COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

"Climate Change is Real !!"

Thanks, Bramblethorn

... and I agree completely with you. And there is also no doubt that climate change deniers and Fox news fans can spew out more fact free bullshit than any reasoned researcher can ever hope to disprove. The weak minded are usually more easily convinced by emotional outbursts than simple facts.

Somewhere in that flood of silliness was the statement that Antarctica was warming due to volcanic action. Of course, that's not true. Volcanoes happen along tectonic boundaries. Antarctica is composed of one big plate called the Antarctic Plate. Not surprisingly.

And the drivel regarding water vapor being beneficial to cooling the climate... no. Water vapor is actually a far more potent greenhouse enabler than CO2. With a warmer planet, you have more water vapor in the atmosphere at any given time. Another positive feedback loop.

(It is true that increased water vapor causes increased cloud formation, which reflects sunlight, thus slightly reducing the rate of global warming. But the effect is miniscule when compared to the total insulative effect of increased water vapor.)

Predicting weather is different from predicting the climate. When you predict weather, you're trying to predict the temperature next week. When you predict climate, you're predicting that summer will be hotter than winter. One prediction is much more easily made than the other.

James Hansen has also made the prediction that all of Earths' ice is going to melt, regardless of what we do now. There's about a 50 year lag between the CO2 in the atmosphere, and the final effect on the planet. The effects we're feeling now, are due to CO2 we put there in the 1960's. I think Hansen is right; we're headed for a much warmer planet, regardless of what we do.

The data being considered by the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change is about 7 years out of date. This is due to the time it takes to do the study, evaluate the results, write the paper, submit the paper, have it accepted, and ultimately have it wend its way into the IPCC's data base. The whole process takes about 7 years. So the most recent predictions (2014) are based on data gathered in 2007.

The results from the IPCC are always extremely conservative. This is because the report is based on scientific consensus; that being the things that all scientists agree on, not just most. Most scientists might believe that a measurement is, say, 80 degrees; but if only a small number of scientists believe that the measurement is only 78 degrees, well, 78 degrees is what gets reported. Consensus is what every scientist can agree on... not what most scientists believe.

(It's also worth pointing out that it's an Inter-Governmental panel... not an Inter-National one. Politics plays a major role is muting the IPCCs reports.)

And I'm too tired, and old, and sick, and weary to continue this. My time is apparently coming to an end, so it won't matter to me. But it's probably worth noting that it is only in America that 'Climate Change' is politically polarized; every other nation on planet earth accepts the fact that climate change is happening, and caused by human activities.

Too tired to carry on. >MC
 


Now that there's been no significant warming for more than EIGHTEEN (18+) YEARS, the zealots are scrambling to come up with explanations. So far, in addition to "the dog ate my homework," we've seen the lack of warming blamed on heat hiding in the deep ocean (undetected below the 700 meter range of the Argo diving buoys), we've seen the lack of warming blamed on an increase in ocean wind and we've seen the lack of warming blamed on aerosol pollution.

All the scary charts that were used to market the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming ("CAGW") conjecture were for surface temperatures. The entire global instrumental temperature record only dates to the mid-19th century.

Well, if they want to attribute the lack of warming to heat mysteriously transferred to the deep ocean, the zealots need to wait 150 years, when there is sufficient OHC (ocean heat content) data to begin attribution studies.

...Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all...

...Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.

In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
Click to expand...


Beyond that, the fact of the matter is that there is no reliable temperature record. Do you really believe that Russian temperature records from, say, 1917-1950 are reliable? Do you honestly believe that Chinese temperature records from, say, 1913-1980 are reliable? Do you really believe that Sub-Saharan African temperatures from, say 1850-2012 are accurate?

“Global Warming refers to an obscure statistical quantity, globally averaged temperature anomaly, the small residue of far larger and mostly uncorrelated local anomalies. This quantity is highly uncertain, but may be on the order of 0.7C over the past 150 years. This quantity is always varying at this level and there have been periods of both warming and cooling on virtually all time scales. On the time scale of from 1 year to 100 years, there is no need for any externally specified forcing. The climate system is never in equilibrium because, among other things, the ocean transports heat between the surface and the depths. To be sure, however, there are other sources of internal variability as well.

