Climate continues to change.

[phrodeau]

Wrong. Try again.

Well, if you’re inviting him to post again, I’m going to mention isotopes and make him disappear.

 

[gunthernehmen]

I'm 99.99999999999% certain the circle jerkers referenced in the article are idiots.

There's your gold standard, right there.

 

[von_Bismarck]

Wrong about me being wrong.

Your gratuitous assertion is hereby gratuitously denied.

Try again.

You really think the statistical significance of AGW was judged in a context that included only CO2 as a radiative forcing agent, much less as the only causal factor??

Come on. Even you are better than that.

 

[Que]

You really think the statistical significance of AGW was judged in a context that included only CO2 as a radiative forcing agent, much less as the only causal factor??

Come on. Even you are better than that.

BAAAAHHHHPPPP!
#AscriptionAgain

Try again.

 

[von_Bismarck]

BAAAAHHHHPPPP!
#AscriptionAgain

Try again.

That's exactly what you said. "...models that require that CO2 is the only causation..."

Try again.

 

[gunthernehmen]

The steps of the scientific method go something like this:

Make an observation or observations.
Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what's been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. "Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method," Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. "The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility – no science."

(flagrantly plagiarized from here: https://www.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html)

No reproducible experiment has ever been conducted in the entire history of the human race, related to climate change caused by humans. Or at all, for that matter. Hell, you all can't even agree on the basic hypothesis.

You can observe, guess and circle jerk your fellow climate "scientists", but you're all just guessing and stroking.

 

[von_Bismarck]

The steps of the scientific method go something like this:

Make an observation or observations.
Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what's been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. "Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method," Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. "The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility – no science."

(flagrantly plagiarized from here: https://www.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html)

No reproducible experiment has ever been conducted in the entire history of the human race, related to climate change caused by humans. Or at all, for that matter. Hell, you all can't even agree on the basic hypothesis.

You can observe, guess and circle jerk your fellow climate "scientists", but you're all just guessing and stroking.

^ Well, in actual practice, science can be a lot messier than the scientific method we're all taught in grade school.

Climate change shrinks many fisheries globally, Rutgers-led study finds

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-02/ru-ccs022219.php

Climate change has taken a toll on many of the world's fisheries, and overfishing has magnified the problem, according to a Rutgers-led study in the journal Science today.

Ocean warming led to an estimated 4.1 percent drop in sustainable catches, on average, for many species of fish and shellfish from 1930 to 2010. In five regions of the world, including the East China Sea and North Sea, the estimated decline was 15 percent to 35 percent, the study says.

I remember reading a few years ago a recommendation to safeguard fish populations that, counterintuitively, would increase fishing yields. Cordon off 80% of the oceans, the researchers said, and you'll provide enough waters for fish populations to grow and thrive. The catches in the other 20% of the ocean will be larger than catches today.

 

[gunthernehmen]

^ Well, in actual practice, science can be a lot messier than the scientific method we're all taught in grade school.

Climate change shrinks many fisheries globally, Rutgers-led study finds

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-02/ru-ccs022219.php

Climate change has taken a toll on many of the world's fisheries, and overfishing has magnified the problem, according to a Rutgers-led study in the journal Science today.

Ocean warming led to an estimated 4.1 percent drop in sustainable catches, on average, for many species of fish and shellfish from 1930 to 2010. In five regions of the world, including the East China Sea and North Sea, the estimated decline was 15 percent to 35 percent, the study says.

I remember reading a few years ago a recommendation to safeguard fish populations that, counterintuitively, would increase fishing yields. Cordon off 80% of the oceans, the researchers said, and you'll provide enough waters for fish populations to grow and thrive. The catches in the other 20% of the ocean will be larger than catches today.

As may be, climate change predictions are not based on repeatable experiments. They're theories that might, might not make sense, and might, might not be correct, but are still theories.

 

[von_Bismarck]

Do we need to discuss hypothesises, models, and theories?

Climate (computer) models are repeatable in the sense they can be performed with different data sets, varied parameters, etc. to gauge how sensitive a system might be to certain parameters. The physical principles they're based on are also subject to repeatable experiment.

See, for example, Monte Carlo methods in climate modeling.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

The Energy Blues - Schoolhouse Rock

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/schoolhouserock/images/3/3e/Theenergyblues.JPG/revision/latest?cb=20131008004309

 

[gunthernehmen]

Do we need to discuss hypothesises, models, and theories?

Climate (computer) models are repeatable in the sense they can be performed with different data sets, varied parameters, etc. to gauge how sensitive a system might be to certain parameters. The physical principles they're based on are also subject to repeatable experiment.

See, for example, Monte Carlo methods in climate modeling.

Simulating an experiment in a computer versus performing an actual experiment with controls and repeatable outcomes simply isn't the same thing and you know it.

