No one up here can remember it ever being this hot and we are having drought driven wild fires like we have never seen. It's weather not climate but it's not doing anything that causes me to deny climate change. Time will tell. It might be too late though according to climate scientists. 97%.
Wonder how far they had to adjust the numbers this time.
It's good that you question information. I do too. Just try to make sure that you are questioning and not just rejecting. Questioning, not rejecting is when we learn. I'm inclined to think that man made is a big issue but I read the anti man made information too. It's the scientific method. First the idea and then supporting evidence always being ready to alter or abandon the theory when confront with better evidence. I'm not a scientist.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 08-23-2015).]
Well that would be great. I hope that it is right. I question the source though. When I read the comments after the article they were mostly sarcastic and narrow minded. Just because they are sarcastic and narrow minded doesn't necessarily mean that they are wrong but it does cause me to pause. I would love to find out that natures microbes will fix everything. I've read about them years ago as a method of dealing with oil spills and it is definitely worth looking into. My suspicious side thinks that there has been plenty of time and people looking into this with no concrete results that I've heard of. Never stop looking for solutions. In theory it sounds like a far better way to deal with spills than the dispersants that BP used in an effort to get the spill out of sight.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 08-23-2015).]
Originally posted by avengador1: More bad news for climate alarmists: methane released by the thawing permafrost just isn’t looking like the deadly threat it was supposed to be. http://www.breitbart.com/bi...ok&utm_medium=social
The last major report from the IPCC is Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. The computer models that predict the earth's climate out to Y2100 did not include any "Arctic Methane Emergency" factor, because the IPCC has considered that scenario overly speculative. So I don't see that this new research publication about the Arctic, permafrost and methane-eating microbes takes a great deal of wind out of the IPCC's "sails", when they say that XX amount more of human greenhouse gas emissions will lead to YY degrees of additional global warming and ZZ meters of additional sea level rise by year 2100.
A very important finding however, and kudos to avengador1 for posting this.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-24-2015).]
The reaction is expected. The scenario has always been that Climate Change/Global Warming is ONLY BAD and that there are no benefits at all. The media will report on drought over in this place, but not on "biggest bumper crops" over there.
In the long run, COLD is more deadly because you can't grow food.
"Climatologists call it the Little Ice Age; historians, the General Crisis.
During the 17th century, longer winters and cooler summers disrupted growing seasons and destroyed harvests across Europe. It was the coldest century in a period of glacial expansion that lasted from the early 14th century until the mid-19th century. The summer of 1641 was the third-coldest recorded over the past six centuries in Europe; the winter of 1641-42 was the coldest ever recorded in Scandinavia. The unusual cold that lasted from the 1620s until the 1690s included ice on both the Bosporus and the Baltic so thick that people could walk from one side to the other.
The deep cold in Europe and extreme weather events elsewhere resulted in a series of droughts, floods and harvest failures that led to forced migrations, wars and revolutions. The fatal synergy between human and natural disasters eradicated perhaps one-third of the human population."
Just dropping by to make a prediction: With the global climate agreement happening in Paris this year, just prior to the event deniers will release a fabricated conspiracy to attempt to derail the agreement.
I know for a fact that his attention has been drawn elsewhere, by a very pressing requirement that would cause anyone to scale down the time that they were using for discussions on this forum. He seems to have scaled it down all the way to zero.
It just so happens that he is the only person that was a high level poster (one or more posts per day) that I have had any contact with in "real life".
I know for a fact that his attention has been drawn elsewhere, by a very pressing requirement that would cause anyone to scale down the time that they were using for discussions on this forum. He seems to have scaled it down all the way to zero.
It just so happens that he is the only person that was a high level poster (one or more posts per day) that I have had any contact with in "real life".
Ok. I hope all is well or heading in that direction. Maybe he will be at the coast run in October.
…A big fat NOTHING. [quote]Or at least as close to nothing as makes no difference – says a new study published at Science Advances.
If we were to burn all the world’s coal and all the world’s oil tomorrow, the resultant effect on the Antarctic ice sheet – the biggest body of ice on the planet – would be to cause sea levels to rise by the end of this century by just 8cm.
What this means, in other words, is that even were the doomiest of doomsday predictions about climate change and rising sea levels to come true, they would take place on a timescale so slow that no one alive on the planet right now would be remotely affected.
Nor their children, nor their grandchildren, nor their great-grandchildren. It will take till at least 2200 for sea levels to rise even a metre – giving our ingenious future generations plenty of time to build their escape space ships, or roll up their trouser legs, or move a half a mile inland, or whatever they deem necessary to cope with the gently-rising waters.
This is not necessarily the take home message the report’s authors wanted you to hear. As Lewis Page notes at the Register, the study is the work of men like Dr Ken Caldeira whose credentials as a “global warmist” are “impeccable.”
That’s possibly why when the study came out it was published with an alarmist, attention-grabbing press release more in line with the research team’s warmist thinking:
“Burning all fossil energy would raise sea-level by more than 50 meters”.
Possibly true. But if you look at the small print of the study, as Page has, what you realise is that this process will take at least a thousand years, probably more to complete.
no_problem
The charts cannot lie. (Well they can because they’re only projections, not observed, real-world data). Even so, let’s say Dr Caldeira and his team are correct in their predictions. If so then the graphs just couldn’t be clearer about the aquatic disaster which awaits us if the Antarctic ice sheet melts due to our carbon guzzling lifestyle…
No disaster whatsoever.