Because the quantity we are speaking of is so small, and the error bars are so large, the quantity is easy to abuse in a variety of ways.”

-Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D.
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Click to expand...


On top of every thing else, there have been some very bad actors who have done serious damage to the field:
http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/17/mann-and-the-oxburgh-panel/






The author of the comment below is Dr. Jonathan Jones, professor of physics at Brasenose College, Oxford University.

Richard, I can't answer for our host, but you have to remember why some of us got involved in the climate wars in the first place.

For me this has never really been about climate itself. I don't find climate partcularly interesting; it's one of those worthy but tedious branches of science which under normal circumstances I would happily leave to other people who like that sort of thing. My whole involvement has always been driven by concerns about the corruption of science.

Like many people I was dragged into this by the Hockey Stick. I was looking up some minor detail about the Medieval Warm Period and discovered this weird parallel universe of people who apparently didn't believe it had happened, and even more bizarrely appeared to believe that essentially nothing had happened in the world before the twentieth century. The Hockey Stick is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence, so I started reading round the subject. And it soon became clear that the first extraordinary thing about the evidence for the Hockey Stick was how extraordinarily weak it was, and the second extraordinary thing was how desperate its defenders were to hide this fact. I'd always had an interest in pathological science, and it looked like I might have stumbled across a really good modern example.

You can't spend long digging around the Hockey Stick without stumbling across other areas of climate science pathology. The next one that really struck me was the famous Phil Jones quote: "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it". To any practising scientist that's a huge red flag. Sure we all feel a bit like that on occasion, but to actually say something like that in an email is practically equivalent to getting up on a public platform and saying "I'm a pathological scientist, and I'm proud."

Rather naively I initially believed that Phil Jones was just having a bad day and had said something really stupid. Surely he couldn't really think that was acceptable? And surely his colleagues would deal with him? But no, it turned out that this apalling quote was only the most quotable of several other remarks, and he really was trying to hide his data from people who might (horror of horrors) want to check his conclusions.

That's when I got involved in my FOI request. And consequently got exposed to the full horror of "big climate", as clear an example of politicised and pathological science as I have ever seen. And then came Climategate 2009, and "hide the decline". All downhill from there.

When will I be done with climate? Quite simply when it stops being a pathological science and starts acting according to the normal rules and conventions of scientific discourse. At that point I will, I'm afraid, simply lose interest in the whole business, and leave it to the experts to get on with their stuff, just as I leave most of the rest of science to the appropriate experts.

To put it another way, I will be done with climate once I can trust that Richard Betts can be left to do good work on his own. I absolutely trust you to get on with doing good stuff under normal circumstances. But I'm afraid I don't trust you to do good work under current pathological conditions, because you don't stand up against the all too obvious stench emanating from some of your colleagues.

For me the Hockey Stick was where it began, and probably where it will end (and I will daringly suggest that the same thing might be true for our host). The Hockey Stick is obviously wrong. Everybody knows it is obviously wrong. Climategate 2011 shows that even many of its most outspoken public defenders know it is obviously wrong. And yet it goes on being published and defended year after year.

Do I expect you to publicly denounce the Hockey Stick as obvious drivel? Well yes, that's what you should do. It is the job of scientists of integrity to expose pathological science, and it is especially the job of scientists in closely related fields. You should not be leaving this to random passing NMR spectroscopists who have better things to do. But I'm afraid I no longer expect you to do so. The opportune moment has, I think, passed. And that is why, even though we are all delighted to have you here, and all enjoy what you have to say, some of us get a trifle tetchy from time to time.

You ask us to judge you by AR5, and in many ways that is a reasonable request. Many of us will judge it by the handling of paleoclimate, not because this is all that important an aspect of the science, but rather because it is a litmus test of whether climate scientists are prepared to stand up against the bullying defenders of pathology in their midst. So, Richard, can I look forward to returning back to my proper work on the application of composite rotations to the performance of error-tolerant unitary transformations? Or will we all be let down again?

Dec 3, 2011 at 6:11 PM | Jonathan Jones

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/12/2/tim-barnett-on-the-hockey-stick.html
Click to expand...



