Climate continues to change.

[thør]

I sure hope that Rep. Barton's wind is finite.

:croak:

 

[domroger]

https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/l/t1.0-9/10461320_712268038847029_5804704086919236079_n.jpg?oh=303521ab2d8db5d80e30d305ea4aa502&oe=564323BE

Is he a scientist ?

 

[Disgustipated]

Greenland glacier loses chunk the size of Manhattan

No biggie. Right?

 

[phrodeau]

The hottest month ever recorded was July 2015.

http://www.decodedscience.com/globa...ot-just-hottest-july-hottest-month-ever/55562

 

[Disgustipated]

July 2015 Hottest Month Ever Recorded

Ever.

In History.

Just crank up the A/C!

http://publicradio1.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/updraft/files/2015/08/814-100-hx.png

 

[Disgustipated]

Gotdamnit, Phro. I was was making graphs so Tryfail could comprehend.

 

[trysail]

2014 as the Mildest Year: Why You are Being Misled on Global Temperatures
OR: Why I Should Have Been an Engineer Rather than a Climate Scientist


http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/01...-you-are-being-misled-on-global-temperatures/

January 18th, 2015
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.

I’ve been inundated with requests this past week to comment on the NOAA and NASA reports that 2014 was the “hottest” year on record. Since I was busy with a Japan space agency meeting in Tokyo, it has been difficult for me to formulate a quick response.

Of course, I’ve addressed the “hottest year” claim before it ever came out, both here on October 21, and here on Dec. 4.

In the three decades I’ve been in the climate research business, it’s been clear that politics have been driving the global warming movement. I knew this from the politically-savvy scientists who helped organize the U.N.’s process for determining what to do about human-caused climate change. (The IPCC wasn’t formed to determine whether it exists or whether is was even a threat, that was a given.)

I will admit the science has always supported the view that slowly increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels should cause some warming, but the view that this would in any way be a bad thing for humans or for Nature has been a politically (and even religiously) driven urban legend.

I am embarrassed by the scientific community’s behavior on the subject. I went into science with the misguided belief that science provides answers. Too often, it doesn’t. Some physical problems are simply too difficult. Two scientists can examine the same data and come to exactly opposite conclusions about causation.

We still don’t understand what causes natural climate change to occur, so we simply assume it doesn’t exist. This despite abundant evidence that it was just as warm 1,000 and 2,000 years ago as it is today. Forty years ago, “climate change” necessarily implied natural causation; now it only implies human causation.

What changed? Not the science…our estimates of climate sensitivity are about the same as they were 40 years ago.

What changed is the politics. And not just among the politicians. At AMS or AGU scientific conferences, political correctness and advocacy are now just as pervasive as as they have become in journalism school. Many (mostly older) scientists no longer participate and many have even resigned in protest.

Science as a methodology for getting closer to the truth has been all but abandoned. It is now just one more tool to achieve political ends.

Reports that 2014 was the “hottest” year on record feed the insatiable appetite the public has for definitive, alarming headlines. It doesn’t matter that even in the thermometer record, 2014 wasn’t the warmest within the margin of error. Who wants to bother with “margin of error”? Journalists went into journalism so they wouldn’t have to deal with such technical mumbo-jumbo. I said this six weeks ago, as did others, but no one cares unless a mainstream news source stumbles upon it and is objective enough to report it.

In what universe does a temperature change that is too small for anyone to feel over a 50 year period become globally significant? Where we don’t know if the global average temperature is 58 or 59 or 60 deg. F, but we are sure that if it increases by 1 or 2 deg. F, that would be a catastrophe?

Where our only truly global temperature measurements, the satellites, are ignored because they don’t show a record warm year in 2014?

In what universe do the climate models built to guide energy policy are not even adjusted to reflect reality, when they over-forecast past warming by a factor of 2 or 3?

And where people have to lie about severe weather getting worse (it hasn’t)? Or where we have totally forgotten that more CO2 is actually good for life on Earth, leading to increased agricultural productivity, and global greening?:

It’s the universe where political power and the desire to redistribute wealth have taken control of the public discourse. It’s a global society where people believe we can replace fossil fuels with unicorn farts and antigravity-based energy.

Feelings now trump facts.

At least engineers have to prove their ideas work. The widgets and cell phones and cars and jets and bridges they build either work or they don’t.


​

​

 

[Disgustipated]

Thank you for your outdated irrelevant meandering.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Or Spencer's belief in God trumps all.

An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming

We believe Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.

