How Global Warming Really Works
- Thread starter Frisco_Slug_Esq
- Start date
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
adrina
Heretic
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2017
- Posts
- 21,356
Yeah that sticks in my craw too.
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
Many properties in Florida are insured by the government, since private companies know a loss when they see one. The NFIP is funded from tax dollars, and the money is mainly going to Florida, Louisiana and Texas.
Hard_Rom
Northumbrian Skald
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Posts
- 13,623
The US can join in solidarity with such great nations as Syria and Nicaragua. Cali and NY, you know the leading US states, will continue to work towards getting a grip on climate issues. Kudos to them.
Might actually be a good idea to build a wall around the US. Maybe a dome!
Might actually be a good idea to build a wall around the US. Maybe a dome!
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
Why Are Climate-change Models Flawed ? Because Climate Science Is So Incomplete
by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
(can you believe it?— the Boston frickin' Globe !!! )
Do you believe,” CNBC’s Joe Kernen asked Scott Pruitt, the Environmental Protection Agency’s new director, in an interview last Thursday, “that it’s been proven that CO2 is the primary control knob for climate?”
Replied Pruitt: “No. I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. So no — I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. But we don’t know that yet. We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.”
It was an accurate and judicious answer, so naturally it sent climate alarmists into paroxysms of condemnation. The Washington Post slammed Pruitt as a “denier” driven by “unreason.” Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii called Pruitt’s views “extreme” and “irresponsible” — proof of his unfitness to head the EPA. Gina McCarthy, who ran the agency under President Obama, bewailed the danger global warming poses “to all of us who call Earth home,” and said she couldn’t “imagine what additional information [Pruitt] might want from scientists” in order to understand that. Yet for all the hyperventilating, Pruitt’s answer to the question he was asked — whether carbon dioxide is the climate’s “primary control knob” — was entirely sound. “We don’t know that yet,” he said. We don’t. CO2 is certainly a heat-trapping greenhouse gas, but hardly the primary one: Water vapor accounts for about 95 percent of greenhouse gases. By contrast, carbon dioxide is only a trace component in the atmosphere: about 400 ppm (parts per million), or 0.04 percent. Moreover, its warming impact decreases sharply after the first 20 or 30 ppm. Adding more CO2 molecules to the atmosphere is like painting over a red wall with white paint — the first coat does most of the work of concealing the red. A second coat of paint has much less of an effect, while adding a third or fourth coat has almost no impact at all.
Earth’s climate system is unfathomably complex. It is affected by innumerable interacting variables, atmospheric CO2 levels being just one. The more variables there are in any system or train of events, the lower the probability of all of them coming to pass. Your odds of correctly guessing the outcome of a flipped coin are 1 in 2, but your odds of guessing correctly twice in a row are only 1 in 4 — i.e., ½ x ½ Extending your winning streak to a third guess is even less probable: just 1 in 8. Apply that approach to climate change, and it becomes clear why the best response to the alarmists’ frantic predictions is a healthy skepticism.
The list of variables that shape climate includes cloud formation, topography, altitude, proximity to the equator, plate tectonics, sunspot cycles, volcanic activity, expansion or contraction of sea ice, conversion of land to agriculture, deforestation, reforestation, direction of winds, soil quality, El Niño and La Niña ocean cycles, prevalence of aerosols (airborne soot, dust, and salt) — and, of course, atmospheric greenhouse gases, both natural and manmade. A comprehensive list would run to hundreds, if not thousands, of elements, none of which scientists would claim to understand with absolute precision. But for the sake of argument, say there are merely 15 variables involved in predicting global climate change, and assume that climatologists have mastered each one to a near-perfect accuracy of 95 percent. What are the odds that a climate model built on a system that simple would be reliable? Less than 50/50...
more...
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...-incomplete/hekwjPBTScRpFyXaXnrWhI/story.html
Replied Pruitt: “No. I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. So no — I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. But we don’t know that yet. We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.”