​
 



One helluva correlation:

​



MSU%20RSS%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20AndCO2.gif




​
 
sexnovella said:
Yes it is
Click to expand...


Of course "it is."

The climate has been changing for roughly 4 billion years. I have every expectation that it will continue to change.


What's become obvious, however, is that climatology doesn't understand WHY the climate changes. That fact has been made manifest by the lack of any significant atmospheric warming for the last eighteen or more (18+) years.



​
 
Mister_Chris said:
...The weak minded are usually more easily convinced by emotional outbursts than simple facts.

Somewhere in that flood of silliness was the statement that Antarctica was warming due to volcanic action. Of course, that's not true. Volcanoes happen along tectonic boundaries. Antarctica is composed of one big plate called the Antarctic Plate. Not surprisingly.
Click to expand...



Seismic detection of an active subglacial magmatic complex in Marie Byrd Land, Antarctica

Lough et al. November 17th, Nature Geoscience doi:10.1038/ngeo1992

Numerous volcanoes exist in Marie Byrd Land, a highland region of West Antarctica. High heat flow through the crust in this region may influence the stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet1, 2, 3, 4. Volcanic activity progressed from north to south in the Executive Committee mountain range between the Miocene and Holocene epochs, but there has been no evidence for recent magmatic activity5, 6, 7. Here we use a recently deployed seismic network to show that in 2010 and 2011, two swarms of seismic activity occurred at 25–40 km depth beneath subglacial topographic and magnetic highs, located 55 km south of the youngest subaerial volcano in the Executive Committee Range. We interpret the swarm events as deep long-period earthquakes based on their unusual frequency content. Such earthquakes occur beneath active volcanoes, are caused by deep magmatic activity and, in some cases, precede eruptions8, 9, 10, 11. We also use radar profiles to identify a prominent ash layer in the ice overlying the seismic swarm. Located at 1,400 m depth, the ash layer is about 8,000 years old and was probably sourced from the nearby Mount Waesche volcano. Together, these observations provide strong evidence for ongoing magmatic activity and demonstrate that volcanism continues to migrate southwards along the Executive Committee Range. Eruptions at this site are unlikely to penetrate the 1.2 to 2-km-thick overlying ice, but would generate large volumes of melt water that could significantly affect ice stream flow.


The SI is here:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ngeo1992-s1.pdf




​
 
Thanks, trisail. I knew Lit was a wealth of wank material, but I had no idea it could be such a cure for insomnia. More graphs, please.

rj
 
You do realize that the Oil Giants and Corporate Lobbyists pitch against this global warming thing? They deny this thing in the first place itself. Politicians are bound to follow their biding as they are one of the major fund raisers for them.
 
Hypoxia said:
I look forward to massive environmental degradation and catastrophic climate change. Why? Because it won't be as bad as the next planet-smashing meteorite strike. Earth gets hit by extinction-level space debris every now and then. If we wreck the planet enough ourselves, humanity just might be motivated to start colonizing the universe before that next extinction strike. If you're concerned with long-term human survival, get off the planet.
Click to expand...

It's nice to dream, but there's no feasible way for humans to get out of the solar system and colonise, and given the cold hard math of space travel there may never be. And the only local planet with a shot of ever supporting human life in any numbers is Mars, and you better like it cold and dry.

I'll stay tuned for massive improvements in long term suspended animation - the only way we're leaving this solar system and finding other livable planets - but the current science says no. There are no warp cores, no FTL wormhole generators, nothing on the scientific horizon that gives you anything other than spitting mass behind you for acceleration - which is not good enough to get you anywhere useful in any timespan of human significance.

Like it or not, odds are very good that we get *one* planet and we better learn to take care of it.
 
The Soulful Bard said:
You do realize that the Oil Giants and Corporate Lobbyists pitch against this global warming thing? They deny this thing in the first place itself. Politicians are bound to follow their biding as they are one of the major fund raisers for them.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the tobacco industry. They fought tooth and nail, denied every study, even put out commercials touting the benefits of smoking, right up until the link between cancer and smoking was well established and the pictures of what smoking does to ones lungs and body were shown.

