Interesting but I'm not sure if it will do anything to change much of the Climate Change science, sounds like the NASA scientists are on the case and adding it to the intricacies of their work.
Terrible article but a interesting journey. I also saw a recent article about the ability of cruise ships to visit artic communities now because of Climate change as well.
The Crystal Serenity has not encountered any ice so far in the Northwest Passage.
Crystal Cruises has already announced it will return to the Northwest Passage next season and other cruise lines are planning similar trips.
Yup, the science keeps getting better and better. Global surface temperature in 2015 easily beat the previous record holder, 2014, for the title of warmest year in the modern instrument record.
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: But not the warmest of the history of the earth.
Gives "us" something higher to shoot for.
I wonder how many (or how few) of the trees, agricultural crops, and backboned sea and land animals of today are adapted to survive the warmest temperatures in the "history of earth".
How will the future civilization of homo thermal regard the extinct civilization of home sapiens?
Will there be a homo thermal? Or--will the "homo line of evolutionary descent" have terminated with homo sapiens?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-21-2016).]
Yup, the science keeps getting better and better. Global surface temperature in 2015 easily beat the previous record holder, 2014, for the title of warmest year in the modern instrument record.
BAHAHA you use an agenda based, government link as proof.. if that was even remotely true, more than 200+ days it have to be the hottest on record, in 80% of the world.. hint it hasn't not even 20% of the days and under 10% of the world and not on the same days.. kinda hard to believe in global warming, opps, climate change, opps.. what is this years buzz wording.. When the media weather man/women tell every one todays record high was set in 1865 and it was 10-19+/- degrees higher than todays temp..
What is it that differentiates "climate" from "weather"..?
If you filled in that gap in your knowledge or understanding, then you would realize that your post (immediately above) does not make any sense.
The well known Neil deGrasse Tyson explained it during one of the Cosmos episodes. Not the original Cosmos, but the newer version of it. There was a scene where Tyson was walking across a sandy beach, and a dog was at his side, walking the same general path as Tyson, but in a meandering way, drifting away to the right of Tyson and then back across Tyson's path to his left, and then back to the right again.
I might post a YouTube of that later, if it's available.
oh brother.. if the record highs for 80% of the year in 85% of the world didn't break the record highs on record, many set 50-100+ years ago.. then the earth didn't get warmer than the year before, or the year before that, or the air temp, or land temp or ocean temp..
Wow, a science advisor of the heartland Institute is a Climate Change skeptic. Amazing, thanks for linking the year old article, I will say it's more relevant than many of your links.
How do we trust the data when it is sacrificed routinely for political gain.... Once the silty murky contamination of the democratic party has been removed from the data stream, then the science may appear more credible....
When the scientist divorce all political parties and partner with industry(s) to develop and apply real solutions that benefit both side, then you will see results....
How do we trust the data when it is sacrificed routinely for political gain.... Once the silty murky contamination of the democratic party has been removed from the data stream, then the science may appear more credible....
When the scientist divorce all political parties and partner with industry(s) to develop and apply real solutions that benefit both side, then you will see results....
When you lie about the numbers you then get news media repeating those claims. No one actually looks at "the science" as you call it. Then you get regular people who take them at their word and start throwing around "denier" when people question the numbers. I mean, other than being unethical and wrong, what difference does it make?
It is Not possible for the general public to know where the lines between the science and politics are not the same. Until the scientist separate themselves from the politicians, we comon folks can not trust the data because of the amount of potential manipulation being done to shape public opinion.
When the scientist quit dipping from the Government trough, they will "call BS" when politicians misrepresent the data. Until they are no longer dependent on Government grants/funding none of them can be trusted to protect the accuracy of what is released to the public instead of protecting their reputation, position and income. Government agencies do not compete against one another on the science. But if these same scientist where dependent upon industries, competing industries would fund the exposure of false and misleading claims of their competitors. The government gets the data it pays for, it vets the data it pays for and it publishes the results it pays for.
If we can not separate the science from the Government we could atleast divide the money up and fund both lines of research to create a balance that acts as a filter to cleanse the agendas from the data.
Whom is granting the funds for the science gets the results they are looking for.. not what science results are.. And study can be made to get the outcome you are after.. if you opps forgot parts of the facts, of the study..
It is Not possible for the general public to know where the lines between the science and politics are not the same. Until the scientist separate themselves from the politicians, we comon folks can not trust the data because of the amount of potential manipulation being done to shape public opinion.
