Dog

Climate news

Recommended Posts

New study concludes that the Tropical Hot Spot predicted by AGWT and deemed to be the fingerprint of global warming does not exist.

 

“These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt but that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot (THS), caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world,” ... “Also critically important, even on an all-other-things-equal basis, this analysis failed to find that the steadily rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important temperature time series analyzed.”

 

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/wwww-ths-rr-091716.pdf

 

And in other news reports that global temperatures fell bigly in April.

 

k4h0dd.jpg

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/01/global-temperatures-plunge-in-april-the-pause-returns/

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news! I guess I don't have to worry about Trump gutting the EPA then. Drill baby drill!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dog is the main shill left here. Spreading anti-science by posting a report produced by a shopping list of registered shills for Exxon.

  1. Dr. Craig D. Idso - co-author of the really dumb "CO2 is plant food" and "it's the sun" Not the IPCC report. Craig is also one of the Cato Institute 100 science deniers.
  2. Joseph S. D’Aleo - who fails Meteorology 101 at WUWT and is one of Cato Institute's 100 deniers
  3. John Christy has an evangelical background, he served four years as a bivocational mission-pastor in Vermillion, South Dakota. From ExxonSecrets: "PhD University of Illinois, 1987, Atmospheric Science; M.S. University of Illinois, 1984, Atmospheric Science; M.Div. Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 1978; B.A. California State University, Fresno, 1973, Mathematics"[1]
  4. Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.[1]

Keep up the good work Doggy, till your contract expires.

Random's got nothing.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting graph of holocene conditions

2j0bnvc.png

Black line indicates temperature constructed from proxy data.

Green line indicates the simulated temperature based on three climate models.

Red line indicates atmospheric CO2

Blue line indicates atmospheric methane.

Purple curve is the Earth's axis obliquity (insolation)

 

https://judithcurry.com/2017/04/30/nature-unbound-iii-holocene-climate-variability-part-a/

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dog.   Why is your favorite political party anti science, anti truth and anti earth?  Looked worth protecting to me tonight.   Of course even Trump cannot monetize a sunset.

IMG_0135.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They follow the money god. Doesn't matter what lame reasoning they give for their opinions...it all boils down to money worship. whether that be their own personal wealth or a genuine belief that everyone benefits in the end.

Nothing is more important than the comfort and security of the top 10% .Nothing more important than keeping all advantage within that top 10%, or facilitating their entry into the top 10% .

It's a crude misappropriation of thinkers from Plato to Darwin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP may be Dog's most idiotic post ever 

tough contest to win but I think he out did himself 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Lark said:

Dog.   Why is your favorite political party anti science, anti truth and anti earth?  Looked worth protecting to me tonight.   Of course even Trump cannot monetize a sunset.

IMG_0135.JPG

You couldn't prove it by this group. I post the results of a scientific study and the leftists here all want to change the subject.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Per the New York Times December 2015.    Have you ever wondered why only one party in one country takes as gospel  a fringe opinion and fake research by 'experts' the rest of the world likens to the autism from vaccine crowd?    Of course the Republican President also professes that belief, and his followers believe there is a super secret Clinton sex trade in a pizza joint.   Belief has no affect on reality,    For some reality has no affect on belief either.

http://fortune.com/2017/02/16/donald-trump-autism-vaccines/

IMG_0136.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Lark said:

Per the New York Times December 2015.    Have you ever wondered why only one party in one country takes as gospel  a fringe opinion and fake research by 'experts' the rest of the world likens to the autism from vaccine crowd?    Of course the Republican President also professes that belief, and his followers believe there is a super secret Clinton sex trade in a pizza joint.   Belief has no affect on reality,    For some reality has no affect on belief either.

http://fortune.com/2017/02/16/donald-trump-autism-vaccines/

IMG_0136.PNG

No, not really, because I don't believe only one party in one country has a unique view.

Any thoughts on why the study I cited showed declining temperatures while CO2 levels are rising or why the climate models simulations do not correspond with the proxy data?

BTW you forgot to cite your source.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"BTW you forgot to cite your source. "  Are you stoned or just stupid?   Cite was New York Times, December 2015.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, billy backstay said:

"BTW you forgot to cite your source. "  Are you stoned or just stupid?   Cite was New York Times, December 2015.