You don't hear the tobacco industry saying squat any more.
 
trysail said:
You’re a climate denier if:

[*] You believe that the atmosphere has continued to warm for the last 18+ years despite rapid growth of CO2. 97% of real climate scientists acknowledge that it hasn’t. They call it the “pause” or “hiatus” although there is no scientific evidence that warming will pick up again or when.
Click to expand...
http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc20..._global_temperature_anomaly_1880-2012.svg.png

Look at 1940. Temperatures dropped significantly for a good 8 years, but the overall upward trend of the last 90 years is trivially obvious. The recent pause is interesting, and driven by a strange cool spot (relatively speaking) in the Indian ocean which is dragging averages down, but it doesn't affect the overall trend. By the way, it's only surface temperatures that have levelled out. High atmo and undersea continue to climb. In short, you're cherrypicking.


trysail said:
[*] If you believe that Antarctica is melting. NASA satellite data shows that the sea ice extent around Antarctica in 2014 is the largest in recorded history.
Click to expand...

Yes, and more than offset by loss of Arctic ice. The planet as a whole is losing ice volume at a rate that's gone from noteworthy to disturbing. But the way, Antartic ice has more extent this year, but large swaths of it are thinner, so the extent isn't as impressive as it first seems. You are cherrypicking. Again.

trysail said:
[*] If you believe that the observed West Antarctica warming is caused by warming of the atmosphere. Recent studies show that the heat is coming from volcanoes below the glacier. Besides, air temperatures in the area are far below zero. Ice doesn’t melt in subfreezing air.
Click to expand...

Volcanoes aren't our fault, but they don't negate the argument for atmospheric heat trapping. If you could find some volcanoes in the arctic to explain ice loss there you might have something, but you don't. This is a red herring.

trysail said:
[*] You believe that climate models accurately represent the climate of the earth. They don’t.
Click to expand...
No one does. Models represent best guesses. They are useful gudeposts, but the argument for man-made climate change doesn't depend on them and never has. The argument is made from past data, not future predictions. So this is completely irrelevant to your point, and another red herring.

trysail said:
[*] ...The lack of recent warming while CO2 continues to increase shows clearly that water vapor is either neutral or in fact suppresses the warming from CO2.
Click to expand...

Alright, now you've just gone into idiocy. No one debates that water vapor is a heat trapping gas. That's simple physics. Increases in water vapor lead to increases in temperature, anywhere you go, inside of labs and out. The difference is that CO2 leaches out of the atmosphere quite slowly, and water vapor falls out easily, so the amplification effect of water is local and sporadic. More to the point, H20 isn't a man-made climate change effect, unlike CO2 and some sources of CH4. You're mixing unrelated arguments wildly.

trysail said:
[*] If you believe that around 2000, CO2 magically changed its mind and decided to warm the oceans instead of the air. Some scientists speculate that this is the case but there is little or no hard science to support the notion. Some even speculate that the heat is going into the deep oceans, even though there is no way to measure it or find it.
Click to expand...

If an atmosphere warms, oceans must eventually follow suit. And they have. There's no lack of data to show shallow undersea temp increases. It's not as pronounced in the southern hemisphere, but only a cherrypicker points to a ten yaer period as proof of much in a system as large and chotic as Earth's. It's taken decades to form any real consensus on climate change at all, because no reputable scientist was willing to stake a claim on a small data set. You're fond of them though.

trysail said:
[*] You believe that man-made global warming is causing climate disasters. The International Red Cross reports that natural disasters are at a ten year low. Tornado and hurricane activity have also been at near record lows.
Click to expand...

Hurricane *counts* in the *Atlantic* are relatively steady. Wind, duration and rainfall are all up. We're not getting more storms in the Atlantic, they are just getting bigger, which is exactly what you expect over a warmer ocean. Yes, the Red Cross's disaster rate has gone down - in part, we're getting at warning people when trouble is heading their way and better at averting calamity when problems do occur. More to the point, what the Red Cross calls a "natural disaster" includes forest fires and earthquakes and a host of things that aren't storm related. You are cherrypicking on a vast scale here.


