[alancalverd]

A fair guess. Where's the accuracy? And can you justify "because" with some actual physics?

[Jolly (OP)]

I think we are getting slightly off topic,

Lets say that we do stop human releases of CO2 to a degree the scientists are arguing for and we go far more into Solar technology.

What is that going to mean if we hit a Solar minium in 2030 and go into a mini-ice age? Solar Cells will only be producing about 40% of the electricity compared to what they currently do and Crops will be failing everywhere.

Do you not think it would be prudent to take sets to prepare for that just incase?

[Jolly (OP)]

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Mocks 97% Consensus: ‘It is propaganda’

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/02/15/mit-climate-scientist-dr-richard-lindzen-mocks-97-consensus-it-is-propaganda/

[Bored chemist]

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Mocks 97% Consensus: ‘It is propaganda’

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/02/15/mit-climate-scientist-dr-richard-lindzen-mocks-97-consensus-it-is-propaganda/

Or not

https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm

[Bored chemist]

I think we are getting slightly off topic,

Lets say that we do stop human releases of CO2 to a degree the scientists are arguing for and we go far more into Solar technology.

What is that going to mean if we hit a Solar minium in 2030 and go into a mini-ice age? Solar Cells will only be producing about 40% of the electricity compared to what they currently do and Crops will be failing everywhere.

Do you not think it would be prudent to take sets to prepare for that just incase?

OK: what do you actually propose that we do?
Do you think that reducing consumption, looking to things like tidal and even nuclear power and so on would help in that scenario? (Hint: yes they would).
OK lets do them then.
It's this all over again
http://greenmonk.net/2010/01/07/what-if-we-create-a-better-world-for-nothing/

[Jolly (OP)]

I think we are getting slightly off topic,

Lets say that we do stop human releases of CO2 to a degree the scientists are arguing for and we go far more into Solar technology.

What is that going to mean if we hit a Solar minium in 2030 and go into a mini-ice age? Solar Cells will only be producing about 40% of the electricity compared to what they currently do and Crops will be failing everywhere.

Do you not think it would be prudent to take sets to prepare for that just incase?

OK: what do you actually propose that we do?

Well in terms of Crops I would suggest building insultated growing centers of some type that would be able to produce Crops, even if there was a very low amount of sun light- So with Artificial sun light, And also able to grow and protect crops during a Necular winter.

Do you think that reducing consumption, looking to things like tidal and even nuclear power and so on would help in that scenario? (Hint: yes they would).

Reducting consumption would also reduce tax, I would advocate for less waste in packaging and more easily recyclable products. Combined with more eco friendly products to start with.

OK lets do them then.
It's this all over again
http://greenmonk.net/2010/01/07/what-if-we-create-a-better-world-for-nothing/

There are no garentees in any of this- Define "better world".

Still you have not answered the other questions I asked you.

[alancalverd]

Plenty of good reasons to reduce CO2 output, none connected with climate.

1. Fossil fuel is a limited resource. As more people consider it their birthright, and less of it remains, it becomes a political weapon (it already is) in the hands of those who just happen to be living where the stuff is, not necessarily those with any social or political merit.

2. Anthropogenic CO2 is a function of population. There are already more people than the planet can sustain indefinitely, and a reduction in population density would be beneficial to our successors. One third of our food is the product of artificial fertilisers, the production of which is a major
contributor to CO2 generation. Fewer people would mean our successors could eat well without the Haber-Bosch process.

3.  25% of anthropogenic CO2 is exhaled by farm animals (10% is exhaled by humans!). Reducing our consumption of animal products would improve general biodiversity and sustainability

4. Arguments about renewable energy tend to focus on electricity. Problem is that electricity only accounts for about one third of our energy use. We need a sustainable means of producing liquid fuels by sequestering atmospheric CO2.

[Bored chemist]

Well in terms of Crops I would suggest building insultated growing centers of some type that would be able to produce Crops, even if there was a very low amount of sun light- So with Artificial sun light, And also able to grow and protect crops during a Necular winter.


Reducting consumption would also reduce tax, I would advocate for less waste in packaging and more easily recyclable products. Combined with more eco friendly products to start with.

Do you have the slightest idea how much power it would take to produce the "artificial sunlight"?
You might as well say we could solve the problem by saying we could fertilise the crops with unicorn poop.

"Reducting consumption would also reduce tax,"
Utter bollocks
Taxes are stet by governments, not wastefulness.
Most of your questions are not meaningful enough to answer. would you like to try rephrasing them?

[Jolly (OP)]

Well in terms of Crops I would suggest building insultated growing centers of some type that would be able to produce Crops, even if there was a very low amount of sun light- So with Artificial sun light, And also able to grow and protect crops during a Necular winter.


Reducting consumption would also reduce tax, I would advocate for less waste in packaging and more easily recyclable products. Combined with more eco friendly products to start with.

Do you have the slightest idea how much power it would take to produce the "artificial sunlight"?
You might as well say we could solve the problem by saying we could fertilise the crops with unicorn poop.

Well Unicorn poop is a good manure, but there arnt that many unicorns arround, you could maybe get some from the zoo, not sure how much they produce, but Zoos do often want rid of it.

"Reducting consumption would also reduce tax,"
Utter bollocks
Taxes are stet by governments, not wastefulness.

"Utter bollocks" of all the silly things I have heard you say this has got to be one of the best. People make products for consumption, bussiness make products for consumption, Wages, profits, sales all taxed at some level. Are you sure you are feeling ok?

Most of your questions are not meaningful enough to answer. would you like to try rephrasing them?

Really?

[Tim the Plumber]

Dude, you're a liar.

How have you not been banned from this forum yet?

Almost every other post seems to be you saying that so and so is a liar.

[alancalverd]

I take exception to being called a liar by people whose opinion (or even existence) matters. In this case, it doesn't.

[PhysBang]

Science advances by scepticism and revolution, not  consensus.

As with most things deniers say, this is at best a half-truth, and likely one intended to deceive.

Individual acts of science may involve wrestling with the epistemic weakness of a given claim, but the goal is to establish positive claims that can convince reasonable people. That is, to produce consensus. The sociological evidence is that scientists working on global warming have convinced reasonable scientists and that there remain a cadre of unreasonable people who either do not want to believe or who do believe but have their own reasons for claiming otherwise.

When people "adjust" other people's data to fit their hypotheses, it may be called fraud, deception, politics, propaganda....anything except science.

Like all the examples of climate change deniers who cherry-pick results or promote the idea that global cooling was ever a widely adopted idea.

Meanwhile, if it is going to survive even the teensiest test of scientific plausibility, it will have to start making some accurate predictions and stop fiddling with the facts.

For the unreasonable, over 50 years of predictive success is not enough.

But even before that, someone is going to have to define global mean temperature

It is a popular canard among the deniers that there is no such thing as global mean temperature. This is not the case. It is offered as an excuse to avoid looking at all the high quality data of temperature anomalies in various locations.

One should take the willingness to offer such arguments as a sign of poor moral character.

[PhysBang]

Time was that 100% of scientists believed in a geocentric universe, and you could be burned at the stake for thinking otherwise.

Do you have a single example of someone being burned at the stake for promoting such a belief? Or is this another of the fantasies that you like to use to promote your beliefs?

Within my lifetime the consensus has swung from an impending ice age to an impending thermal runaway. Beware of consensus: it is at best naive and frequently shortsighted.

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that there was consensus for an impending ice age? Or is this another of the fantasies that you like to use to promote your beliefs?

[alancalverd]

Giordano Bruno, philosopher and scientist, burnt at the stake 400 years ago
By Frank Gaglioti
16 February 2000

Four centuries ago today, on February 16, 1600, the Roman Catholic Church executed Giordano Bruno, Italian philosopher and scientist, for the crime of heresy. He was taken from his cell in the early hours of the morning to the Piazza dei Fiori in Rome and burnt alive at the stake. To the last, the Church authorities were fearful of the ideas of a man who was known throughout Europe as a bold and brilliant thinker. In a peculiar twist to the gruesome affair, the executioners were ordered to tie his tongue so that he would be unable to address those gathered.

Throughout his life Bruno championed the Copernican system of astronomy which placed the sun, not the Earth, at the centre of the solar system. He opposed the stultifying authority of the Church and refused to recant his philosophical beliefs throughout his eight years of imprisonment by the Venetian and Roman Inquisitions. His life stands as a testimony to the drive for knowledge and truth that marked the astonishing period of history known as the Renaissance—from which so much in modern art, thought and science derives.

Galileo avoided a similar fate by recanting, though his last words were reputedly "eppur si muove". 

I am drawn to the hypothesis that PhysBang may be a papal apologist. Certainly not a gentleman.

[Bored chemist]

"But even before that, someone is going to have to define global mean temperature and explain how it is and will be measured, by an absolutely consistent method.  ".
Nope.
You don't understand temperature measurement. Here's teh simplified version.
The closest they get to an "absolutely consistent method.  " is the constant volume gas thermometer, using helium as the working fluid, and extrapolated to zero pressure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_thermometer


Taking a measurement with that kit takes days.
And, since the temperature of the earth's surface changes over that time scale  it is impossible to do what you ask.
It's also impossible to measure the temperature of the glass of water on my desk.
So, your choice to require an "absolutely consistent method. " renders it meaningless.

The only things you can measure that way are things like the triple point of water or the melting point of pure materials- for the same reason that a bath of ice and water in a Dewar flask stays pretty close to 0C for ages.

So, that's what you do.
You get things like water, gallium, tin, silver platinum and whatever then measure their freezing (or triple as appropriate) points.
Then you use those  fixed points to calibrate more practical thermometers- the ones that everyone actually uses- rather than the rather silly requirement you specified.

There are lots of things that get used- thermocouple voltages and the length of a column of mercury in a glass tube are common ones.
But here's the clever bit; there's nothing magical about the choice.
You can use anything as long as you calibrate it- so, for example, you can use the ratios of isotopes in air bubbles trapped in ice.

So, you can look at a "thermometer" that recorded the temperature a wile ago.

Now, having sorted that out, let's look at the rest of what you said.
"someone is going to have to define global mean temperature".
Which word is giving you a problem?
Global- means the whole world
Mean- in this case will be an arithmetic mean and
temperature- is a measure of the average available energy per molecule or atom.
Better definitions are available, but which words are you struggling with?

[PhysBang]

Giordano Bruno, philosopher and scientist, burnt at the stake 400 years ago
By Frank Gaglioti
16 February 2000

Four centuries ago today, on February 16, 1600, the Roman Catholic Church executed Giordano Bruno, Italian philosopher and scientist, for the crime of heresy. He was taken from his cell in the early hours of the morning to the Piazza dei Fiori in Rome and burnt alive at the stake. To the last, the Church authorities were fearful of the ideas of a man who was known throughout Europe as a bold and brilliant thinker. In a peculiar twist to the gruesome affair, the executioners were ordered to tie his tongue so that he would be unable to address those gathered.

Throughout his life Bruno championed the Copernican system of astronomy which placed the sun, not the Earth, at the centre of the solar system. He opposed the stultifying authority of the Church and refused to recant his philosophical beliefs throughout his eight years of imprisonment by the Venetian and Roman Inquisitions. His life stands as a testimony to the drive for knowledge and truth that marked the astonishing period of history known as the Renaissance—from which so much in modern art, thought and science derives.

Giordano Bruno was not executed for his astronomical beliefs, but for his explicitly political ones.
 

Galileo avoided a similar fate by recanting, though his last words were reputedly "eppur si muove". 

Well, I'm glad that you appeal to myths in order to support all your claims.

I am drawn to the hypothesis that PhysBang may be a papal apologist. Certainly not a gentleman.

Wow, so your response is a couple of myths and an attempt at "guilt by association" attacking Catholics and, given the history of "gentleman", Jews. Nice to see that sort of bigotry associated with climate change denial and this forum.

[alancalverd]

Thank you for your help, BC, without which I could not possibly have spent 13 years at the National Physical Laboratory designing systems for measuring microdegree temperature changes, before you sat your GCSEs.  But that was only for an international primary standard, so clearly it wouldn't stack up against your parade of archaic thermometers.

Now having decided, against your vastly better judgement, that global surface temperatures can best be measured by satellite infrared pyrometry, professional meteorologists can have a pretty good idea of the temperature at any point of  the globe at a given instant. The question is, how do we define the overall mean when each point can vary by up to 80 degrees in a day? If we are interested in heat rather than spot temperature, we also need to know the specific heat capacity of each point, because whilst a rock on top of a mountain might  get very hot at noon and freeze at night, its specific heat capacity is much less than a pond in a valley, which may only vary by a couple of degrees during the same day, and it is heat capacity that affects the transfer of incoming solar energy to atmospheric energy, or "climate".

I know it's all very complicated, but I'm appealing to your encylopaedic knowledge of thermometry, geology and oceanography (now there's a bugger! the stuff keeps moving, up, down and sideways, and sometimes anomalously!)  to tell me what you think "global mean temperature" means.       

[PhysBang]

Thank you for your help, BC, without which I could not possibly have spent 13 years at the National Physical Laboratory designing systems for measuring microdegree temperature changes, before you sat your GCSEs.  But that was only for an international primary standard, so clearly it wouldn't stack up against your parade of archaic thermometers.

Now having decided, against your vastly better judgement, that global surface temperatures can best be measured by satellite infrared pyrometry, professional meteorologists can have a pretty good idea of the temperature at any point of  the globe at a given instant. The question is, how do we define the overall mean when each point can vary by up to 80 degrees in a day? If we are interested in heat rather than spot temperature, we also need to know the specific heat capacity of each point, because whilst a rock on top of a mountain might  get very hot at noon and freeze at night, its specific heat capacity is much less than a pond in a valley, which may only vary by a couple of degrees during the same day, and it is heat capacity that affects the transfer of incoming solar energy to atmospheric energy, or "climate".

I know it's all very complicated, but I'm appealing to your encylopaedic knowledge of thermometry, geology and oceanography (now there's a bugger! the stuff keeps moving, up, down and sideways, and sometimes anomalously!)  to tell me what you think "global mean temperature" means.       

That's a great distraction from the actual science of climatology. Thank you for helping us ignore established temperature anomalies in favor of your particular windmill.

I love that this forum is so closely identified with deception and bigotry!

[Bored chemist]

Thank you for your help, BC, without which I could not possibly have spent 13 years at the National Physical Laboratory designing systems for measuring microdegree temperature changes, before you sat your GCSEs.  But that was only for an international primary standard, so clearly it wouldn't stack up against your parade of archaic thermometers.

Now having decided, against your vastly better judgement, that global surface temperatures can best be measured by satellite infrared pyrometry, professional meteorologists can have a pretty good idea of the temperature at any point of  the globe at a given instant. The question is, how do we define the overall mean when each point can vary by up to 80 degrees in a day? If we are interested in heat rather than spot temperature, we also need to know the specific heat capacity of each point, because whilst a rock on top of a mountain might  get very hot at noon and freeze at night, its specific heat capacity is much less than a pond in a valley, which may only vary by a couple of degrees during the same day, and it is heat capacity that affects the transfer of incoming solar energy to atmospheric energy, or "climate".

I know it's all very complicated, but I'm appealing to your encylopaedic knowledge of thermometry, geology and oceanography (now there's a bugger! the stuff keeps moving, up, down and sideways, and sometimes anomalously!)  to tell me what you think "global mean temperature" means.       

Well, if you already knew so much better, why do you repeatedly ask such a dumb question?

[PhysBang]

Thank you for your help, BC, without which I could not possibly have spent 13 years at the National Physical Laboratory designing systems for measuring microdegree temperature changes, before you sat your GCSEs.  But that was only for an international primary standard, so clearly it wouldn't stack up against your parade of archaic thermometers.

Now having decided, against your vastly better judgement, that global surface temperatures can best be measured by satellite infrared pyrometry, professional meteorologists can have a pretty good idea of the temperature at any point of  the globe at a given instant. The question is, how do we define the overall mean when each point can vary by up to 80 degrees in a day? If we are interested in heat rather than spot temperature, we also need to know the specific heat capacity of each point, because whilst a rock on top of a mountain might  get very hot at noon and freeze at night, its specific heat capacity is much less than a pond in a valley, which may only vary by a couple of degrees during the same day, and it is heat capacity that affects the transfer of incoming solar energy to atmospheric energy, or "climate".

I know it's all very complicated, but I'm appealing to your encylopaedic knowledge of thermometry, geology and oceanography (now there's a bugger! the stuff keeps moving, up, down and sideways, and sometimes anomalously!)  to tell me what you think "global mean temperature" means.       

Well, if you already knew so much better, why do you repeatedly ask such a dumb question?

And when I point out that global warming deniers deceive people, I get a warning. I hope that when they point it out themselves, they will get some kind of sanction.