Never in any of our lifetimes are we going to see Kevin Costner with webbed fingers. Not unless we’re feeling masochistic, anyway.
So Cruz lied about the satellite data, saying it doesn't show warming (when it does) and asks the guy "Do you agree with this?" the guy says no.
It would be like saying "Since dolphins are fish, [not mammals]. . . Do you think they are the most intelligent fish?" If the premise is wrong, anything following thereafter is null.
So Cruz lied about the satellite data, saying it doesn't show warming (when it does) and asks the guy "Do you agree with this?" the guy says no.
It would be like saying "Since dolphins are fish, [not mammals]. . . Do you think they are the most intelligent fish?" If the premise is wrong, anything following thereafter is null.
"Lied" ?
The Senator distinctly said: "no significant warming over the last eighteen years".
He did NOT say *no warming*, so please be honest with your discussion.
Your own chart that you proffered indicates slightly LESS than 0.5 degrees warming over a TWENTY FIVE YEAR PERIOD, up to 2010.
Simply taking Senator Cruz's *actual* statement of fact and working from THIS YEAR, (2015) backwards for 18 years as he stated, it is quite easy to see that the trend, (IF it has continued at the rate shown on your chart, which we have no evidence of), is LESS than approx. 0.3 degrees over the past 18 years.
Not even accounting for statistical variability, that number most certainly meets the criteria for any rational discussion as NO SIGNIFICANT warming.
Be very careful before you call people "liars",........... especially when you aren't very good at listening to what they actually say and you have problems evaluating data.
....and by the way, it is always helpful and intellectually *honest* to cite the SOURCE of your charts, graphs and any other materials used to support your thesis
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 10-09-2015).]
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
As I said so early in this thread, follow the money.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 10-16-2015).]
Originally posted by avengador1: Top Scientist Resigns Admitting Global Warming Is A Big Scam
From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society 6 October 2010
Just dropping by to make a prediction: With the global climate agreement happening in Paris this year, just prior to the event deniers will release a fabricated conspiracy to attempt to derail the agreement.
No, the "agreement" will fall apart because of it's inherent absurdity.
Speaking of global warming, what ever happened to John (Fierobear)?
1. Bought a different car for a daily driver. Haven't driven a Fiero since April, 2014
2. Was only here this evening because I just got back from the "Coast Run", originally a Fiero event, and thought I'd see what's going on. Looks like flyinfieros is still an instrument of leftist propaganda. Yawn.
3. Realized that the supporters of human caused warming don't care about reason or logic, only their agenda, and won't accept anything other than that which supports what they WANT to believe, so debating them is a colossal waste of time. Let them wallow in their ignorance.
1. Bought a different car for a daily driver. Haven't driven a Fiero since April, 2014
2. Was only here this evening because I just got back from the "Coast Run", originally a Fiero event, and thought I'd see what's going on. Looks like flyinfieros is still an instrument of leftist propaganda. Yawn.
3. Realized that the supporters of human caused warming don't care about reason or logic, only their agenda, and won't accept anything other than that which supports what they WANT to believe, so debating them is a colossal waste of time. Let them wallow in their ignorance.
Good to once again see your username in the "last post" column FB--I hope life is treating you well.
Good to once again see your username in the "last post" column FB--I hope life is treating you well.
Thanks, dude. Yeah, life is good. I should fire up one of my Fieros. I'm just driving a lot of miles for work, so driving on the weekend doesn't appeal much. I flew to the coast run and rented a car. I like flying a lot more, especially these days.
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself." - Club of Rome
Smith isn’t a man who can be swayed by data and evidence. What Smith wants is for NOAA to drudge through years of emails, provide him with everything off-hand and off the record comment so he can inevitably take them out of context and wave his conspiracy ideas around. This is just like when Cucinelli spent hundreds of thousands of tax payers’ dollars trying to go after Mann.
quote
What if your boss came in and told you to drop everything you're working on, and spend the next few weeks going on an office expedition to dig through years worth of archived communications (for a government audit), when you know it's a complete waste of time because all the necessary information to defend your work has been public all along? But now they're going to find out about your comments you made about your boss's secretary! And by the way, you'd better not let this side project affect any of your deadlines.... oh, you don't want to do it? Just what are you trying to hide?
I cautioned you before that you don't appear to be very good at evaluating data.
Your reading comprehension skills now also appear to be sorely lacking.
The article you cited clearly says: "Annual Mean Anomaly Time Series ..." It also states: "We provide the NOAAGlobalTemp dataset as temperature anomalies.... and goes on to state: The anomalies and error fields are available from the FTP area and the Global Temperature and Precipitation Maps page."
Do we need to discuss the *meaning* of the terms ANOMALY and ERROR ?
Where you presumably see a trend of rising temperatures, the data is actually describing a trend of increasing anomalies and/or errors in the temperature data.
Let's REPEAT once more what the authors themselves said:
"We provide the NOAAGlobalTemp dataset as temperature anomalies, relative to a 1971–2000 monthly climatology, following the World Meteorological Organization convention. The anomalies and error fields are available from the FTP area and the Global Temperature and Precipitation Maps page." "
You are looking at a chart (dataset) of temperature *anomalies* or *errors* over time, NOT a constant definitive data series of temperature increases.
What you are not looking at in that article is a dataset of actual temperatures. While I understand your eagerness to possibly associate that increase in anomalies as an increase in mean temperatures, it simply isn't even stated as such even by the authors.
Evidence indeed.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 10-30-2015).]