It's probably time to ask you what line of work you're in. You're no scientist, that much is obvious. But I strongly suspect you're one of the quite significant number of people who's paid to post misleading arguments on the internet, even if that's not your primary income. Are you?
 
trysail said:
What's become obvious, however, is that climatology doesn't understand WHY the climate changes. That fact has been made manifest by the lack of any significant atmospheric warming for the last eighteen or more (18+) years.​
Click to expand...
Wrong.

BTW are you paid to spout this stuff or do you do it for free?
 
All I know is its snowing tonight....may snow tomorrow and possibly 8-12" on Thursday.
 
HandsInTheDark said:
http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc20..._global_temperature_anomaly_1880-2012.svg.png

Look at 1940. Temperatures dropped significantly for a good 8 years, but the overall upward trend of the last 90 years is trivially obvious. The recent pause is interesting, and driven by a strange cool spot (relatively speaking) in the Indian ocean which is dragging averages down, but it doesn't affect the overall trend. By the way, it's only surface temperatures that have levelled out. High atmo and undersea continue to climb. In short, you're cherrypicking.
Click to expand...

Talk about "cherry picking." The original claim of the CAGW conjecture was entirely based on surface temperatures. It was always all about surface temperatures.


Yes, and more than offset by loss of Arctic ice. The planet as a whole is losing ice volume at a rate that's gone from noteworthy to disturbing. But the way, Antartic ice has more extent this year, but large swaths of it are thinner, so the extent isn't as impressive as it first seems. You are cherrypicking. Again.
Click to expand...

Wrong on the facts:

global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg



Volcanoes aren't our fault, but they don't negate the argument for atmospheric heat trapping. If you could find some volcanoes in the arctic to explain ice loss there you might have something, but you don't. This is a red herring.


No one does. Models represent best guesses. They are useful gudeposts, but the argument for man-made climate change doesn't depend on them and never has. The argument is made from past data, not future predictions. So this is completely irrelevant to your point, and another red herring.
Click to expand...

If you can't model it, you don't understand it.

"The science is settled."

Yeah, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Everything except some minor items like climate sensitivity and attribution.


Alright, now you've just gone into idiocy. No one debates that water vapor is a heat trapping gas. That's simple physics. Increases in water vapor lead to increases in temperature, anywhere you go, inside of labs and out. The difference is that CO2 leaches out of the atmosphere quite slowly, and water vapor falls out easily, so the amplification effect of water is local and sporadic. More to the point, H20 isn't a man-made climate change effect, unlike CO2 and some sources of CH4. You're mixing unrelated arguments wildly.
Click to expand...

It's all part of the climate system. Ignoring the role of the most potent GHG (water vapor) is laughable.

Talk about "cherry picking !!!!"
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:



If an atmosphere warms, oceans must eventually follow suit. And they have. There's no lack of data to show shallow undersea temp increases. It's not as pronounced in the southern hemisphere, but only a cherrypicker points to a ten yaer period as proof of much in a system as large and chotic as Earth's. It's taken decades to form any real consensus on climate change at all, because no reputable scientist was willing to stake a claim on a small data set. You're fond of them though.



It's magic. Somehow the oceans warmed with no significant atmospheric warming.

Then again, there's the minor problem that nobody has been able to actually find the putative "missing heat."

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.



Hurricane *counts* in the *Atlantic* are relatively steady. Wind, duration and rainfall are all up. We're not getting more storms in the Atlantic, they are just getting bigger, which is exactly what you expect over a warmer ocean. Yes, the Red Cross's disaster rate has gone down - in part, we're getting at warning people when trouble is heading their way and better at averting calamity when problems do occur. More to the point, what the Red Cross calls a "natural disaster" includes forest fires and earthquakes and a host of things that aren't storm related. You are cherrypicking on a vast scale here.


Obviously, you've got nothing but bullshit.

Worldwide cyclonic activity is down:

maue_hurricane_frequency.png





It's probably time to ask you what line of work you're in. You're no scientist, that much is obvious. But I strongly suspect you're one of the quite significant number of people who's paid to post misleading arguments on the internet, even if that's not your primary income. Are you?
Click to expand...


It's obvious you're no scientist.

Are you a paid propagandist?

Do you make a living spreading propaganda?
Click to expand...
 