It was an accurate and judicious answer, so naturally it sent climate alarmists into paroxysms of condemnation. The Washington Post slammed Pruitt as a “denier” driven by “unreason.” Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii called Pruitt’s views “extreme” and “irresponsible” — proof of his unfitness to head the EPA. Gina McCarthy, who ran the agency under President Obama, bewailed the danger global warming poses “to all of us who call Earth home,” and said she couldn’t “imagine what additional information [Pruitt] might want from scientists” in order to understand that. Yet for all the hyperventilating, Pruitt’s answer to the question he was asked — whether carbon dioxide is the climate’s “primary control knob” — was entirely sound. “We don’t know that yet,” he said. We don’t. CO2 is certainly a heat-trapping greenhouse gas, but hardly the primary one: Water vapor accounts for about 95 percent of greenhouse gases. By contrast, carbon dioxide is only a trace component in the atmosphere: about 400 ppm (parts per million), or 0.04 percent. Moreover, its warming impact decreases sharply after the first 20 or 30 ppm. Adding more CO2 molecules to the atmosphere is like painting over a red wall with white paint — the first coat does most of the work of concealing the red. A second coat of paint has much less of an effect, while adding a third or fourth coat has almost no impact at all.
Earth’s climate system is unfathomably complex. It is affected by innumerable interacting variables, atmospheric CO2 levels being just one. The more variables there are in any system or train of events, the lower the probability of all of them coming to pass. Your odds of correctly guessing the outcome of a flipped coin are 1 in 2, but your odds of guessing correctly twice in a row are only 1 in 4 — i.e., ½ x ½ Extending your winning streak to a third guess is even less probable: just 1 in 8. Apply that approach to climate change, and it becomes clear why the best response to the alarmists’ frantic predictions is a healthy skepticism.
The list of variables that shape climate includes cloud formation, topography, altitude, proximity to the equator, plate tectonics, sunspot cycles, volcanic activity, expansion or contraction of sea ice, conversion of land to agriculture, deforestation, reforestation, direction of winds, soil quality, El Niño and La Niña ocean cycles, prevalence of aerosols (airborne soot, dust, and salt) — and, of course, atmospheric greenhouse gases, both natural and manmade. A comprehensive list would run to hundreds, if not thousands, of elements, none of which scientists would claim to understand with absolute precision. But for the sake of argument, say there are merely 15 variables involved in predicting global climate change, and assume that climatologists have mastered each one to a near-perfect accuracy of 95 percent. What are the odds that a climate model built on a system that simple would be reliable? Less than 50/50...
more...
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...-incomplete/hekwjPBTScRpFyXaXnrWhI/story.html
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
What "Climate Leadership" Really Means: More Coal
by Francis Menton
Three weeks or so ago, we all got a good laugh from the New York Times fretting that China was in the process of seizing "climate leadership" from the United States. As reported here on June 8, Pravda had just reported that China was aiming to win the "economic and diplomatic spoils" that would come from dominating the world markets for wind and solar energy. Of course, this was big front-page news.
But wind and solar as sources of electricity are intermittent and fundamentally useless to power a 24/7/365 grid. Are the Chinese really this stupid? Or are they just putting up some token Potemkin village demonstration projects to deceive the deluded climate cultists into pressuring the U.S. to hobble its economy, even as China floods the world with hundreds of more coal plants?
Today's Pravda has the answer. Of course, since the answer is inconvenient, it's not big front-page news, but rather buried on page A10. The headline is "As Beijing Joins Climate Fight, Chinese Companies Build Coal Plants." It seems that a German consultancy called Urgewald has gone out and compiled data on plans for new power plants around the world. The compilation comes after a recent highly-publicized announcement that China had scaled back plans to build coal power plants, and had canceled more than 100 of them that had previously been planned. That's "climate leadership"! But according to the Urgewald data, even after the cancelations China seems to be gearing up to build some 700 new coal plants, both in China itself and in countries around the world:
China’s energy companies will make up nearly half of the new coal generation expected to go online in the next decade. These Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal, according to tallies compiled by Urgewald, an environmental group based in Berlin.
To give you an idea of the scale of this, the U.S. currently has around 600 coal generation units, of which close to 50 are currently scheduled for closure. So, what the Chinese companies have in the pipeline for just the next few years is more than the entire U.S. capacity for generating electricity from coal...
But wind and solar as sources of electricity are intermittent and fundamentally useless to power a 24/7/365 grid. Are the Chinese really this stupid? Or are they just putting up some token Potemkin village demonstration projects to deceive the deluded climate cultists into pressuring the U.S. to hobble its economy, even as China floods the world with hundreds of more coal plants?