The source for the graph.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/climate/2015-paris-climate-talks/where-in-the-world-is-climate-denial-most-prevalent

 

My explanation is that I trust in the peer review process, though I know it well enough to know it's faults.   Or perhaps because I know it well enough to know it's faults.    My doctorate is not in this field, and I cannot claim more then an undergrad understanding of some aspects.    I question your declining temperatures claim.    That is not the consensus of what I see published.      Everything from bird migration patterns to tree ring studies to an observational study including such disparate data points as a betting pool on the spring break up of the Yukon river suggests the opposite.   So do old field notes and old photos regarding a recent acceleration.  

You seem to cling to a technical concern about surface temperature measurement that has survived the peer review process in other posts.    I do trust the majority of scientists to get it right most of the time,    The guy that can change a view and make it stick gets a Nobel and research money.    Confirming studies seldom get published since they are viewed as retreads.    Therefore there is little incentive for a scientist struggling for tenure or grants to confirm other work,    Yet the vast majority of studies seem to do just that.    If people that have survived a review board and earned doctorates in the field accept the methodology I'll accept their wisdom.    Likewise I accept the relative nature of time.    I cannot understand the math, but it has stood the review process and my GPS does work.

Random took the time to evaluate your authors.   Though I don't agree with some of his views I haven't seen you provide their biographies and refute his claim of their standing in the scientific community,   Who peer reviewed their work?   Who funded it?   What is the disclosure statement?   Where was it published?    Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary proof once you leave the cloister of the Republican Party tent.

I need to exercise since my healthcare is disappearing and I really don't want to have to perform auto bypass surgery with a mirror,  Later.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is little dispute that during of the holocene, which is the time frame for the study, global temperatures have fallen, the current upward tick notwithstanding. I've posted this before... 2ng8wi0.jpg

Here again temperature and CO2 appear to fluctuate independently. We have watched the IPCC downgrading it's assessment of the warming influence of CO2 and acknowledge that the models run hot. We have watched  as observed temperature diverge from predicted temperatures and prediction after prediction fall flat.

This is not to say human activity has no warming effect, of course it does. But there is a rational scientific basis for believing as I do that the alarmism has been overblown.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's got nothing but vapid messenger attacks. He can't explain why temperatures have failed to conform to predictions. He can't explain how temperatures can fall in an environment of rising CO2. He's not even curious about it, he just blindly believes. He believed that by now the Arctic ice cap would be gone, that snow would be a rare event...he's a believer and he thinks to be skeptical is criminal...He's a moron.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2017 at 9:53 PM, Lark said:

Dog.   Why is your favorite political party anti science, anti truth and anti earth?  Looked worth protecting to me tonight.   Of course even Trump cannot monetize a sunset.

IMG_0135.JPG

Exactly WHAT was anti science about the preceeding post????

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Lark said:

Per the New York Times December 2015.    Have you ever wondered why only one party in one country takes as gospel  a fringe opinion and fake research by 'experts' the rest of the world likens to the autism from vaccine crowd?    Of course the Republican President also professes that belief, and his followers believe there is a super secret Clinton sex trade in a pizza joint.   Belief has no affect on reality,    For some reality has no affect on belief either.

http://fortune.com/2017/02/16/donald-trump-autism-vaccines/

IMG_0136.PNG

A poll of idiots is still "just a poll of idiots"

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Dog said:

There is little dispute that during of the holocene, which is the time frame for the study, global temperatures have fallen, the current upward tick notwithstanding. I've posted this before... 2ng8wi0.jpg

Here again temperature and CO2 appear to fluctuate independently. We have watched the IPCC downgrading it's assessment of the warming influence of CO2 and acknowledge that the models run hot. We have watched  as observed temperature diverge from predicted temperatures and prediction after prediction fall flat.

This is not to say human activity has no warming effect, of course it does. But there is a rational scientific basis for believing as I do that the alarmism has been overblown.