Climate change is happening and, unfortunately, we can't realistically do anything about it apart from try to make the place as comfortable as possible before what ever it is that's going to hit the fan, hits it. As for Humanity coming up with a plan to solve it. That isn't going to happen. We haven't even got the intelligence to make Humanity humane.
 
trysail said:
If you can't model it, you don't understand it.
Click to expand...

Then we don't understand: fire. The flow of water in a pipe. Any aspect of biology, right down to the cellular level. Light. Radioactivity. Anything at the quantum level.

But we can confidently generalize about all those things, and we do, daily.

It is never possible to accurately model any chaotic system. That's the definition of chaos in action. But as long as it's imperfect, people like you will be paid to teach denial.

You asked about me. No one pays me a penny in any fashion to state their opinions. I work in defense, so I have a little insight into how the government has shifted spending priorities, which tells me something about who takes what science seriously. I have a background in modelling and simulation. (I am not, however, a climatologist).

You, on the other hand, have not said who pays you, even after you were asked at least twice. You've misunderstood websites you've pointed people to, and proven in several statements that you don't understand basic scientific method at a level that most first years in technical disciplines in college are expected to master. You like small sample sets, weasel words like "Red Cross Disasters" that have nothing to do with the topic, and I suspect your college major didn't include a math background. In other words, you're like quite a few people who used to inhabit Yahoo comment threads, reading from their playbooks and paid a shockingly low wage to point people to corporate filtered "research". (The one I got to confess, a number of years back, turned out to be a gas station owner. To no one's surprise.)

And so I'm done with you. It was fun checking out your urls - once. But as I'm not paid to babysit the undereducated, I'll leave you to your corporate assisted campaigning.
 
HandsInTheDark said:
Then we don't understand: fire. The flow of water in a pipe. Any aspect of biology, right down to the cellular level. Light. Radioactivity. Anything at the quantum level.

But we can confidently generalize about all those things, and we do, daily.

It is never possible to accurately model any chaotic system. That's the definition of chaos in action. But as long as it's imperfect, people like you will be paid to teach denial.

...I work in defense, so I have a little insight into how the government has shifted spending priorities, which tells me something about who takes what science seriously. I have a background in modelling and simulation. (I am not, however, a climatologist).

You, on the other hand, have not said who pays you, even after you were asked at least twice. You've misunderstood websites you've pointed people to, and proven in several statements that you don't understand basic scientific method at a level that most first years in technical disciplines in college are expected to master. You like small sample sets, weasel words like "Red Cross Disasters" that have nothing to do with the topic, and I suspect your college major didn't include a math background. In other words, you're like quite a few people who used to inhabit Yahoo comment threads, reading from their playbooks and paid a shockingly low wage to point people to corporate filtered "research". (The one I got to confess, a number of years back, turned out to be a gas station owner. To no one's surprise.)

And so I'm done with you. It was fun checking out your urls - once. But as I'm not paid to babysit the undereducated, I'll leave you to your corporate assisted campaigning.
Click to expand...





Frankly, I lost track of the number of wild inaccuracies and incorrect assertions.

You're either a bit slow or you're embarrassed by your gullibility.

Here's a question for you—
If the climate system is indeed "chaotic" (your word, pal), then what in hell is the U.S. government doing wasting billions and billions of dollars trying to fool anybody into thinking it is predictable?



​







Hadley Centre Central England Temperature (HadCET) dataset (the CET dataset is the longest instrumental record of temperature in the world— 1772-2014 )

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/


HadCET_graph_ylybars_uptodate.gif


​







One helluva correlation:

​



MSU%20RSS%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20AndCO2.gif




​




There has been NO SIGNIFICANT WARMING for almost two decades.

It's all over the scientific journals. It is widely acknowledged.

It is beyond belief that anybody could possibly be that uninformed.


Nature "The Missing Heat" and "The Pause"

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525



trend

​




​
 
Fill_de_Puta said:
Climate change is happening and, unfortunately, we can't realistically do anything about it apart from try to make the place as comfortable as possible before what ever it is that's going to hit the fan, hits it. As for Humanity coming up with a plan to solve it. That isn't going to happen. We haven't even got the intelligence to make Humanity humane.
Click to expand...