When the scientist quit dipping from the Government trough, they will "call BS" when politicians misrepresent the data. Until they are no longer dependent on Government grants/funding none of them can be trusted to protect the accuracy of what is released to the public instead of protecting their reputation, position and income. Government agencies do not compete against one another on the science. But if these same scientist where dependent upon industries, competing industries would fund the exposure of false and misleading claims of their competitors. The government gets the data it pays for, it vets the data it pays for and it publishes the results it pays for.
If we can not separate the science from the Government we could atleast divide the money up and fund both lines of research to create a balance that acts as a filter to cleanse the agendas from the data.
So true, if these doing the science want the grants to keep coming to stay employed and/or in business they will give the results the one footing the bills want.. This is no different than John Force or any other race car driver that stumps for those footing the bills.. Those that make money off this fraud, somehow want others to think, the ice age and ice retracting only would go so far then stop.. This would be like say'n a block of ice in a bowl will only melt so far and stop..
I'm shocked they haven't tried removing any data that there was an ice age. all we are seeing is the part of the retracting of the ice age while we are living.. They always leave out the effects of the earth crust movement over time 1-2" a year.. how much closer to one pole than the other is the usa than it was 1000 years ago, 10000 years ago? how much is the earth wobble while spinning around ? Are the poles in the same spot in our orbit and spin around the sun or does this change over time?and how our perfectly repeated is our orbit around the sun,? is the sun heat output always linear ? The last 2 decades has shown that science has been wrong about space, They guess at measurements with no way to prove the earth spins like a top perfectly the same everytime.. no way to prove if the earth is the same distance from the sun everytime, if the suns energy output is level or between the temp guesses they come up with..
like everything follow the money..
[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 10-30-2016).]
Whom is granting the funds for the science gets the results they are looking for.. not what science results are.. And study can be made to get the outcome you are after.. if you opps forgot parts of the facts, of the study..
I know people want to believe that it's some massive conspiracy but the science is peer reviewed and the data is out there for people to poke holes in. Sorry if some can't accept it but it doesn't change the facts.
It is Not possible for the general public to know where the lines between the science and politics are not the same. Until the scientist separate themselves from the politicians, we comon folks can not trust the data because of the amount of potential manipulation being done to shape public opinion.
When the scientist quit dipping from the Government trough, they will "call BS" when politicians misrepresent the data. Until they are no longer dependent on Government grants/funding none of them can be trusted to protect the accuracy of what is released to the public instead of protecting their reputation, position and income. Government agencies do not compete against one another on the science. But if these same scientist where dependent upon industries, competing industries would fund the exposure of false and misleading claims of their competitors. The government gets the data it pays for, it vets the data it pays for and it publishes the results it pays for.
If we can not separate the science from the Government we could atleast divide the money up and fund both lines of research to create a balance that acts as a filter to cleanse the agendas from the data.
I'm sorry but if that's the case you can not trust any data whatsoever and you would be unable to form an informed opinion regarding Climate Change of any kind.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 10-30-2016).]
I know people want to believe that it's some massive conspiracy but the science is peer reviewed and the data is out there for people to poke holes in. Sorry if some can't accept it but it doesn't change the facts.
fact is the part that crushes this fraud before the industrial age.. much of north America was a jungle.... That requires high temps than now..
[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 10-30-2016).]
Originally posted by E.Furgal: fact is the part that crushes this fraud before the industrial age.. much of north America was a jungle.... That requires high temps than now..
Much of North America was a jungle... when? Was it 1000 years before the Industrial Age? No. There is enough historical and archaeological evidence to rule that out. No such jungle covering most of North America 1000 years ago. What about 10,000 years ago? No. The fossil evidence and the archaeological evidence is clear. No such jungle, even 10,000 years ago.
The farther backwards in time before the present, or before the Industrial Age, the less relevant that observation about a jungle. Why less relevant? Consider the time scale that is relevant to people who are concerned about man-made global warming. Is it 10,000 years into the future? I don't think so. If it somehow became known to science that the planet--for whatever reason(s)--cannot possibly sustain human life any farther into the future than 10,000 years, would you expect the human race to collectively shrug its shoulders and say "What's the point of going on with human life any longer. We haven't got a future beyond the next 10,000 years?" I think not.
What if the expectation for any kind of human survival was only for the next 1000 years? Would that make any difference. I don't see it. I think the human race (collectively) would want to keep on living for as long as possible and hope that something would change before that 1000 year deadline. Maybe science (collectively) would change its findings about "Doomsday in 1000 years". Maybe in another 100 or 200 years there would be technological advancements beyond the present human capabilities that would render the "Doomsday in 1000 years" expectations a moot point.