It's an intellectual exercise about as fruitful as debating how many angels can fit on the head on a pin.

 

[trysail]

If I were Russia, I'd send money to Greenpeace, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Natural Resources Defense Council, World Wildlife Federation and the rest of those mafiosos.


Then, I'd sit back and watch the various democracies self-destruct on the basis of hype and an evidence-free hypothesis combined with a scientifically illiterate and superstitious populace.


​

 

[trysail]

https://imgoat.com/uploads/ae27d77ca2/204233.jpg



​

 

[gunthernehmen]

If I were Russia, I'd send money to Greenpeace, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Natural Resources Defense Council, World Wildlife Federation and the rest of those mafiosos.


Then, I'd sit back and watch the various democracies self-destruct on the basis of hype and an evidence-free hypothesis combined with a scientifically illiterate and superstitious populace.


​

I bet those commie bastards DID do that!

First they supported Hillary, I mean Trump in the election and now this!

 

[trysail]

Source: https://www.eia.gov/dashboard/newengland/commentary/20190128



January 28, 2019
New England LNG deliveries increased to satisfy natural gas demand during first arctic blast of 2019

A major winter storm brought extreme cold temperatures to New England from January 20–22. Some parts of New England reported the lowest daily high temperatures for January 21 ever recorded. Increased heating demand strained the natural gas system as natural gas consumption in the region, on January 21, 2019, reached their highest level this winter. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) deliveries in the region reached the highest levels on record based on data available since 2012.

Energy-related weather conditions

On January 21, several locations in the region reported the lowest daily high temperatures on record, surpassing previous temperature records reported in 1985 according to the National Weather Service, including
Boston at 10°Fahrenheit (F)
Hartford at 4°F
Worcester at 1°F
Morning wind-chill temperatures dipped below zero throughout the region.

Natural gas consumption

Colder-than-normal temperatures in New England contributed to increased consumption of natural gas. Estimated natural gas consumption on January 21 rose to its highest daily level in New England this winter, according to OPIS PointLogic.
Natural gas consumption increased for all primary energy consumption sectors: residential/commercial, electric power, and industrial. Space heating needs for residential/commercial customers contributed to much higher natural gas consumption.
Although extreme temperatures stressed the natural gas system in New England, on January 21, the event was relatively short lived. In contrast, the sustained cold weather during the end of 2017 and early 2018 put more stress on the New England natural gas system because of high natural gas consumption for so many consecutive days.

Natural gas supply response in the region

Estimated deliveries from the LNG facilities located in New England rose from about 360 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d) on January 19, 2019, to more than 700 MMcf/d on January 21, according to OPIS PointLogic.
Three of the top 20 LNG delivery days in the region occurred between January 20 and January 22.
Net pipeline flows from Canada increased from about 540 MMcfd on January 19 to more than 980 MMcf/d on January 21, according to OPIS PointLogic.
Peak-shaving facilities likely provided additional supplies in the region because of the lack of underground storage facilities in New England.

Natural gas pipeline constraints

The increased consumption strained the natural gas transportation system in the region, with Algonquin Gas Transmission reporting segments of its pipeline operating at full capacity and suspensions of service to interruptible-service natural gas customers.
On January 21, about 7,100 natural gas customers in Newport and Middletown, Rhode Island lost natural gas service, in part, because of the side effects of the cold weather.
System-wide operational flow orders (OFO) remain in effect on the Algonquin, Tennessee, and Iroquois pipelines. Pipeline operators issue OFOs to help ensure their customers closely align natural gas requests or nominations with actual consumption.

Wholesale natural gas prices

Prices at the Algonquin Citygate rose from an average of $9.15/MMBtu heading into the weekend on January 18, 2019, to $14.82/MMBtu on January 21.
These levels of spot natural gas prices at the Algonquin Citygate were significantly lower than spot price settlements reported during the bomb cyclone in 2018, which peaked at almost $79/MMBtu, on January 4, 2018.

Top 20 LNG sendout days in New England since 2012
https://www.eia.gov/dashboard/new-england-dashboard-commentary/20190128/sendout.png

Source: OPIS PointLogic

Note: The liquefied natural gas deliveries, or sendout, include the total output from the Everett LNG Facility and the Northeast Gateway Deepwater Port. The data history for the New England region begins in 2012.


​

 

[von_Bismarck]

Thanks for the report, industry shill trysail.

 

[Dribble]

If I were Russia, I'd send money to Greenpeace, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Natural Resources Defense Council, World Wildlife Federation and the rest of those mafiosos.


Then, I'd sit back and watch the various democracies self-destruct on the basis of hype and an evidence-free hypothesis combined with a scientifically illiterate and superstitious populace.


​

You forgot to mention certain posters on websites such as Lit. After all, it is their source of income, so surely they aren't biased by what they post.

 

[gunthernehmen]

You forgot to mention certain posters on websites such as Lit. After all, it is their source of income, so surely they aren't biased by what they post.

Fun fact.

100% of all climate "scientists" would be on unemployment if irrefutable evidence that climate change is not human caused were presented.

Not like they have any skin in the game LOL

 

[coati]

100% of all climate "scientists" would be on unemployment if irrefutable evidence that climate change is not human caused were presented.

^^^This statement is as ridiculous as the if-Trump-cured-cancer hypothetical scenario.

No, climate scientists would not suddenly become unemployed if your fantasy of "irrefutable evidence" came about, nor if the Stable Genius cured cancer in his secret laboratory. The "irrefutable evidence" would be reviewed and, if possible, replicated, and life would go on for those doing the reviewing.

News Flash: The peer reviewed scientific process does not conform to the cartoonish fantasies held by Deplorables in their alternate universe.

 

[OldJourno]

I realize this is about the weather rather than the climate, but I'm posting here anyway.
Up through January, the weather and climate around here was typical in the Southwest (Vegas area). Then it got colder than usual and except for three or four days it has pretty consistently been well below the normal temperature for this time of year. By well below normal, I mean 6 to 9 degrees.
The changing weather has also included moisture and wind, making what can be one of the most pleasant months around here (at least during the daytime) a good replica of what a bad April was where I used to live.
March has followed the pattern, though relief may arrive this week.
I'm wondering, has it been colder where you live this winter, or is it typical?
And I also wonder if February where I live will be enough to mess with that trend of "one of the hottest years on record" stories my daily newspaper seems to run every other year.
I keep track of the weather page and the above and below normal trends, and I'll guarantee you the area has never seen a recent above average temperature trend like this during the hot season.

 

[phrodeau]

Fun fact.

100% of all climate "scientists" would be on unemployment if irrefutable evidence that climate change is not human caused were presented.

Not like they have any skin in the game LOL

Any scientist presenting such evidence would be immediately hired by Exxon Mobil.

 

[phrodeau]

I realize this is about the weather rather than the climate, but I'm posting here anyway.
Up through January, the weather and climate around here was typical in the Southwest (Vegas area). Then it got colder than usual and except for three or four days it has pretty consistently been well below the normal temperature for this time of year. By well below normal, I mean 6 to 9 degrees.
The changing weather has also included moisture and wind, making what can be one of the most pleasant months around here (at least during the daytime) a good replica of what a bad April was where I used to live.
March has followed the pattern, though relief may arrive this week.
I'm wondering, has it been colder where you live this winter, or is it typical?
And I also wonder if February where I live will be enough to mess with that trend of "one of the hottest years on record" stories my daily newspaper seems to run every other year.
I keep track of the weather page and the above and below normal trends, and I'll guarantee you the area has never seen a recent above average temperature trend like this during the hot season.

Global average temperatures are rising, and continue to rise. So every area with colder than average temps is being matched and overtopped by warmer than average areas somewhere else.

 

[coati]

I realize this is about the weather rather than the climate, but I'm posting here anyway.

So, you admit that localized weather data is not equivalent to global climate trends, but you post it anyway on the thread about climate change.

Reminds me of some recent statements about the weather by a president who knows more than any egghead scientist and will very soon cure cancer just to piss off the liberals.

 

[Que]

^^^This statement is as ridiculous as the if-Trump-cured-cancer hypothetical scenario.

No, climate scientists would not suddenly become unemployed if your fantasy of "irrefutable evidence" came about, nor if the Stable Genius cured cancer in his secret laboratory. The "irrefutable evidence" would be reviewed and, if possible, replicated, and life would go on for those doing the reviewing.

News Flash: The peer reviewed scientific process does not conform to the cartoonish fantasies held by Deplorables in their alternate universe.

*chuckle*

It's cute the way you actual science deniers mouth "peer reviewed" like it means. . .anything at all.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

 

[Que]

Any scientist presenting such evidence would be immediately hired by Exxon Mobil.

Typical of you religious nutcases.

"THEY" don't want you to know that________________"

No one (including you) purchases gasoline or heating oil based on whether they believe in your fantastical religion. I drive a generation II Prius because they tend to last 500,000 miles not because it gets great gas mileage, that's just a side benefit.

Do you drive one of these small SUVs or do you drive a full-size SUV? You've never mentioned. You've also never mentioned installing solar panels. I've never heard you discuss purchasing items second hand.

I often hand wash and bone-dry my clothes. Do yo?

Why is it that, with your slavish devotion to this religion, you've never once offered any practical suggestions how any of us could or should reduce our carbon footprint?... It's almost like you don't really believe this stuff.

I suspect you just like the vibrations of your voice when you sing in the choir