 

[trysail]

The Brave Judith Curry (Part II)
https://www.masterresource.org/debate-issues/the-brave-judith-curry-part-ii/

“The greatest uncertainties in simulating climate change from increasing CO2 is generally regarded to be associated with cloud feedbacks and ocean circulations (there are many more, but these stand out). Atmospheric radiative transfer is regarded to be among the most certain aspect of simulating climate change…. [But] three new papers highlight how atmospheric radiative transfer, particularly how it is treated in climate models, is not ‘settled science.’”

– Judith Curry, “New research on atmospheric radiative transfer,” July 6, 2015

_______________


“These negotiated government sanctioned assessments don’t adequately account for the very substantial disagreement about climate change that arises from:
•Insufficient observational evidence
•Disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence (e.g. models)
•Disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for linking and assessing the evidence
•Assessments of areas of ambiguity and ignorance
•Belief polarization as a result of politicization of the science

All this leaves multiple ways to interpret and reason about the available evidence.”

– Judith Curry, Assessments, Meta-analyses, Discussion and Peer Review, July 29, 2015.
​

​

 

[trysail]

In what universe does a temperature change that is too small for anyone to feel over a 50 year period become globally significant? Where we don’t know if the global average temperature is 58 or 59 or 60 deg. F, but we are sure that if it increases by 1 or 2 deg. F, that would be a catastrophe?


Where our only truly global temperature measurements, the satellites, are ignored because they don’t show a record warm year in 2014?


In what universe do the climate models built to guide energy policy are not even adjusted to reflect reality, when they over-forecast past warming by a factor of 2 or 3?


And where people have to lie about severe weather getting worse (it hasn’t)? Or where we have totally forgotten that more CO2 is actually good for life on Earth, leading to increased agricultural productivity, and global greening?


It’s the universe where political power and the desire to redistribute wealth have taken control of the public discourse. It’s a global society where people believe we can replace fossil fuels with unicorn farts and antigravity-based energy.


Feelings now trump facts...

-Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.
​

​

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

They rely on Kantian modeling...



With the Nietzsche auto-correct for that time of month when they feel particularly moody and bitchy.

 

[thør]

Obama is coming to Alaska to talk about climate change. He's supposed to be listening to people affected by it, also. So, he's going out to the towns of Seward, Dillingham and Kotzebue. Seward? Oh, he can take a whale watching trip and go to the sealife center. Is he going to helo up to the Harding Ice Field? What is he going to hear in Dillingham? He's going to hear about the Pebble Mine. There are no real effects of climate change to see in Dillingham or in the vicinity. Instead of Dillingham, Obama needs to visit the lower Kuskokwim delta, where permafrost is disappearing and the effects are readily visible. Kotzebue, is another story. There is plenty of poor construction and engineering in town to make some good photo ops. If he actually flies out to Kivalina from Kotzebue, he'll see what happens when you build on a temporary geologic feature. Indeed, warmer temperatures have impacted Kivalina, but it's a permanent village constructed at what used to be a hunting camp. Thank the federal gov't for it's permanent location.

I do hope Obama sees some of the climate change issues we have in Alaska with his own eyes, but I honestly doubt that he will. Someone will point to a house settled into melting permafrost and claim climate change when the fact of the matter is that poor engineering and construction practices caused the problem. I assume, that it's all going to be a big show and sham, just like Alaskan reality TV.

I'm wishing for poor weather for the Presidential visit. Good weather makes the place warm and inviting. Poor weather lets people understand exactly what people have to deal with in their daily lives. O needs to go to Kivalina, in a Cessna, on a marginal day. The runway there is the only place a runway could be built and does not take the prevailing wind into account. Hence, the plane is crabbing at 30° or so until that 1/4 second just before touchdown. Real people do this every day. The prez needs to talk to real people.

 

[thør]

hmmmm

 

[toubab]

Massive Global Cooling Process Discovered

Imagine that.

http://forums.theregister.co.uk/for...ctor_discovered_ahead_of_paris_climate_talks/

 

[Sean Renaud]

Obama is coming to Alaska to talk about climate change. He's supposed to be listening to people affected by it, also. So, he's going out to the towns of Seward, Dillingham and Kotzebue. Seward? Oh, he can take a whale watching trip and go to the sealife center. Is he going to helo up to the Harding Ice Field? What is he going to hear in Dillingham? He's going to hear about the Pebble Mine. There are no real effects of climate change to see in Dillingham or in the vicinity. Instead of Dillingham, Obama needs to visit the lower Kuskokwim delta, where permafrost is disappearing and the effects are readily visible. Kotzebue, is another story. There is plenty of poor construction and engineering in town to make some good photo ops. If he actually flies out to Kivalina from Kotzebue, he'll see what happens when you build on a temporary geologic feature. Indeed, warmer temperatures have impacted Kivalina, but it's a permanent village constructed at what used to be a hunting camp. Thank the federal gov't for it's permanent location.