Today's Pravda has the answer. Of course, since the answer is inconvenient, it's not big front-page news, but rather buried on page A10. The headline is "As Beijing Joins Climate Fight, Chinese Companies Build Coal Plants." It seems that a German consultancy called Urgewald has gone out and compiled data on plans for new power plants around the world. The compilation comes after a recent highly-publicized announcement that China had scaled back plans to build coal power plants, and had canceled more than 100 of them that had previously been planned. That's "climate leadership"! But according to the Urgewald data, even after the cancelations China seems to be gearing up to build some 700 new coal plants, both in China itself and in countries around the world:
China’s energy companies will make up nearly half of the new coal generation expected to go online in the next decade. These Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal, according to tallies compiled by Urgewald, an environmental group based in Berlin.
To give you an idea of the scale of this, the U.S. currently has around 600 coal generation units, of which close to 50 are currently scheduled for closure. So, what the Chinese companies have in the pipeline for just the next few years is more than the entire U.S. capacity for generating electricity from coal...
more:
http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2017/7/2/what-climate-leadership-really-means-more-coal
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
...The accumulation of false and/or misleading claims is often referred to as the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for forthcoming catastrophe. Without these claims, one might legitimately ask whether there is any evidence at all.
Despite this, climate change has been the alleged motivation for numerous policies, which, for the most part, seem to have done more harm than the purported climate change, and have the obvious capacity to do much more. Perhaps the best that can be said for these efforts is that they are acknowledged to have little impact on either CO2 levels or temperatures despite their immense cost. This is relatively good news since there is ample evidence that both changes are likely to be beneficial although the immense waste of money is not.
I haven’t spent much time on the details of the science [in this presentation], but there is one thing that should spark skepticism in any intelligent reader. The system we are looking at consists in two turbulent fluids interacting with each other. They are on a rotating planet that is differentially heated by the sun. A vital constituent of the atmospheric component is water in the liquid, solid and vapor phases, and the changes in phase have vast energetic ramifications. The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and reemission of about 200 watts per square meter. Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure.”
–Richard H. Lindzen, Ph.D.
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences (emeritus)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Fellow American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS
Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Member National Academy of Sciences
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences (emeritus)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Fellow American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS
Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Member National Academy of Sciences
ht tp://merionwest.com/2017/04/25/richard-lindzen-thoughts-on-the-public-discourse-over-climate-change/
http://merionwest.com/2017/04/25/ri...-on-the-public-discourse-over-climate-change/
Better go back to posting shit by Jacoby. You post stuff like this and some people might start to think not every scientist in the world is buying into the hysteria.
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
PAGES 2017: New Cherry Pie
by Steve McIntyre
Rosanne D’Arrigo once explained to an astounded National Academy of Sciences panel that you had to pick cherries if you wanted to make cherry pie – a practice followed by D’Arrigo and Jacoby who, for their reconstructions, selected tree ring chronologies which went the “right” way and discarded those that went the wrong way – a technique which will result in hockey sticks even from random red noise. Her statement caused a flurry of excitement among Climategate correspondents, but unfortunately the NAS panel didn’t address or explain the defects in this technique to the lignumphilous paleoclimate community.
My long-standing recommendation to the paleoclimate community has been to define a class of proxy using ex ante criteria e.g. treeline black spruce chronologies, Antarctic ice cores etc., but once the ex ante criterion is selected, use a “simple” method on all members of the class. The benefits of such a procedure seem obvious, but the protocol is stubbornly resisted by the paleoclimate community. The PAGES paleoclimate community have recently published a major compilation of climate series from the past millennium, but, unfortunately, their handling of data which goes the “wrong” way is risible...
(much) more...
https://climateaudit.org/2017/07/11/pages2017-new-cherry-pie/
My long-standing recommendation to the paleoclimate community has been to define a class of proxy using ex ante criteria e.g. treeline black spruce chronologies, Antarctic ice cores etc., but once the ex ante criterion is selected, use a “simple” method on all members of the class. The benefits of such a procedure seem obvious, but the protocol is stubbornly resisted by the paleoclimate community. The PAGES paleoclimate community have recently published a major compilation of climate series from the past millennium, but, unfortunately, their handling of data which goes the “wrong” way is risible...
(much) more...
https://climateaudit.org/2017/07/11/pages2017-new-cherry-pie/
_____________________________
Cherry Pie Recipe ("consensus" climate $cience version):
If the data don't agree with your predetermined outcome, simply throw it out.
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
If you are a green energy and CO2 warrior, then you have something in common with some very interesting people in history.