Again, we are lucky in California that our civil planners are not constrained to start planning for a different future, unlike some states. My ask for my grandkids? That the Feds don't tax California and other states for the mistakes of Florida, Texas, etc when their coast inundate or their water supply gets fucked or their croplands end up saline because they refused to adjust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right...The last time they were inundated there was nobody around to legislate against it.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This ought to send a tingle up your leg Dog -

 

E.P.A. Dismisses Members of Major Scientific Review Board

 

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/07/us/politics/epa-dismisses-members-of-major-scientific-review-board.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0&referer=

 

Excerpt -

The Environmental Protection Agency has dismissed at least five members of a major scientific review board, the latest signal of what critics call a campaign by the Trump administration to shrink the agency’s regulatory reach by reducing the role of academic research.

A spokesman for the E.P.A. administrator, Scott Pruitt, said he would consider replacing the academic scientists with representatives from industries whose pollution the agency is supposed to regulate, as part of the wide net it plans to cast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, random said:

Despite all the thinking people in the USA, you are standing back and watching this train wreck,  watching the dismantling of modern science as if it's another reality show, doing nothing but complaining here.

This is beyond any of the worst case scenarios considered about what could happen with Trump in.  You guys are truly fucked.

We'll share the fuckedness with the whole planet, don't worry. 

In my defense I did bike to work yesterday, and exercised by hand splitting wood lost to the ash bore.  I've been burning (high efficiency) to keep the chill off for the last few weeks without the furnace.   I couldn't do enough in a lifetime to offset a single Trump golf trip, but then again Trump does far less damage when he's not working so his alternate white houses do partially offset his alternate reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched a show about Trump a few years ago where he flew from Moron A Lago to NYC on his personal 757 - alone (but for the crew).

How many lifetimes of regular peoples fuel consumption and air pollution would that equal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Moderate said:

How many VOCs were released into the atmosphere building your fiberglass boat.

Pot meet Kettle

Are you really that stupid?

Really?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Are you really that stupid?

Really?

 

It's a fair question. We like to claim the high road, but an awful lot of nastiness goes into making a sailboat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Monkey said:

It's a fair question. We like to claim the high road, but an awful lot of nastiness goes into making a sailboat. 

It's a moronic question - comparing a sailboat's construction footprint to a guy who flies alone on a wide body jet? Since Trump took office his trips to Moron A Lago have probably burned more fuel that I'll use in my entire life.

But just to humour the vacuous amongst us - every boat I have ever owned was "pre-owned" - usually several times. That results in a zero emissions footprint attributable to me. I buy project boats and refit them largely out of consignment shops, CL and such sources,

My sailing "footprint" ain't a hell of a lot bigger than someone who never owned a boat. In fact it can be argued that I create a negative footprint by keeping all that tonnage out of the landfills.

And just to reinforce my environmental purity, My wife & I only put out one can of garbage once a month - at most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Moderate said:

How many VOCs were released into the atmosphere building your fiberglass boat.

Pot meet Kettle

My pot is recycled.  http://www.usedrhodes.com/recycled-rhodes.html

 

Quote

 

where do they come from?   

We buy them back.  You’re a brain surgeon?  Rather than dressing ship, placing ads, making appointments that don’t show, negotiating, arranging for delivery, etc.; you are better served selling your boat back to GB and using that time for an extra brain job.  

Lots of reasons for owners eventually selling: Moving up to a bigger boat.  Moving down to a smaller boat..... Moving to the desert.  Maybe a mutinous crew.  Regardless of the need to sell, many owners prefer to call GB.  We take them as is, where is. 

what do we do with them?    

Recycling candidates go through a meat grinder and come out ready to stand up to a new boat guarantee. Lots of new design upgrades are automatically installed. New hull color, new rub rail, new water line stripe, new bottom paint, are to buyers’ color selections.  And then the boat is outfitted to the new owner’s specifications to look and feel and sail like the nearest thing to a brand new Rhodes 22 sailboat.

 

 

And my spare is so old it was built before climate was invented, before some Anarchists learned to swim.   It's impact has been diluted over the decades, it would be a bigger environmental impact to landfill it.   Both boats plus the motorless canoe use about three gallons of fuel a year, a total of 10 hp.  My only guilt is the midsize SUV boathauler.  

:P

 

IMG_0137.JPG

IMG_0138.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More food for thought.  The chilling irony of reality (if you believe history is a strong fortune teller)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure you have evidence to refute that. 

 Unfortunately if the postulations hold true the proof will be in the pudding tout sweet.  

 Keep drinking the IPCC coolaid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raked Aft\\ said:

More food for thought.  The chilling irony of reality (if you believe history is a strong fortune teller)

 

WTF.  That is some of the worst science I have ever come across.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2017 at 7:32 PM, Dog said:

Interesting graph of holocene conditions

2j0bnvc.png

Black line indicates temperature constructed from proxy data.

Green line indicates the simulated temperature based on three climate models.

Red line indicates atmospheric CO2

Blue line indicates atmospheric methane.

Purple curve is the Earth's axis obliquity (insolation)

 

 

https://judithcurry.com/2017/04/30/nature-unbound-iii-holocene-climate-variability-part-a/

 

I think you're missing the obvious.  Look not at the whole holocene, but the last 500 years of it.  There, dear boy, you will find the true data.

2j0bnvc1.png.c1bef2e60762858c23cbe9b4d6ecb1c2.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still no facts,

 just like all the alarmist shills,

  fear mongering at its best.

  Simple fact is Green energy DOESN'T SCALE!  Every scientist and economist working on this issue knows that.

  The UN IPCC crowd want to levy trillions of carbon tax mandates, yet have NO idea what to do with it.

  If all the carbon fuel sources dried up today,  3/4 of the worlds population would be dead in a year.  The remaining quarter already live in grass huts in the dark.

  Do you really believe the science is settled?  Settled as in laws of gravity, thermo dynamics, motion?  if so,  Why are there 100+ lines of temp on the IPCC's models?

wouldn't they only need one?  Why are All the 100 + model lines well above the actual data for the last few decades?  Why if CO2 is a forcing agent, is the global temp stagnant over the last 2 decades with rising CO2?

  These are just a few of the unanswered questions brought up by many sceptic climate scientist.

  The alarmist won't even or are afraid to debate it.

 

  it's a HOAX

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know....the last bit of snow left in the snowplow pile on the edge of our property just melted last week.  We lost the bet with our neighbors- their snowplow pile has not quite melted yet. 

The next Ice Age is here! ;):o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raked Aft ain't gonna fill the Nanny void without reams of big and colorful graphs. Poser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, P_Wop said:

 

I think you're missing the obvious.  Look not at the whole holocene, but the last 500 years of it.  There, dear boy, you will find the true data.

2j0bnvc1.png.c1bef2e60762858c23cbe9b4d6ecb1c2.png

 

 

"Capitalocene"

 "No phrase crystallizes this danger more than the words anthropogenic global warming. Of course this is a colossal falsification. Global warming is not the accomplishment of an abstract humanity, the Anthropos. Global warming is capital’s crowning achievement. Global warming is capitalogenic (Street 2016)."

 

https://jasonwmoore.wordpress.com/2016/10/09/name-the-system-anthropocenes-the-capitalocene-alternative/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, P_Wop said:

 

I think you're missing the obvious.  Look not at the whole holocene, but the last 500 years of it.  There, dear boy, you will find the true data.

2j0bnvc1.png.c1bef2e60762858c23cbe9b4d6ecb1c2.png

Look at it all, it's unscientific to just disregard the data that doesn't support your theory.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Raked Aft\\ said:

I'm sure you have evidence to refute that. 

 Unfortunately if the postulations hold true the proof will be in the pudding tout sweet.  

 Keep drinking the IPCC coolaid. 

.....welll the postulations of the IPCC have certainly been accurate..................:lol:

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, warbird said:

.....welll the postulations of the IPCC have certainly been accurate..................:lol:

The IPCC have been within the precision implied.  The overall  trend has been quite accurate.  DISCVR and other satellites have been very good at pinpointing the sources.  If you want to base the accuracy on the ability of following each event caused by the "flutter of the butterfly's wing" you cannot be as accurate in your "postulations" as you can for an overall measurement of the amount and rate of energy retention by the earth.  People fear what they do not understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Laker said:

The IPCC have been within the precision implied.  The overall  trend has been quite accurate.  DISCVR and other satellites have been very good at pinpointing the sources.  If you want to base the accuracy on the ability of following each event caused by the "flutter of the butterfly's wing" you cannot be as accurate in your "postulations" as you can for an overall measurement of the amount and rate of energy retention by the earth.  People fear what they do not understand.

