Have you looked at the North Pole lately?

[Crusader Rabbit]

Losing critical satellites to aging and insanity

Losing critical satellites to aging and insanity

We just lost a critical polar monitoring satellite. And Congress chose to throw away it's replacement.

President Trump has been accused of deliberately obstructing research on global warming after it emerged that a critically important technique for investigating sea-ice cover at the poles faces being blocked.

The row has erupted after a key polar satellite broke down a few days ago, leaving the US with only three ageing ones, each operating long past their shelf lives, to measure the Arctic’s dwindling ice cap. Scientists say there is no chance a new one can now be launched until 2023 or later. None of the current satellites will still be in operation then.

The crisis has been worsened because the US Congress this year insisted that a backup sea-ice probe had to be dismantled because it did not want to provide funds to keep it in storage. Congress is currently under the control of Republicans, who are antagonistic to climate science and the study of global warming.

“This is like throwing away the medical records of a sick patient,” said David Gallaher of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado. “Our world is ailing and we have apparently decided to undermine, quite deliberately, the effectiveness of the records on which its recovery might be based. It is criminal.”
...

At present three ageing satellites – DMSP F16, F17 and F18 – remain in operation, though they are all beginning to drift out of their orbits over the poles. The latest satellite in the series, F19, began to suffer sensor malfunctions last year and finally broke down a few weeks ago. It should have been replaced with the F20 probe, which had already been built and was being kept in storage by the US Air Force. However it had to be destroyed, on the orders of the US Congress, on the grounds that its storage was too costly.

https://www.theguardian.com/science...ed-blocking-satellite-climate-change-research

 

[igrowone]

We just lost a critical polar monitoring satellite. And Congress chose to throw away it's replacement.

idiocracy is indeed our future
i think there are other nation's satellites that monitor the icecap, so it won't be a totally blind situation
but when you refuse to believe what you see, this is the logical outcome
makes perfect sense in that way, at least to the bunch that's making the current decisions

 

[DocTim420]

The power here is prophecy...the technical, the scientific and the politcal.

The power here is prophecy...the technical, the scientific and the politcal.

World needs ‘brain washing’ on climate change, Jerry Brown says at Vatican

November 04, 2017 12:21 PM
Vatican City

Gov. Jerry Brown challenged the world’s religious leaders to further engage as he minimized the negative effects of President Donald Trump on meeting the climate-change challenge.

“The Trump factor is very small, very small indeed,” in comparison to the commitments taking place around the world, Brown said to a burst of applause Saturday at an event organized by the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences. “That’s nothing to cheer about, because if it was only Trump that was a problem, we’d have it solved. But that’s not our only problem.

“The problem … is us. It’s our whole way of life. It’s our comfort … It’s the greed. It’s the indulgence. It’s the pattern. And it’s the inertia.”

Brown, who arrived Friday for nearly two weeks of climate talks across Europe, said the path to transformational change must include the mass mobilization of the religious and theological sphere, but also the prophetic sphere.

“The power here is prophecy. The power here is faith, and that’s what this organization is supposed to be about. So, let’s be about it and combine with the technical and the scientific and the political.”

To slow the devastation of climate change, society cannot rely only on science and technology and must begin to accept the need for more transformational approaches, Brown said. He spoke for more than 40 minutes, punctuating his remarks and answers to attending scientists to reflect on his own experiences.

Brown’s first brush with the concept of transformation came when he entered the Jesuit seminary in the 1950s before the Second Vatican Council. He spoke Latin, meditated, underwent self-discipline, mortified himself.

“We tried real hard, and I can tell I did not achieve perfection. I was not transformed. In fact some of my bad habits, which I will not reveal, are the same as they were … when I came into Jesuit seminary when Pius XII was pope.”

Brown acknowledged that achieving transformation will not be easy, citing his recent visit to the Eastern Economic Forum in Russia, where world leaders gathered for discussions about trade with scant mention of climate effects.

“At the highest circles, people still don’t get it,” he said. “It’s not just a light rinse” that’s required. “We need a total, I might say ‘brain washing.’

“We need to wash our brains out and see a very different kind of world.”

From: sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article182789821.html

So instead debating the "climate change theory" with facts and science (the old school way)...the argument will now include: technical, scientific, political, and theological. IMO, this kinda takes us back to the 17th century when the Catholic Church arbitrated what was officially "science" and what was heretical.

Remember Galileo's little "misunderstanding" with the Pope regarding the center of the universe? It was a rather simple binary argument as in "either or"--

The Church believed: Earth was the center of the universe and the celestial bodies themselves were perfect circles made of ‘incorruptible aether’ and were eternal – subject neither to generation nor decay.

The Scientists believed what Copernicus proposed: Sun was the center of the universe and did not move, and celestial bodies moved in orbit around the sun and around its axis.

The Pope concluded the proposition by the Scientists was "formally heretical" and Galileo was subsequently tried by the inquisition, found "guilty" and remained under house arrest until he died.

Now, the Catholic Church continued to deny that the Earth revolved around the Sun...until 1820 (about 200 years ago). Then they allowed another astronomer, Joseph Settle, to declare the motion of the Earth, as proposed by Copernicus over 200 years ago, as fact. LOL...400 years late?

Three hundred and fifty years after Galileo's death, Pope John Paul II said in 1992 “that Galileo suffered unjustly at the hands of the Church and praised Galileo's religiousness and his views and behaviors regarding the relationship between science and religion.”

Just saying--sometimes the Church isn't always right...and sometimes Science isn't always right. But to BRAINWASH away all dissent (like the days of inquisition), now...imo...that is 100% wrong.

 

[DocTim420]

Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!

Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!

Why do Climate Change Scientists (CSS) change history (aka facts) to advance their cause? One would think if sea levels are truly rising--you would not need to manipulate the data (aka facts) to prove it. A bit of honesty goes a long way for us skeptics.

This study, "Is the Sea Level Stable at Aden, Yemen?" challenges the manipulation of historical sea level data by Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSML). psmsl.org

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-017-0020-z

PSML is the global data bank for long term sea level change information from tide gauges and bottom pressure recorders--and used by CSS to argue the case that sea levels are rising. Well are they?

First two (graphs A & B) are actual recordings of the metric data for Aden, Yemen--the last two (graphs C & D) are "revised" my PSML to reflect rising sea levels.

Graph A is actual recording for Mumbai and Graph B is the "revision" by PSML to reflect rising sea levels...

Graph A is actual recording for Karachi and Graph B is the "revision" by PSML to reflect rising sea levels...

When Politics trumps Science, then Science can no longer be believed to be a "factual". Why lie? Why the deceit? Hey, we are adults, we can "handle the truth!"

What did this study find? This one sentence sums it all--

The sea levels have, therefore, been stable in Aden, as at Karachi and Mumbai, over all the 20th century.

So are sea levels rising or not? Who can be trusted to have a depository of factual data? Not PSML!

 

[Borderliner]

no disrespect so many science studies have been shown to be flawed it's hard to know what to trust

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Don't trust science, trust the Church.

 

[DocTim420]

no disrespect so many science studies have been shown to be flawed it's hard to know what to trust

Hmmm, I don't think it is necessarily the "science studies" that are flawed, perhaps it is the foolish scientists that sell them as gospel. In this instance, the foolish CCS at PSML failed to explain why NOW...the need to make adjustments for the prior 150 year period. Usually adjustments like these are made to address changes in measuring, technology, or to correct prior data. But here they are caught red handed--cooking the books--in order to sell their politics and falsely claim sea levels are rising...so say the refuting scientists.

Kinda blows away that 9 of 10 scientists argument.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

My science was funded differently. We must disagree.

Ah progress.

 

[udontknowme]

What do scientists know anyway! Better off listening to some random conspiraloon on the net

 

[coldcanna]

Just because one is skeptical doesn't mean they are some dogmatic conspiracy cooks. In fact being a Skeptic is the backbone of science...

And another thing... scientists are humans like anyone else. They make mistakes, they have agendas, they are increasingly expected to push through publications to maintain funding and keep their job. Getting published means an editor at a journal picks your work out of thousands, so if said editor has bias (ie is human) then do you think "skeptic" papers will ever see publication? I respect the scientific method but to blindly except something as fact because a "scientist" said it is no different than blindly following an old book. That is why they are called theories, because to become fact there must be repeatable experiments that hold true over generations before it becomes law.

ACC is still a theory.... they just published this year that the models mis-calculated the rate of temperature increase and had to be adjusted. So, the experiment was not accurately duplicated. The theory needs to be tweaked. Seriously, what other "scientific breakthrough" would pass as fact just from an inaccurate computer model? Could you imagine if they said something like "we found what causes cancer" after writing some software and nother having data?

 

[igrowone]

...
ACC is still a theory....

can't argue against that, at least in one sense
theory is what science produces
it's the evidence for a theory that makes or breaks it
and the evidence now is not cooling, changes are accelerating
consequences of that change, that's less clear

 

[coldcanna]

The crux of the whole debate is the anthropogenic argument. While it may be true for instance that glaciers are retreating or that we have a couple decades of temperature increases, there is an inherent flaw in just saying that this is proof of ACC, when in actuality it is proof of CC only. When the historical data shows for instance that there have been periods of MUCH higher co2 levels and much warmer temperatures, as well as ice ages, one could logically conclude that yes there is climate change and it seems to be on the upswing now... but what proof or fact has been presented now that humans cause it? Most of the evidence seems to support climate change is happening, but to use this as proof of ACC would be the fallacy of false equivalence.

Think about it like this, the planet was once inhabited primarily of cold blooded reptiles. The co2 levels in the jurassic period were 7 times higher than the "pre industrial" period and temps were 3c higher. Lush tropical forests covered the planet. Warm temperatures mean abundant life, there is more diversity in species in the Amazon than anywhere on earth. If the earth is warming as claimed, we are not heading towards some unknown horizon we are just shifting into something foreign to human kind but common in global history. Extinctions will happen as they always have while other species thrive. Do u find more life on glaciers or the grassy fields that spring up when they retreat? Earth is dynamic, it changes, species including humans will come and go. To think we can effect that or stop it is pretty " anthropocentric"

 

[igrowone]

... but what proof or fact has been presented now that humans cause it? Most of the evidence seems to support climate change is happening, but to use this as proof of ACS would be the fallacy of false equivalence

proof as in 'beyond all doubt', that's plainly not going to happen
there are too many confounding factors in play currently
but it's the resistance to change that's the real killer
people lived without fossil fuels for 1000's of years
there are better ways to live, we're going to change from fossil fuels at some time
wind power is incredible, at least the numbers quoted are very encouraging

 

[coldcanna]

I think that is where logical people fall. You don't need to support ACC to think renewable energy is important. The harvesting of fossil fuels is a dirty process. Solar will keep getting better. There is a company using quantum dots to harvest solar energy from Windows on skyscrapers. Anyone that is against moving towards clean energy is ignorant.

The friction is when politicians use ACC to pass things like carbon tax that hamper business and put thousands if not millions of people out of work. Ever drive through Appalachia ? Renewables will come because the tide of progress is in there favor but that will happen organically as the technology becomes more economical. Putting coal or petroleum companies out of business decades before renewables are completely viable on large scale is foolish. That means less jobs for ordinary people and the price of energy is higher

 

[trichrider]

!

 

[DocTim420]

Trich--if you are working with water motion, investigate the properties of adding a "vortex" to the equation. I know in irrigation lines, if one adds a "vortex creating device" between the pipe connections, there will be a significant increase in water pressure from the power of the vortex.

Visualize the interior of a coupling with a row shark-like fins protruding around the inside parameter that are slightly angled--such that when water flows through the fins, a vortex is created.

Smoke a fatty and watch the water drain from a partially filled sink--there is your vortex...of course if you are south of the equator, the water will spin counterclockwise not clockwise.

LOL, if you make a million off your invention, please remember the Doc!

 

[trichrider]

my design will not work if there is a vortex

the vortex would create an equilibrium and destroy the pressure differential by linking the two together...trust me i've given this literally thousands of hours diligent study...

no-one and nothing i've looked at is anywhere close to recreating/creating the same simple physical anomaly.

thanks Doc, i'll remember you even if i don't make a dime.

 

[igrowone]

...

The friction is when politicians use ACC to pass things like carbon tax that hamper business and put thousands if not millions of people out of work. Ever drive through Appalachia ? Renewables will come because the tide of progress is in there favor but that will happen organically as the technology becomes more economical. Putting coal or petroleum companies out of business decades before renewables are completely viable on large scale is foolish. That means less jobs for ordinary people and the price of energy is higher

it would be great for the fossil fuel work force to be swapped over to renewables
unfortunately, it seems to seldom happen, can't recall that it has happened for a large industry
my belief is that we are not going to have much choice, and soon
look at the world wide trends, for those who will
the people that are the best at this are working on your nickel folks
it is often the case that very smart people will ignore the advice of high pay experts
and often they regret it

 

[Ununionized]

What qualified argument do you have to make, that the world's most economical energy sources, need to be replaced by so-called renewables?

It used to be thought oil isn't renewable, but we now know it is.

You're a technologist in - which field?

None. You're a technologist in none of them, and the way I know, is that you thought a cold nitrogen bath, our atmosphere, is a heater.

And you thought the cold phase change refrigerant for the bath and the object it's chilling - is the magical core of the magic heater.

You're in favor of crashing civilization's energy markets, because somebody

from the government no less,

told you a cold nitrogen bath chilling a light warmed rocky planet,

is a giant heater.

That's not qualification to tell us all how we need to use energy.

Just saying.

it would be great for the fossil fuel work force to be swapped over to renewables
unfortunately, it seems to seldom happen, can't recall that it has happened for a large industry
my belief is that we are not going to have much choice, and soon
look at the world wide trends, for those who will
the people that are the best at this are working on your nickel folks
it is often the case that very smart people will ignore the advice of high pay experts
and often they regret it

 

[igrowone]

the Chukchi Sea

the Chukchi Sea

an event of note up at the arctic circle
been seeing some of our forum members posting about the warm spell that Alaska has been having
of course warm is a relative term
see that chunk of blue on the Alaskan northern side
the Chukchi Sea is not where it should be for this time of year
a significant record noted by NSIDC on this