I do hope Obama sees some of the climate change issues we have in Alaska with his own eyes, but I honestly doubt that he will. Someone will point to a house settled into melting permafrost and claim climate change when the fact of the matter is that poor engineering and construction practices caused the problem. I assume, that it's all going to be a big show and sham, just like Alaskan reality TV.

I'm wishing for poor weather for the Presidential visit. Good weather makes the place warm and inviting. Poor weather lets people understand exactly what people have to deal with in their daily lives. O needs to go to Kivalina, in a Cessna, on a marginal day. The runway there is the only place a runway could be built and does not take the prevailing wind into account. Hence, the plane is crabbing at 30° or so until that 1/4 second just before touchdown. Real people do this every day. The prez needs to talk to real people.

Poor weather would kinda screw the visit you realize? I mean while global climate change IS a complex issue global warming is still the buzz word. If Alaska looks like a frozen hell when Obama comes it's gonna be pretty hard to spin that as "OMG shit's getting real! It's snowing in Alaska yo! Like three fucking feet and the wind was so strong Air Force One was forced a half mile off course!

 

[phrodeau]

Imagine that.

http://forums.theregister.co.uk/for...ctor_discovered_ahead_of_paris_climate_talks/

That changes the steady acidification of the oceans not one atom.

 

[thør]

The massive haulouts in recent years have become iconic images of human-caused climate change, but research suggests it's not a new phenomenon.

Walrus history

 

[toubab]

Uh oh. More bad news for the believers.

http://www.ntnews.com.au/lifestyle/...te-change-debate/story-fnk0b1ks-1227555674611

"Miranda Devine: Perth electrical engineer’s discovery will change climate change debate"

"A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.

A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.

He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.
Miranda Devine. Picture: Peter Brew-Bevan

Miranda Devine. Picture: Peter Brew-Bevan
It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.

“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.

Dr Evans says his discovery “ought to change the world”.

“But the political obstacles are massive,” he said.

His discovery explains why none of the climate models used by the IPCC reflect the evidence of recorded temperatures. The models have failed to predict the pause in global warming which has been going on for 18 years and counting.

“The model architecture was wrong,” he says. “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven by factors outside our control.”"


Surely, at some point, this silly anthropogenic global warming religion will fade away. Surely.

 

[JohnnySavage]

...

Surely, at some point, this silly anthropogenic global warming religion will fade away. Surely.

Without respect to global warming at all; what's wrong with minimizing our impact on the environment?

 

[toubab]

Without respect to global warming at all; what's wrong with minimizing our impact on the environment?

Nothing, and the best way to do that is to limit population growth to near zero.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Without respect to global warming at all; what's wrong with minimizing our impact on the environment?

Nothing, and the best way to do that is to limit population growth to near zero.

Wrong. Limits and interventions create economic waste and technological destruction. Everyone knows that energy is the holy grail of a technologic economy. There will be great minds pursuing that grail unless we erect speed bumps, toll booths and barricades to economic activity. Limiting population growth makes the same error as did Alvin Toffler and Paul Ehrlich when they held technological change to zero in order to predict disaster. The idea that with proper direction and the application of proper minds to minimizing our impact ignores the cronyism of Democratic Government and the ability to not only buy indulgences, but to bamboozle idiot representatives into funding research for the edification of the dumb masses (say those last two words fast) and for votes.

Both of which hinder the minimization of our impact.

 

[toubab]

Wrong. Limits and interventions create economic waste and technological destruction. Everyone knows that energy is the holy grail of a technologic economy. There will be great minds pursuing that grail unless we erect speed bumps, toll booths and barricades to economic activity. Limiting population growth makes the same error as did Alvin Toffler and Paul Ehrlich when they held technological change to zero in order to predict disaster. The idea that with proper direction and the application of proper minds to minimizing our impact ignores the cronyism of Democratic Government and the ability to not only buy indulgences, but to bamboozle idiot representatives into funding research for the edification of the dumb masses (say those last two words fast) and for votes.

Both of which hinder the minimization of our impact.

I disagree. There is no advantage to the planet in continued growth in human population, and tremendous disadvantage in the monstrous growth currently projected.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I disagree. There is no advantage to the planet in continued growth in human population, and tremendous disadvantage in the monstrous growth currently projected.

What happens to birth rates in every country that develops and reaches a high economic status?

 

[toubab]

What happens to birth rates in every country that develops and reaches a high economic status?

By the time that happens everywhere, if it ever does, which seems unlikely, the world's human population will have increased a disgusting amount. No, can't wait on that imaginary worldwide prosperity to save the planet from environmental disaster.