:nods:
http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...s_of_renewable_energy_and_global_warming.html
:nods: http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...s_of_renewable_energy_and_global_warming.html
Nipples_Mcgee1
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2017
- Posts
- 1,006
If you are a green energy and CO2 warrior, then you have something in common with some very interesting people in history.
http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...s_of_renewable_energy_and_global_warming.html
Posting a case of the genetic fallacy twice doesn't make it any less wrong, asshole.
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
So What Happened To The Science ?
An absolutely superb summary— one of the best I've ever seen— written in clear, concise English by a "physics graduate."
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/10/so-what-happened-to-the-science/
...Initially, politicians evaded the falsifiability problem by invoking the precautionary principle, in which the plausibility of an idea is sufficient for it to be treated as if it were confirmed. So, in climatology not only was the falsification of ideas technically difficult, it wasn’t even deemed necessary. But this was an overtly political position to take: If deferring a decision until all uncertainty is removed carries an existential risk, then there is political wisdom in not doing so. Nonetheless, the precautionary principle is notorious for being a self-defeating logic. When the price for taking action is potentially catastrophic (as it may be when one considers the drastic actions proposed by the CAGW protagonists), then the precautionary principle can also be invoked to argue against taking such action. Uncertainty cuts both ways, and perhaps this is why the denial of uncertainty seems to have usurped the precautionary principle as the favoured policy in many people’s minds.
Down on the Mississippi, Mark Twain understood better than most just how easy it is to get carried away with conjecture when the evidence is sparse, but I doubt that even he fully appreciated just how easily such conjecture can mysteriously transform into fact as the stakes get higher. It doesn’t require artifice to achieve this, though it is surprising what some advocates will resort to in order to ensure that the ‘righteous’ side of the argument wins. If it were up to me, however, I’d accept the uncertainties and invoke the dreaded precautionary principle. Although far from ideal, this is a better option than downplaying uncertainties to the extent that having an open mind in the face of a questionable consensus is taken as a sign of criminal stupidity. After all, scepticism used to be the compass for the scientific mind. So I ask once again: What happened to the science?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/10/so-what-happened-to-the-science/
Down on the Mississippi, Mark Twain understood better than most just how easy it is to get carried away with conjecture when the evidence is sparse, but I doubt that even he fully appreciated just how easily such conjecture can mysteriously transform into fact as the stakes get higher. It doesn’t require artifice to achieve this, though it is surprising what some advocates will resort to in order to ensure that the ‘righteous’ side of the argument wins. If it were up to me, however, I’d accept the uncertainties and invoke the dreaded precautionary principle. Although far from ideal, this is a better option than downplaying uncertainties to the extent that having an open mind in the face of a questionable consensus is taken as a sign of criminal stupidity. After all, scepticism used to be the compass for the scientific mind. So I ask once again: What happened to the science?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/10/so-what-happened-to-the-science/
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
*chuckle*
The gift that keeps on giving...
The gift that keeps on giving...
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
"Climate $cience" remains a near-perfect example of pseudoscience. The data are so bad that it makes an intelligent observer laugh at the solemn pronouncements of the high priests and credulous sycophants.
...because of latitudinal (temperate zone) and altitudinal (lapse rate) differences, a global average temp[erature] is meaningless. OTH, a global average stationary station anomaly (correctly calculated) is meaningful, especially for climate trends. So useful if the stations are reliable (most aren’t),
On the other hand, useful anomalies hide a multitude of other climate sins. Not the least of which is the gross difference between absolute and ‘anomaly’ discrepancies in the CMIP5 archive of the most recent AR5 climate models. They get 0C wrong by +/-3 C! So CMIP5 not at all useful...
Freudian_Slit
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2017
- Posts
- 1,121
Note the dramatic acceleration of sea level rise:
You're an idiot, fontboi.
Freudian_Slit
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2017
- Posts
- 1,121
Why does tryfail's graph only go back to 1992?
We know why.
We know why.
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
ROTFLMFAO
No source (of course).
Ah, yes— and true Michael "Piltdown" Mann technique— splicing data. Just like Mikey Mann's infamous "Hockey Stick." That's a very big "no no."
Add a little cherry-porky-pie, don't disclose the data and— voila ! Where's the pea?
Freudian_Slit
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2017
- Posts
- 1,121
It's astonishing that you can breathe without assistance.
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
Hey, look. Splicing data. What do you know?
Note the dramatic acceleration of sea level rise:
