Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

[paperburn1]

On a side question, about two years ago they launch a satellite that could examine the full dayside or night side sphere and magically determine how much energy the earth absorbed and radiated back out into space on a day to day basis.
anyway I have not heard of any data from it. Has anyone?

[happyjack27]

On a side question, about two years ago they launch a satellite that could examine the full dayside or night side sphere and magically determine how much energy the earth absorbed and radiated back out into space on a day to day basis.
anyway I have not heard of any data from it. Has anyone?

on a day to day bases, energy in would be about the same as energy out. it would be near equilibrium.

there will be small changes of that equilibrium point over time due to changes in atmospheric composition, but the energy imbalance will only be short term until equilibrium is reached again. (assuming there are no "runaway" effects such as what killed the atmosphere of venus) resulting in a net change in stored energy, much of which would be heat.

the easiest and most accurate way to cumulatively measure this energy difference over time is to measure the global temperature - the global mean temperature anomoly.

[happyjack27]

On a side question, about two years ago they launch a satellite that could examine the full dayside or night side sphere and magically determine how much energy the earth absorbed and radiated back out into space on a day to day basis.
anyway I have not heard of any data from it. Has anyone?

Are you talking about "CERES"?

Yeah, the mainstream media generally doesn't publish much news about science.

But you can see some news on NASA's website: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clouds_an ... rgy_System

It's helped us better understand the earth's energy budget: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget

[happyjack27]

might want to archive that, BTW.

https://science.slashdot.org/story/16/1 ... ate-change

Some scientists and academics are embarking on a frenzied mission to archive reams of scientific data on climate change, energized by a concern that a Trump administration could seek to wipe government websites of hard-earned research... The chief concern: publicly available climate change data and research found on government websites would be wiped clean or made otherwise inaccessible to the public. Some worry the information could only be retrieved with a taxing Freedom of Information Act request.

[paperburn1]

I think it was like TERRA on steroids and it was a five part satellite launch two years ago and its claim to fame would be it could clear up a lot of the ambiguity of this climate change / natural thing.
It would take just two or three years of data to help clear up a lot of questions that exist.

[hanelyp]

might want to archive that, BTW.

https://science.slashdot.org/story/16/1 ... ate-change

Some scientists and academics are embarking on a frenzied mission to archive reams of scientific data on climate change, energized by a concern that a Trump administration could seek to wipe government websites of hard-earned research... The chief concern: publicly available climate change data and research found on government websites would be wiped clean or made otherwise inaccessible to the public. Some worry the information could only be retrieved with a taxing Freedom of Information Act request.

Which is total hogwash. Skeptics have been demanding access to data (and not just cooked data series) for years, to be denied or even find that the original data has been lost.

[NotAPhysicist]

I think the thing I find difficult to swallow is the implied* suggestion that there is some sort of global conspiracy to foist climate change on people.

Apart from there being limited reason to do so working science also tends to be pretty cut throat and if there were capable people with credible rebuttals to the large amount of work otherwise being done these people would get listened to. This just doesn't appear to be the case.

People have spent years on the models being used and absolutely those things have needed refinement and will continue to need refinement but if you have the vast majority of people who live with the data day to day for years raising increasingly loud alarm bells it pays to listen to them.

But hey, this isn't my area, I don't know and in fact no scientist can honestly say they 100% know because that isn't a thing you can pretty well ever say but, you can have a very very good idea and I think it would be incredible foolish to brush aside the worries of the vast majority of people working in the area without a very good reason indeed. But that's me, it certainly isn't everyone. If they are right, then we seem increasingly likely to pay for the folly of ignoring them and I am not optimistic for our future, not at all.

* Mostly implied..

[hanelyp]

I'll be explicit in stating I believe there's a global conspiracy to hoist "climate change" bunk on us. And while the motive isn't the same for all conspirators, it's not hard to find. For some it is a means to expand government power or destroy the free market. This is not mere conspiracy theory, but conspiracy fact, supported by seldom mentioned comments by the conspirators. See Club of Rome et all. For the "scientists" the motive is government funding, a crisis demanding action being a far more powerful means of extracting money than the reverse.