This, unfortunately, is a real concern. Corporate interests will NEVER focus on anything beyond the current fiscal year, except for a few visionaries who care about their legacy. A problem happening a possible 200 years out isn't on the table. At most, a few companies are making long term bets to cash in on climate change, like opening shipping ports in the Arctic. If there's disruption to ecology, loss of shoreline, increased weather damage, wars over water or increases in food prices down the road, that's not the concern of corporations. They'll just find ways to profit from it all. The people running them live in an artificial ecology and can afford to pay extra for food

And pols in America (at least) care about corporate donors above all else. So governments aren't often going to step in, and won't get it right when they try. They even know it; what they research these days is adaptation, because they know they can't do climate mitigation.

The reality is simple. Oil's cheap. Natural gas is cheap. Both have vast, existing, working infrastructures that make a lot of people rich and a lot more people employed. Nuclear is messy, solar's not there yet, wind isn't there yet and tidal, while interesting, isn't as simple as it looks. And the third world is coming online in terms of manufacturing and energy generation - and carbon pumping - and it's hard to blame them because tractors are better than horses when you have mouths to feed. We are very, very addicted to carbon. We do not care about people we can't see, including our own unborn great grandchildren.

I've seen conditions in the third world. I know what happens there when crops become less viable, when rainfall patterns shift, glacial drinking water is gone and and when bigger storms hit places like Haiti.

People talk about the growing economic divide, and I shrug. Sure, i% of the population holds 50% of the wealth, but as long as the poor can still find food, that just pisses people off, it doesn't kill (many) people. But pair that anger with a world in which food and water become scarcer, because climate variation is finally happening harder and faster than biological adaptation supports. I am very glad I'm not going to be alive for the last quarter of the current century.
 
HandsInTheDark said:
This, unfortunately, is a real concern. Corporate interests will NEVER focus on anything beyond the current fiscal year, except for a few visionaries who care about their legacy. A problem happening a possible 200 years out isn't on the table. At most, a few companies are making long term bets to cash in on climate change, like opening shipping ports in the Arctic. If there's disruption to ecology, loss of shoreline, increased weather damage, wars over water or increases in food prices down the road, that's not the concern of corporations. They'll just find ways to profit from it all. The people running them live in an artificial ecology and can afford to pay extra for food

And pols in America (at least) care about corporate donors above all else. So governments aren't often going to step in, and won't get it right when they try. They even know it; what they research these days is adaptation, because they know they can't do climate mitigation.

The reality is simple. Oil's cheap. Natural gas is cheap. Both have vast, existing, working infrastructures that make a lot of people rich and a lot more people employed. Nuclear is messy, solar's not there yet, wind isn't there yet and tidal, while interesting, isn't as simple as it looks. And the third world is coming online in terms of manufacturing and energy generation - and carbon pumping - and it's hard to blame them because tractors are better than horses when you have mouths to feed. We are very, very addicted to carbon. We do not care about people we can't see, including our own unborn great grandchildren.

I've seen conditions in the third world. I know what happens there when crops become less viable, when rainfall patterns shift, glacial drinking water is gone and and when bigger storms hit places like Haiti.

People talk about the growing economic divide, and I shrug. Sure, i% of the population holds 50% of the wealth, but as long as the poor can still find food, that just pisses people off, it doesn't kill (many) people. But pair that anger with a world in which food and water become scarcer, because climate variation is finally happening harder and faster than biological adaptation supports. I am very glad I'm not going to be alive for the last quarter of the current century.
Click to expand...


That's a mighty powerful batch of Kool-Aid you imbibed.

Are you always this credulous? Anybody who knows anything about computer models and modeling knows full well that they reflect the biases of their creators.

“Give me four parameters, and I can fit an elephant. Give me five, and I can wiggle its trunk.”
​
-John von Neumann
​
Click to expand...
The models of all those mortgage-backed securities sure were useful, weren't they?


Even Arrhenius predicted that the rise in global temperature would be a positive thing, resulting in a more equable climate that would produce greater crop yields and help mitigate global hunger.



​
 
I am agnostic about anthropogenic climate change. Dinosaurs didn't become extinct because of too many Harley Davidsons.

Our climate has been changing since it was created and has gone through ice ages to temperate periods.