So the concern about man-made global warming extends from the present, to somewhere between just 200 or 300 years from now (on the low end), to about 1000 years from now--at most. What lies in store for humanity beyond 1000 years from now is a moot point, in terms of the concerns about man-made global warming.
I think most climate researchers hold that there is no known reason to expect the earth's climate to change much during the next 1000 years, provided that the CO2 component of the atmosphere is stabilized at about 350 ppm. Is the earth's orbit around the sun going to change in any significant way during the next 1000 years? The earth's diurnal axis of rotation? The moon's orbit around the earth? Would the processes of plate tectonics or "continental drift" change the configuration of the earth's continents in any significant way during the next 1000 years? Will the earth be receiving significantly more or less solar energy as the next 1000 years go by? The climate researchers that I have been reading about are saying "No" on all of these counts.
So that's why the concerns about CO2 in the atmosphere, and the human contributions to CO2 in the atmosphere are relevant, and why this prehistoric jungle that E.Furgal just referenced--a climate interval that ended considerably more than 10,000 years ago--has no practical relevance to the concerns about man-made global warming.
I just referenced the CO2 "target" of 350 ppm. That will take some doing. It's mostly above 400 ppm. It crossed the 400 ppm threshold just a few years ago.
i could try to be more exacting about all this, by resorting to some new online searches to refresh my memory. When (exactly) was the 400 ppm CO2 threshold exceeded? How many tens of thousands or millions of years have passed since most of North American was a jungle? But I've already made my argument. Any more exactness would be overkill. I have "bounded" the problem, as the "math heads" (not to be confused with the meth heads) are prone to saying.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-30-2016).]
..... peer reviewed and the data is out there for people to poke holes in. Sorry if some can't accept it but it doesn't change the facts.
Peer reviewed means tied to someoneelses credibility and reputation. Sorry, but if your credibility and reputation all hang on the science you support, you will protect it at all cost. The difference between the scientist who for and against this "science" is who their pay checks come from.
Both deliver what they are paid to. And anyone who thinks a scientist from either side is more honest than the other, would likely buy a used car from dealer because they thought the name christain motors meant honesty and righteousness.
The New York Times of July 28, 2012 carried (on its Opinion Pages) a column from Richard A. Muller, and it started with this:
quote
CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.
These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.
Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions.
That's the first four paragraphs.
A man-made global warming skeptic, converted to a "believer", after his own involvement in the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project or BEST.
Here's something more about BEST. It was not directly funded by the U.S. government or any other government. It was a privately funded study. Part of the funding came from the Koch Brothers, who were not known to be enthusiastic about the idea of man-made global warming. How much of the funding from the Koch Brothers? That I don't know (at least without further research), but it was at least enough to connect the name "Koch Brothers" with BEST.
Richard Muller was involved in BEST. The results changed his mindset about man-made global warming. Before his involvement with BEST, Muller was skeptical about man-made global warming. After his involvement, a skeptic no more.
Judith Curry, another climate researcher, was also involved in BEST. She was skeptical about man-made global warming before BEST, and to the best of my knowledge, remains skeptical to this very day.
There's never been complete agreement among the world's top tier climate researchers, but I have to go with the majority, and based on my readings (and viewings), I think the clear majority is represented by Richard Muller; not Judith Curry.
I don't think that these views that climate researchers are nothing more than puppets whose strings are being pulled by their paymasters (E.Furgal; jmclemore; et al) square up with the story of Richard Muller and his BEST conversion.
Was Richard Muller the only one?
I kind of doubt that.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-30-2016).]
YOU are so silly.. put up or shut up.. walk or ride a pedal bike and stop heating your home..
big evil big oil. yet you use it daily.. either put up or shut your pic hole. hypocrite
Yes obviously if one believes that big oil has control over money and power and has a vested interest in trying to keep down green energy it means that person must stop using oil.
Peer reviewed means tied to someoneelses credibility and reputation. Sorry, but if your credibility and reputation all hang on the science you support, you will protect it at all cost. The difference between the scientist who for and against this "science" is who their pay checks come from.
Both deliver what they are paid to. And anyone who thinks a scientist from either side is more honest than the other, would likely buy a used car from dealer because they thought the name christain motors meant honesty and righteousness.
This means you must not believe in any science you cannot replicate yourself. I find when an overwhelming majority of scientists and experts in the field of a certain subject agree I usually tend to believe them, not saying they are always right but until proven otherwise it's usually the safer bet.
I find when an overwhelming majority of scientists and experts in the field of a certain subject agree I usually tend to believe them, not saying they are always right but until proven otherwise it's usually the safer bet.
Blind faith in experts is a Baaaaaad! idea.... You can walk that path without me.