[paperburn1]

Well there was a lot of money to be made in that carbon credit scam.
You go green and get "credits" that you sell to others that can not will not go green to meet the new regulations.
Those that do not go green delay until the machinery is to old and deprecated out at which point it is cheaper to buy new "green"
This allows big business not to conform until absolutely necessary.
Who makes money?
The brokers of carbon credits and big business that delay with the end result if they had followed regulation we would be at the same point anyway carbon wise. Scam

[TDPerk]

On a side question, about two years ago they launch a satellite that could examine the full dayside or night side sphere and magically determine how much energy the earth absorbed and radiated back out into space on a day to day basis.
anyway I have not heard of any data from it. Has anyone?

on a day to day bases, energy in would be about the same as energy out. it would be near equilibrium.

there will be small changes of that equilibrium point over time due to changes in atmospheric composition, but the energy imbalance will only be short term until equilibrium is reached again. (assuming there are no "runaway" effects such as what killed the atmosphere of venus) resulting in a net change in stored energy, much of which would be heat.

the easiest and most accurate way to cumulatively measure this energy difference over time is to measure the global temperature - the global mean temperature anomoly.

It seems clear that is a graph made after the warmists adjust the data to agree with their theory.

[happyjack27]

On a side question, about two years ago they launch a satellite that could examine the full dayside or night side sphere and magically determine how much energy the earth absorbed and radiated back out into space on a day to day basis.
anyway I have not heard of any data from it. Has anyone?

on a day to day bases, energy in would be about the same as energy out. it would be near equilibrium.

there will be small changes of that equilibrium point over time due to changes in atmospheric composition, but the energy imbalance will only be short term until equilibrium is reached again. (assuming there are no "runaway" effects such as what killed the atmosphere of venus) resulting in a net change in stored energy, much of which would be heat.

the easiest and most accurate way to cumulatively measure this energy difference over time is to measure the global temperature - the global mean temperature anomoly.

It seems clear that is a graph made after the warmists adjust the data to agree with their theory.

Yes, the evidence that you have provided for that extraordinary conspiracy claim is overwhelming. And there is, of course, no evidence to the contrary.

Overall that seems like the simplest explanation (okham's razor) - a massive worldwide conspiracy to fabricate data, and the burden of proof for it is well met by the mountains of absolutely no proof.

That was sarcasm.

Are you trying to be ridiculous?!?

[hanelyp]

You want evidence?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/paleoclimate/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-p ... mate-page/ (some referenced data apparently now behind a login wall)
https://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-p ... -ice-page/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/

[happyjack27]

You want evidence?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/paleoclimate/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-p ... mate-page/ (some referenced data apparently now behind a login wall)
https://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-p ... -ice-page/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/

I guess i'm still looking for evidence that all of the temperature data in the world, from ice cores to weather stations to satellites, land, water, ice, space, and sky, was fabricated by a massive inter-national conspiracy...

part of the scientific method is that it's all verifiable. you could go outside with a thermometer right now.

given this, it should be pretty easy to come up with evidence that it's all fabricated. would take quite a massive effort to suppress all that evidence.

would be simple enough to just take a plane to antartic, drill an ice core, and look at it yourself, and see that the ice layers don't correspond to the official record. then you could publish a paper on it in a scientific journal - i'm sure any journal would eat that up - it would make them famous!

(i'd be very careful going about it though - as evidenced by the lack of that happening so far, the thought police are rather vigilant in that area)

[Aero]

It seems to me that almost everyone misses the point on global warming. The point is not so much that warming is happening, its the question of what is causing the warming? Is it people and our activities as is claimed - or is it partly or mostly a natural cycle that would be happening even if there were no human activity on Earth? JMO

[happyjack27]

It seems to me that almost everyone misses the point on global warming. The point is not so much that warming is happening, its the question of what is causing the warming? Is it people and our activities as is claimed - or is it partly or mostly a natural cycle that would be happening even if there were no human activity on Earth? JMO

I've posted the link twice already, but i'll post it a third time.

That question of how much is from natural factor vs. anthropocentric factors has already been answered pretty satisfactorily:

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015 ... the-world/

that doesn't produce an image (which i presume is why it's been missed), so i'll just show this image instead:


When I said "there is no debate", that included:
* whether or not the earth has an atmosphere
* whether or not that atmosphere varies over time (in composition, etc.)
* whether or not that variance causes changes in the amount of solar energy stored by the earth.
* whether or not humans are a significant contribution to these changes, to what extent, and to what end.

So, everything, from "is gas a thing?" to "are humans causing the climate to become hotter", is a thoroughly answered question, for which there is no debate.