At present it seems to be hibernating but there is nothing much us poor humans can do to affect the universe.

Sure, clean up car exhausts etc. I'm all in favour, but don't pretend you are saving the world.
 
trysail said:


Are you always this credulous? Anybody who knows anything about computer models and modeling knows full well that they reflect the biases of their creators.
​
Click to expand...

Your lack of science background is showing still. Models are designed with specific simplifying assumptions that are well known and specified as part of the model.

There are no models of the atmosphere that are complete, because the only complete model is the ACTUAL atmosphere. It is impossible to build a complete model. So we build ones that answer specific questions. That means we build MANY models to answer many different questions.

Models don't have to be complete to have predictive abilities if the simplifying assumptions are known. They don't even have to be correct! They still teach the Bohr model of the atom where electrons orbit around a nucleus like a tiny solar system. They still teach Say's Law in economics classes. Nobody in those fields even pretends that those models still model the real world. But they are useful for understanding certain behaviors if their limits are understood, i.e, if we keep expectations within certain simplifying assumptions.

On the other hand, maybe it's right that you're presenting science fantasy at a fiction site. Maybe you could somehow work in a black Navy SEAL with a 12 inch dick for some street cred here.

rj
 
If its not in a graph he can steal from somewhere,
Trysail doesn't believe it exists. Of course the graphs
he puts up here and in his other threads are worthless
without the material it is referenced to.

Not to mention stretching the threads all out of shape.

I don't think he cares much about anything but graphs.
He thinks they make him look smart. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:


Computer Models v. Observed Temperatures


MODEL: IPCC5 (RCP8.5): 4.2C/century
MODEL: IPCC4 Warming High: 4.0C/century
MODEL: Hansen A: 3.2C/century ( since 1979 )
MODEL: Hansen B: 2.8C/century ( since 1979 )
MODEL: IPCC4 next few decades: 2.0C/century
MODEL: Hansen C: 1.9C/century ( since 1979 )
MODEL: IPCC4 Warming Low: 1.8C/century
———————————————————————
Observed: NASA GISS: ~1.6C/century ( since 1979 )
Observed: NCDC: ~1.5C/century ( since 1979 )
Observed: UAH MSU LT: ~1.4C/century (since 1979 )
Observed: RSS MSU LT: ~1.3C/century (since 1979 )
MODEL: IPCC5 (RCP2.6): 1.0C/century
Observed: RSS MSU MT: ~0.8C/century (since 1979 )
Observed: UAH MSU MT: ~0.5C/century (since 1979 )
———————————————————————
​



​
 
rjordan said:
Your lack of science background is showing still. Models are designed with specific simplifying assumptions that are well known and specified as part of the model.

There are no models of the atmosphere that are complete, because the only complete model is the ACTUAL atmosphere. It is impossible to build a complete model. So we build ones that answer specific questions. That means we build MANY models to answer many different questions.

Models don't have to be complete to have predictive abilities if the simplifying assumptions are known. They don't even have to be correct! They still teach the Bohr model of the atom where electrons orbit around a nucleus like a tiny solar system. They still teach Say's Law in economics classes. Nobody in those fields even pretends that those models still model the real world. But they are useful for understanding certain behaviors if their limits are understood, i.e, if we keep expectations within certain simplifying assumptions.

On the other hand, maybe it's right that you're presenting science fantasy at a fiction site. Maybe you could somehow work in a black Navy SEAL with a 12 inch dick for some street cred here.

rj
Click to expand...



Tell us all about the climate sensitivity coefficients that are used in CMIP-5.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Today’s ‘Climate Crisis’ Is a Fairy Tale
Replies
13
Views
126
Chernosoth
Chernosoth
SugarDaddy1
The next big climate scare: Counting climate change deaths
Replies
1
Views
53
Fuzzy1975
F
Rightguide
Joe Biden Has Created A Dangerous World
2
Replies
36
Views
204
Rightguide
Rightguide
Rightguide
96% Of U.S. Climate Data Is Corrupted
5 6 7
Replies
172
Views
2K
schism666
schism666
Rightguide
“There is No Climate Emergency”
13 14 15
Replies
366
Views
5K
phrodeau
phrodeau
Back
Top