 

6 minutes ago, Dog said:

2jb17it.gif

Laker, your killin' me with your humor:lol:

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that is not the data from satellites like DSCVR.  That is the "buttterfly wings" stuff.  Interesting to do, but it has its limits.  When is the last time you did a partial differential equation and had it run away on you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Laker said:

But that is not the data from satellites like DSCVR.  That is the "buttterfly wings" stuff.  Interesting to do, but it has its limits.  When is the last time you did a partial differential equation and had it run away on you?

What it is is a comparison between computer simulations of warming as predicted by AGW theory and the observed temperature trend.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dog said:

What it is is a comparison between computer simulations of warming as predicted by AGW theory and the observed temperature trend.

The first thing you have to do is change from measurements of temperature to measurements of energy.  Much of the energy goes into melting ice, which does not mean a change in temperature.  There are other "sinks" of energy not associated with changes in temperature.   Also, ocean temperature changes are so far into the "noise" that they don't mean a lot on a earth sized basis. 98% of the ocean is at the basal temperature of the ocean (2C) and remains constant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Dog said:

Look at it all, it's unscientific to just disregard the data that doesn't support your theory.

Well, all I was pointing out is that for the previous 10,500 years of the holocene in the diagram, humans weren't burning ancient hydrocarbons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Laker said:

The first thing you have to do is change from measurements of temperature to measurements of energy.  Much of the energy goes into melting ice, which does not mean a change in temperature.  There are other "sinks" of energy not associated with changes in temperature.   Also, ocean temperature changes are so far into the "noise" that they don't mean a lot on a earth sized basis. 98% of the ocean is at the basal temperature of the ocean (2C) and remains constant.

Tell it to the climate scientists, they chose temperature as the metric. The models are programmed to express the results of the simulations in temperature. I'm sure they know about latent heat and that the planet is largely covered by oceans.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dog said:

Tell it to the climate scientists, they chose temperature as the metric. The models are programmed to express the results of the simulations in temperature. I'm sure they know about latent heat and that the planet is largely covered by oceans.

The scientists know this.  It is the public who work on an intuitive vs an analytic basis.  Listen to Neil Degrasse Tyson a bit on climate change.  It really doesn't matter whether you "believe" or not.  It is happening.  We can do something about it and people will.  The role of the doubting Thomas is to see that the scars are there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Betel Buai said:

Dog this Dog that. It's all you got. Hurling schoolyard insults doen't strengthen your argument.

Ignore him, he's a moron.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

scott.jpg

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cmilliken said:

 

I actually looked that one up to see if it was accurate.  Unfortunately, it appears to be true.  :(

SIGH....

http://www.politifact.com/pennsylvania/statements/2017/mar/31/scott-wagner/pa-gopers-climate-change-theory-debunked-nope-not-/

I did the same. Didn't want it to be true, nor did I want to post something false. 

This is the same area of PA that tried to remove Evolution from the Biology curriculum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Texas and Oklahoma have plenty of politicians to keep Wagner company.  Slight drift - the former mayor of Irving (think Dallas Cowboys) is going to DC to serve under Ben Carson. Her claim to fame is keeping Sharia Law out of Texas.  It's not that these people are ignorant, it's just that they know so many things that aren't true.  Lamar Smith, Louie Gohmert, it's a long list.  My congresscritter Rep Pete Olson (R) TX proudly introduced a bill to improve air quality. How? By delaying or eliminating the regulations on air quality.  I haven't met anyone around here that has a problem with it, knows about it or even cares. It really hasn't been that long ago that smog in Houston was as bad as LA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/11/2017 at 11:38 PM, P_Wop said:

Well, all I was pointing out is that for the previous 10,500 years of the holocene in the diagram, humans weren't burning ancient hydrocarbons.

Did you notice that temperatures were falling as atmospheric CO2 was rising?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dog said:

Did you notice that temperatures were falling as atmospheric CO2 was rising?

And this winter, we had, locally, the most snow in half a century, or more.  It is very apparent to the real scientific commmunity that the next ice age has started right here, next to the Rocky Mountains.  

Increasing CO2 is obviously a direct cause of global cooling and glacial advance. 

I seriously recommend buying Micronesian beach property now, while aberrant liberal pseudo science has local real estate prices depressed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dog said:

Did you notice that temperatures were falling as atmospheric CO2 was rising?

Not all over the world.  Have you noticed the temperatures in the Arctic or Antarctic these days?  Temperature fall with CO2 rising? Phsssaw!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Laker said:

Not all over the world.  Have you noticed the temperatures in the Arctic or Antarctic these days?  Temperature fall with CO2 rising? Phsssaw!

Yes, all over the world. The earth has experienced times of rising temperatures and falling CO2 as well as times of falling temperatures and rising CO2.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My simple analogy of all this.  

You're driving up a coastal road, and get stopped by a barrier and police.  

"What's up, officer?"  

"The bridge up ahead has become unstable over the years, and now looks seriously dangerous."

"What are my options?"

"You can turn round and reverse course, which is our advice, but it's up to you to decide to proceed across the bridge if you want to. That's freedom."

"How bad is it?"

"Well we have a hundred professional structural engineers who have been analyzing and measuring and looking at this thing for a long time.  Ninety-seven of them say it's about to collapse.  Three of them don't."

"Oh, that's good.  Three's my lucky number.  I'm going for it.  See ya!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, random said:

NASA says ...

On Earth, human activities are changing the natural greenhouse. Over the last century the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). This happens because the coal or oil burning process combines carbon with oxygen in the air to make CO2. To a lesser extent, the clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities has increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.

The consequences of changing the natural atmospheric greenhouse are difficult to predict, but certain effects seem likely:

  • On average, Earth will become warmer. Some regions may welcome warmer temperatures, but others may not.
  • Warmer conditions will probably lead to more evaporation and precipitation overall, but individual regions will vary, some becoming wetter and others dryer.
  • A stronger greenhouse effect will warm the oceans and partially melt glaciers and other ice, increasing sea level. Ocean water also will expand if it warms, contributing further to sea level rise.

Doggy says...

Who you gunna believe?

DOGGY is a SHILL

Ignored is that humans produce less than 10% of green house gasses.  More than 90% are natural emmissions from the oceans , forrsts and animals.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, P_Wop said:

My simple analogy of all this.  

You're driving up a coastal road, and get stopped by a barrier and police.  

"What's up, officer?"  

"The bridge up ahead has become unstable over the years, and now looks seriously dangerous."

"What are my options?"

"You can turn round and reverse course, which is our advice, but it's up to you to decide to proceed across the bridge if you want to. That's freedom."

"How bad is it?"

"Well we have a hundred professional structural engineers who have been analyzing and measuring and looking at this thing for a long time.  Ninety-seven of them say it's about to collapse.  Three of them don't."

"Oh, that's good.  Three's my lucky number.  I'm going for it.  See ya!"

You are such a fucking idiot......

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, random said:

Before fossil fuel began to be burnt by humans, the level was neutral for the history of man.  Environment produced and used at the same amount, net total = zero.

Doggy Says ...

EPA says ...

total_0.png

DOGGY is a SHILL

Nonsense...Atmospheric CO2 levels were rising prior to the industrial revolution and in fact have been doing so for the last 8000 years.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/13/2017 at 3:16 PM, Bus Driver said:

scott.jpg

 
I've been thinking about this statement, quite a bit, and wondering why it hit me so hard. I think it boils down to the fact that this guy is promoting an "explanation" that has absolutely no credibility, whatsoever. His disclaimer regarding not being in a Science class in years might have relevance if he was promoting a theory that was once discussed as possible. But, it's not, and he just pulled this out of his ass. It's hard enough to teach Science and critical thinking without having to compete with stupidity and folks who believe this kind of hornswaggle is as valid as a Scientific Theory.  We have seen this in recent years with politicians prefacing comments with statements like "I'm no scientist, but....."
 
Please remember this crap the next time you hear someone bash the state of education in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politicians say no end of silly things. The Mayor of Coral Gables, for example:
 

Quote

 

Every community is going to have its own problems. Coral Gables, for example, has lots of yacht owners — sailing yachts with tall masts. Many are anchored at people's homes, with a city bridge between them and open water. Boats can barely sail under those bridges now.

Mayor Cason, who's a boater himself, says there are 302 such yachts; his people have counted them. At some point, as the water rises, the boats aren't going to fit.

"And these are $5 million homes with nice boats," the mayor says, "that suddenly see their property values go down because they can no longer get a boat out. So that will be one of the first indicators (of sea level rise), and a wake-up call for people, and I want to be able to say, 'We told you about this.' "

 

Really? I grew up on the Coral Gables deep waterway. There was indeed a bridge between our home and open water. Le Jeune Rd. As I recall, it varied from about 14 to 16 feet of clearance, depending on tide. I could get my pram under it. I never saw another sailboat go under it. I never saw another sailboat beyond it. I doubt there are 2, let alone 302, sailboats past any of the bridges in Coral Gables. The boats up there are powerboats and very few are large enough to have any problem with the bridges. The inability to get boats out won't be "one of the first indicators" at all.

In unrelated climate news, we did not have a cold front here in March, when the last one usually comes along. We had one in April instead. They almost never happen in April. Over the weekend, another cold front. We never, ever have them in May. It is allowing me to further delay the repair of the air conditioning in my truck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

 It is allowing me to further delay the repair of the air conditioning in my truck.

WIN!  By the way, the AC corroding and leaking is often the canary in the coal mine for terminal rust syndrome :(

I've burred two cars so far and a 3rd on the way - After you loose the AC you've got about 4-5 more years before the hockey stick.

If you want to talk about conspiracies, the car companies MUST be paying the road crews to shift to brine solutions instead of road salt - that brine coats and, unlike salt, doesn't dry and flake off but rather seems to dry and stick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a 1998 with around 200k on it so doesn't owe me much. It has already been demoted from daily driver to work truck so the AC matters a whole lot less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

It's a 1998 with around 200k on it so doesn't owe me much. It has already been demoted from daily driver to work truck so the AC matters a whole lot less.

 

The car i'm building the funeral pyre for is a 1999 Honda CRV :)   It's simply rotting away from the ground up.  

I'm not greedy.  I figure anything past 10 years is win!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:
 
I've been thinking about this statement, quite a bit, and wondering why it hit me so hard. I think it boils down to the fact that this guy is promoting an "explanation" that has absolutely no credibility, whatsoever. His disclaimer regarding not being in a Science class in years might have relevance if he was promoting a theory that was once discussed as possible. But, it's not, and he just pulled this out of his ass. It's hard enough to teach Science and critical thinking without having to compete with stupidity and folks who believe this kind of hornswaggle is as valid as a Scientific Theory.  We have seen this in recent years with politicians prefacing comments with statements like "I'm no scientist, but....."
 
Please remember this crap the next time you hear someone bash the state of education in the US.

 

And 38% of the American public believe it without question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, random said:

Doggy says ....

But why pick 8,000?  Let's do 800.000!

CO2_concentration_800k_years_and_to_2100

Doggy is a lying shill.

Why stop there.

2ng8wi0.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, d'ranger said:

https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

..from the source....."our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle"

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/feb/04/man-made-greenhouse-gases

..addresses only the manmade component, not the global natural and manmade emmissions.

 

Do you read much????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, warbird said:

https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

..from the source....."our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle"

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/feb/04/man-made-greenhouse-gases

..addresses only the manmade component, not the global natural and manmade emmissions.

 

Do you read much????

I read more than your president does  How Trump gets his fake news

You don't have to read the entire article - it leads off with

Quote

 

White House chief of staff Reince Priebus issued a stern warning at a recent senior staff meeting: Quit trying to secretly slip stuff to President Trump.

Just days earlier, K.T. McFarland, the deputy national security adviser, had given Trump a printout of two Time magazine covers. One, supposedly from the 1970s, warned of a coming ice age; the other, from 2008, about surviving global warming, according to four White House officials familiar with the matter.

 

Trump quickly got lathered up about the media’s hypocrisy. But there was a problem. The 1970s cover was fake, part of an Internet hoax that’s circulated for years. Staff chased down the truth and intervened before Trump tweeted or talked publicly about it.

 

Too bad someone caught it - That's the story that made Dog a skeptic, at least according to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

I read more than your president does  How Trump gets his fake news

You don't have to read the entire article - it leads off with

Too bad someone caught it - That's the story that made Dog a skeptic, at least according to him.

OFGS... there may be a fake Time magazine global cooling cover circulating but that doesn't mean the story is fake. It was real and Time did publish stories about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG - Leonard Nimoy says Winter is Coming.  Guess what Dog, a few papers were published supporting it, about the same number that you subscribe to now. Fool me once, shame on you fool me twice, Hi I am Dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lark said:

 

My interactions with energy companies are pretty consistent with those of the article.  They're going forward on the assumption that climate change is real and they're going to need to cut / address emissions.

I've been told point blank that the whims of the current administration don't really matter in their thinking.  When projects last decades and you can be held retroactively accountable, logic and science don't really matter.   It's too late the the game for that.  You're dealing with public perception (marketing) and liability cases (legal).

The 'global warming' ship has sailed and they are planning accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New article out in Natural Geoscience acknowledges the discrepancies between observations and climate model simulations and also that the probability is low that the discrepancies are accounted for by natural variability. This one can't be written off as denier propaganda, the authors include some alarmist heavy hitters including Ben Santer and Michael Mann.

"Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed; warming rate differences are generally outside the range of trends arising from internal variability. The probability that multi-decadal internal variability fully explains the asymmetry between the late twentieth and early twenty-first century results is low (between zero and about 9%)"

https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2973.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea.. Last year, Nature had a special article on climate modeling (I linked it at the time) where the primary authors flat out said they knew the models weren't accurate and literally begged physics and thermodynamicists to come up with better parameters and boundary conditions.  They even identified the four major areas where they were having problems.  The challenge is that physicists get paid to search for god particles, not refine IR feedback models.

"We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations."

That's a fancy way of saying they guessed wrong on some of the coefficients.  Given they only have one experiment to observe and they're doing it in real time, that's pretty much expected.  And when some of your equations go as the 4th power of temperature, little errors in guesses make big errors in results, particularly if you extrapolate from your data set very far.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, cmilliken said:

Yea.. Last year, Nature had a special article on climate modeling (I linked it at the time) where the primary authors flat out said they knew the models weren't accurate and literally begged physics and thermodynamicists to come up with better parameters and boundary conditions.  They even identified the four major areas where they were having problems.  The challenge is that physicists get paid to search for god particles, not refine IR feedback models.

"We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations."

That's a fancy way of saying they guessed wrong on some of the coefficients.  Given they only have one experiment to observe and they're doing it in real time, that's pretty much expected.  And when some of your equations go as the 4th power of temperature, little errors in guesses make big errors in results, particularly if you extrapolate from your data set very far.

 

Looks to me like some of the most vociferous  alarmists have found themselves a bit far out on the global warming limb for comfort as their failed predictions accumulate. They look to be inching their way back to safety leaving true believers like Random to sway in the breeze.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Dog said:

Looks to me like some of the most vociferous  alarmists have found themselves a bit far out on the global warming limb for comfort as their failed predictions accumulate. 

That's basically it.

FWIW, I do believe that human activity is a significant source of CO2 and I do believe that increasing CO2 concentration can cause all kinds of disruptions.  Anyone that looks at 429 quadrillion BTUs of energy per year - increasing by 50% over the next 3 decades BTW - and says 'Nope, nothing to see" is just being ridiculous.  If I were Bill Gates or Musk or Gore or anyone else that claims to love the planet, I'd hire good modelers and donate their time to the climatologists.  This is an easy one and the only reason I can conceive of them NOT doing that is because they're not being honest.  They're in it for a buck, not the truth.

I believe that conservation is a good thing a priori.  People shouldn't be wasteful or haphazard because those are both morally bad things to do.  No justification needed - we should be good stewards of our planet, regardless of whether CO2 is a pollutant, and that means good land use, good water use, and good energy use.   

I believe that pollution and environmental damage should be included in the cost of energy.  As a society, we've done a very poor job of factoring in 'end of life' questions universally and that includes what to do with buildings, mines, wells, etc. after all the good stuff has been produced or extracted.

The only time I get really annoyed is when harmful activities are dressed up in the cloak of moral goodness.  That just pisses me off, particularly when it's so freaking obvious.  I think the solar cult is actually harmful.  Good technologies have been delayed by decades as solar mystics have sucked the air out of energy research.  Just like ethanol.  The 'quick fix moralists' just annoy me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites