Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[chubbs]

3 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

The problem always remains you cannot prove a National Weather Cooperative certified at the time record as wrong unless you find another station outside of the area (like here in Chester County Pa) and use that as a proxy to then validate the adjustment. That is clearly not science in this man's worldview.

It's interesting that you make this point; because, I've shown over and over again that the Chester county data is sufficient to show bias in the local data. For instance in the case of the two big cooling moves: 1) After its move in 1948, Coatesville cooled by roughly 2F relative to Phoenixville and West Chester, and 2) after its move in 1970, West Chester cooled by roughly 2F relative to Coatesville and Phoenixville. The timing and nature of the moves fully support the in-county data. Data from outside the county isn't needed; but, does fully support the bias determination. There is a 100% ironclad case for bias in the raw Chesco data. You are helping to make bdgwx's point about confirmation bias. 

 

[ChescoWx]

10 minutes ago, chubbs said:

It's interesting that you make this point; because, I've shown over and over again that the Chester county data is sufficient to show bias in the local data. For instance in the case of the two big cooling moves: 1) After its move in 1948, Coatesville cooled by roughly 2F relative to Phoenixville and West Chester, and 2) after its move in 1970, West Chester cooled by roughly 2F relative to Coatesville and Phoenixville. The timing and nature of the moves fully support the in-county data. Data from outside the county isn't needed; but, does fully support the bias determination. There is a 100% ironclad case for bias in the raw Chesco data. You are helping to make bdgwx's point about confirmation bias. 

 

Of course not at all Charlie. The data is clearly materially and statistically close enough to all other available county data to validate the raw data as is. Any well after the fact adjustments and alterations are not fact or evidenced based.

[bdgwx]

10 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Done I have thrown out all data that I can prove is wrong!! thanks!!

Oh...got it...so the requirement is that you must prove it is wrong. That is convenient because even the most trivial analysis would prove some level of wrongness, but if you don't even make the attempt then you can always claim that you never proved it to be wrong. Brilliant!!

[ChescoWx]

4 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

Oh...got it...so the requirement is that you must prove it is wrong. That is convenient because even the most trivial analysis would prove some level of wrongness, but if you don't even make the attempt then you can always claim that you never proved it to be wrong. Brilliant!!

Not the first time I have been called brilliant!! Thanks again Bdgwx!!

[chubbs]

1 hour ago, ChescoWx said:

Of course not at all Charlie. The data is clearly materially and statistically close enough to all other available county data to validate the raw data as is. Any well after the fact adjustments and alterations are not fact or evidenced based.

Yes, you can find a reason to dismiss the evidence; but, as usual  you aren't  providing any data analysis or statistics to back up your argument, just handwaving. You haven't shown that "The data is clearly materially and statistically close enough to all other available county data to validate the raw data as is."

On the contrary, the biasing effect of the station moves is clear in the Chester County raw data.  For instance, there is a roughly 2F shift in Coatesville relative to West Chester due to the 2 moves in 1946+47.  The Coatesville station locations in 1945 and 1948 fully support the raw temperature data. 

 

[bdgwx]

And here's the thing. If you know the raw data is wrong because you analyzed the situation and determined that a sighting change caused the 2 F bias then just subtract out the 2 F bias like what everyone else in all other disciplines of science does.

It almost defies credulity that we are even having a debate about that. Correcting biases, errors, and/or mistakes is the ethical thing to do. Doing anything else is unethical at best and fraudulent at worst.

And in some professions if you knowingly ignore a bias, error, and/or mistake or omit data because of such you can cause serious harm up to and including death and/or be prosecuted for a crime as you should be.

This is why I want to know the root of this worldview in which biases, errors, and mistakes should be ignored contrary to any rational interpretation of "right" vs "wrong". How did contrarian thinking get so warped that they completely reversed the interpretations of "right" vs "wrong"?

[Typhoon Tip]

2 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

And here's the thing. If you know the raw data is wrong because you analyzed the situation and determined that a sighting change caused the 2 F bias then just subtract out the 2 F bias like what everyone else in all other disciplines of science does.

It almost defies credulity that we are even having a debate about that. Correcting biases, errors, and/or mistakes is the ethical thing to do. Doing anything else is unethical at best and fraudulent at worst.

And in some professions if you knowingly ignore a bias, error, and/or mistake or omit data because of such you can cause serious harm up to and including death and/or be prosecuted for a crime as you should be.

This is why I want to know the root of this worldview in which biases, errors, and mistakes should be ignored contrary to any rational interpretation of "right" vs "wrong". How did contrarian thinking get so warped that they completely reversed the interpretations of "right" vs "wrong"?

It's an excuse to keep denying climate change ...

that's it.  nothing else -

[LibertyBell]

On 5/19/2025 at 7:09 PM, LongBeachSurfFreak said:

It’s not a gimmick. Once fusion becomes a reality. And with AI advancing at warp speed a solution to making fusion viable could occur significantly sooner then previously thought.

limitless clean energy makes carbon capture and sequestration real. And it just might save the planet. 
 

 

we also need water vapor capture

 

[LibertyBell]

On 5/19/2025 at 7:16 PM, donsutherland1 said:

The promise of fusion is real. It will supplant much of conventional power, when realized. 

I'm referring solely to carbon capture. The actual CO2 captured is tiny. Moving to clean energy, including nuclear fusion, will make a much larger contribution than carbon capture will.

Investment should be focused on promising technologies such as nuclear fusion, not carbon capture. Climate projections should be based on realistic assumptions not fictional ones that assume carbon capture.

what is this new machine that will be used on Mars to convert CO2 to O2-- why can't we use that here?

 

[LibertyBell]

On 5/20/2025 at 10:13 AM, Typhoon Tip said:

I think it possible if not likely that the positive feed-backs a real and ubiquitous fusion future brings for humanity, are not being fully visualized. 

Example,  the CO2 sequestering is obviously physically possible.  But the problem isn't in the mathematics, it's in the engineering: 'How to do so by not requiring equal or more energy?'   Point for discussion ... it takes a lot of energy to crack apart the CO2 molecule.  If you're needing so much energy, particularly when the energy is coming from carbon combustion sources to do so ... you are not effectively lowering anything.  We know all this ... 

The solution up at the Orca facility in Iceland was to tap the region's effectively limitless geothermal energy source.  How that is a gimmick - or why... - is actually not really an engineering 'know-how' related matter.   I'll have to read exactly why they are on the wrong side of the results.  Gimmick doesn't add up for me, though, because there's no way that the secretive or dishonest mechanism for perpetuating some other cause ( in this case preserving combustion of carbon) would ever conceivable work or remain clandestine form people frankly noticing that - that seems too childish to believe.  ...Although as afterthought, shit ...we put one of Satan's colon polyps in the white house so anything's possible...

Back on fusion, it's an easy case to make that a fusion would be more than equal to that challenge.  The range estimates vary some based upon source ( MIT ...vs "AI" ...vs - ) but as many as 5 to 8 orders of magnitude more power is accessible over any present conventional means.  That's between 10, and some estimates as high 100 million times more.   The expression, "an embarrassment of riches" leaps to mind.  So... with essentially 0 on the negative side of the net equation, this problem of CO2 above the background correction capacity of the planetary systems becomes no problem at all. The remaining challenges, beyond the sociological assholeness of our species, are rendered to a trivial endeavor.

But, this kind of "Kardashev 1" level control at a planetary scale would really mean fixing, or having the ability to fix the problem, fast - precisely what is needed. Any limitations beyond that would be sociological - different discussion.   It wouldn't have to take centuries to correct the anthropomorphic CO2, back to state prior to the Industrial Revolution. ... Even if CO2 were suddenly halted, (not remotely realistic), a natural extinction rate of CO2 is too slow to stop the other usage of the term extinction; and toppling indirectly linked ecological systems exposes thresholds in multitudes - true dystopia is realized. The general biology science ambit argues that it's already beginning...etc.  It's a snow ball just starting to roll down hill.

Fusion would create a favorable synergy space for innovation in general - that's an intuitive no-brainer.  However the truly transformative extent of that is likely hard to visualize in terms of discrete applications.  If, and most like when, quantum computing is brought on-line,  power and intellect assist in both solution gathering and engineering applications ... staggering.  Huge, huge steps in the department of, "innovation got humanity into this crisis; innovation is required to save us"    

besides fusion the other thing that will really help is quantum computing, this should really help with progress solving these problems.

I went down the rabbit hole with this and even read about digital immortality, with AI being able to scan human brains and reproduce them for the metaverse.

 

[donsutherland1]

3 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

what is this new machine that will be used on Mars to convert CO2 to O2-- why can't we use that here?

 

Right now, it’s not viable for addressing the issue on earth.

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/can-new-nasa-carbon-to-oxygen-conversion-technology-like-moxie-be-used-to-address-climate-change/

[LibertyBell]

wow

 

https://x.com/XIII77IIIX/status/1927798277820297559

 

28 MAY 2025 |

@nocomment

#Switzerland | A massive chunk of the #Birch glacier collapses into the #Lötschental, triggering a 3.1-magnitude quake. The pre-evacuated village of Blatten is nearly destroyed. One person is missing. The army has been deployed. #Valais #Blatten

[ChescoWx]

17 hours ago, bdgwx said:

And here's the thing. If you know the raw data is wrong because you analyzed the situation and determined that a sighting change caused the 2 F bias then just subtract out the 2 F bias like what everyone else in all other disciplines of science does.

It almost defies credulity that we are even having a debate about that. Correcting biases, errors, and/or mistakes is the ethical thing to do. Doing anything else is unethical at best and fraudulent at worst.

And in some professions if you knowingly ignore a bias, error, and/or mistake or omit data because of such you can cause serious harm up to and including death and/or be prosecuted for a crime as you should be.

This is why I want to know the root of this worldview in which biases, errors, and mistakes should be ignored contrary to any rational interpretation of "right" vs "wrong". How did contrarian thinking get so warped that they completely reversed the interpretations of "right" vs "wrong"?

 

17 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

It's an excuse to keep denying climate change ...

that's it.  nothing else -

Or to fuel your own cyclical climate change denialism.....

[ChescoWx]

19 hours ago, chubbs said:

Yes, you can find a reason to dismiss the evidence; but, as usual  you aren't  providing any data analysis or statistics to back up your argument, just handwaving. You haven't shown that "The data is clearly materially and statistically close enough to all other available county data to validate the raw data as is."

On the contrary, the biasing effect of the station moves is clear in the Chester County raw data.  For instance, there is a roughly 2F shift in Coatesville relative to West Chester due to the 2 moves in 1946+47.  The Coatesville station locations in 1945 and 1948 fully support the raw temperature data. 

 

 

 

 

So to adjust for what you think is caused by the move.... why not for 102 years of the 105 years from 1893 thru 1999 let's adjust each every year downward an average of 1.1 degrees with a range as high as 2.7 degrees of chilled altered data over that time and then start warming most years since 1999.....faked data is not real data!

[Typhoon Tip]

14 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

 

Or to fuel your own cyclical climate change denialism.....

What does this statement mean?

[ChescoWx]

16 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

What does this statement mean?

Cyclical climate change refers to the Earth's natural, recurring cycles of warming and cooling over long periods, primarily driven by Milankovitch cycles. These cycles, related to variations in the Earth's orbit and axial tilt, alter the amount of solar radiation received at different latitudes, influencing climate patterns.

[bdgwx]

42 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Cyclical climate change refers to the Earth's natural, recurring cycles of warming and cooling over long periods, primarily driven by Milankovitch cycles. These cycles, related to variations in the Earth's orbit and axial tilt, alter the amount of solar radiation received at different latitudes, influencing climate patterns.

Nobody is challenging Milankovitch or solar behavior that causes cyclic oscillations in Earth's climate. In fact, it is scientists who have assessed and corrected biases, errors, or mistakes in the pioneering works of early scientists that we figured out that Earth's orbit and solar output wasn't actually static.  

[bdgwx]

Speaking solar cycles...The study of solar output is a great example of another discipline of science that performs corrections/adjustments for biases and errors in the instrumentation to create a more accurate picture of what is actually happening. Dr. Kopp's webpage is a good starting point for the science of solar output in general, but more pertinent to the discussion at hand you can see how the bias corrections/adjustments work to homogenize the observations of the different solar observatories and that without these corrections/adjustments scientists would grossly misinterpret how the Sun behaves.

[Typhoon Tip]

1 hour ago, ChescoWx said:

Cyclical climate change refers to the Earth's natural, recurring cycles of warming and cooling over long periods, primarily driven by Milankovitch cycles. These cycles, related to variations in the Earth's orbit and axial tilt, alter the amount of solar radiation received at different latitudes, influencing climate patterns.

I know what climate variations over geological time is.

What were/are you referring to  when you use the word "denialism" - what does that mean in the context?   hint hint, I already know what your tact was. 

This cannot be pointed out any clearer:  you are completely off based and just ... wrong, period.

The entire ambit of climate research has not only distinguished the difference between natural vs (natural + human influence) in climate change, they have used physical chemistry data to prove it.

Let me let you in on a secret that only the enlightened people are aware of ... we don't get to question data that is objectively real.  - something that is quite irritatingly obvious at this point, what you are clearly doing is trying to create uncertainty in data measuring practices,  that ISN'T THERE. 

Your are wasting your time.  And you are wasting the bandwidth of these threads with this DENIALISM stategy. 

 

 

 

[ChescoWx]

3 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Let me let you in on a secret that only the enlightened people are aware of ... we don't get to question data that is objectively real.  - something that is quite irritatingly obvious at this point, what you are clearly doing is trying to create uncertainty in data measuring practices,  that ISN'T THERE. 

Your are wasting your time.  And you are wasting the bandwidth of these threads with this DENIALISM stategy.

We may not get to question data that is objectively real.....but altered data that has made consistent chilling adjustments to data for almost every year from 1893 - 1999 and then turn around and warm most years since Y2K....Is objectively fake and not anywhere close to real.

[Typhoon Tip]

2 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

We may not get to question data that is objectively real.....but altered data that has made consistent chilling adjustments to data for almost every year from 1893 - 1999 and then turn around and warm most years since Y2K....Is objectively fake and not anywhere close to real.

there is no altered data..  stop it.