › watch?v=CkOwvrBzu9I
In this episode, we explore a commonly misunderstood occurrence phenomenon of light interaction to surfaces: Fresnel. EVERYTHING HAS FRESNEL!

Everything has Fresnel - Filmic Worlds
filmicworlds.com › blog › everything-has-fresnel
For some reason, most people tend to want fresnel only on the really shiny surfaces, like water, glass, and metals. But really, fresnel has a strong effect on almost every material. In fact, I would argue that fresnel is more important visually on the less-shiny materials. Here is a piece of PVC pipe. Certainly, PVC has a fresnel.

It all depends on fractal geometry, and how one looks at it. According to Synergetics, straight lines cannot exist.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Hope it's not Thunderfoot. He managed to get himself [oopsie] in the mainstream of news.

I'll grant you your rebuttal. I don't think it's case closed or anything. My confirmation bias is to see a shifting margin to the Overton Window.

LOL at the dig at Big Burb. I haven't followed that, too Cummins-centric. Do you think he will put a boat tail on it?



According to Goethe's Color Theory, everything has Fresnel.


It all depends on fractal geometry, and how one looks at it. According to Synergetics, straight lines cannot exist.

That was for S-O.
B.D. appears to cherry-pick papers which happen to lean in his direction. Often they're hypotheses, not theory. They haven't survived the rigor of independent verification, yet presented as if foregone conclusions, with unanimous consensus.
It's too bad. He's a good presenter. Slick product. Truncated. Bite-sized.

[freebeard]

One could rank him among others -- Joe Scott, Anton Petrov....

For work ethic, I'd compare Tim Pool.