I will consider the claims made by those you will not recognize as experts. When those claims contradict the so called science, I trust your experts should be bright enough to answer and professional enough to adjust when they find an error in their own consensus. Anyone who says, this science is settled (including experts) has no intent of defending scientific methods. They are Protecting an agenda. I don't have to believe the deniers, it's how the experts and proponents respond to them that is telling.
I see it like this, You are at the zoo and you noticed one of the chimpanzees are throwing poop at the crowd. You being a concerned member of humanity notify a staff member (aka expert) who quickly calls you an ignorant buffoon for even thinking such a thing is possible. You bite your tongue and say but I saw this with my own---- (interrupted by said expert : "your an idiot"). You smile and turn to walk away as you here, a thud and a string of not so family friendly expletives....
This is how "the experts" and many of their blindly lead herd treat the science and experts on the other side.... Science asks the questions, collect the data, measures and tests, reviews the results, repeats the process, compares the results and adjusts the accuracy of their model. There is no room for agendas and pride in science. Junk in, Junk2 out.
Blind faith in experts is a Baaaaaad! idea.... You can walk that path without me.
I will consider the claims made by those you will not recognize as experts. When those claims contradict the so called science, I trust your experts should be bright enough to answer and professional enough to adjust when they find an error in their own consensus. Anyone who says, this science is settled (including experts) has no intent of defending scientific methods. They are Protecting an agenda. I don't have to believe the deniers, it's how the experts and proponents respond to them that is telling.
I see it like this, You are at the zoo and you noticed one of the chimpanzees are throwing poop at the crowd. You being a concerned member of humanity notify a staff member (aka expert) who quickly calls you an ignorant buffoon for even thinking such a thing is possible. You bite your tongue and say but I saw this with my own---- (interrupted by said expert : "your an idiot"). You smile and turn to walk away as you here, a thud and a string of not so family friendly expletives....
This is how "the experts" and many of their blindly lead herd treat the science and experts on the other side.... Science asks the questions, collect the data, measures and tests, reviews the results, repeats the process, compares the results and adjusts the accuracy of their model. There is no room for agendas and pride in science. Junk in, Junk2 out.
Who said anything about blind faith? You can walk the path of denying good science and calling it bad and tainted because you don't like the results all you like but it doesn't change good science. Science is settled? I'm not sure why many people who disbelieve Climate Change keep throwing that out? No good science is settled but that doesn't mean because the science is always evolving and being refined that the results are opposite.
Your analogy as compared to the science of Climate Change is confused and not applicable but I will agree that "Science asks the questions, collects the data, measures and tests, reviews the results, repeats the process, compares the results and adjusts the accuracy of their model" which is why the majority of scientists have come up with the same or similar conclusions regarding Climate Change.
Anyways I've been down this seemingly endless road before I don't really wish or expect to change your opinion and I doubt without great and expert evidence you will ever change mine.
When you lie about the numbers you then get news media repeating those claims. No one actually looks at "the science" as you call it. Then you get regular people who take them at their word and start throwing around "denier" when people question the numbers. I mean, other than being unethical and wrong, what difference does it make?
the well funded denier oil&coal industry has been lying from day one actually many of their flacks were lying before then but about tobacco smoking
so here is a major CLUE if the heat coming in is less but the avg temp is still rising the effect of the greenhouse gases is there by proven game set and match your side lost maybe you are to dumb to admit it or like mr jones know something is happening but don't know what it is or trust it or like it but mother nature don't give a damm
[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 10-30-2016).]
Much of North America was a jungle... when? Was it 1000 years before the Industrial Age? No. There is enough historical and archaeological evidence to rule that out. No such jungle covering most of North America 1000 years ago. What about 10,000 years ago? No. The fossil evidence and the archaeological evidence is clear. No such jungle, even 10,000 years ago.
The farther backwards in time before the present, or before the Industrial Age, the less relevant that observation about a jungle. Why less relevant? Consider the time scale that is relevant to people who are concerned about man-made global warming. Is it 10,000 years into the future? I don't think so. If it somehow became known to science that the planet--for whatever reason(s)--cannot possibly sustain human life any farther into the future than 10,000 years, would you expect the human race to collectively shrug its shoulders and say "What's the point of going on with human life any longer. We haven't got a future beyond the next 10,000 years?" I think not.
What if the expectation for any kind of human survival was only for the next 1000 years? Would that make any difference. I don't see it. I think the human race (collectively) would want to keep on living for as long as possible and hope that something would change before that 1000 year deadline. Maybe science (collectively) would change its findings about "Doomsday in 1000 years". Maybe in another 100 or 200 years there would be technological advancements beyond the present human capabilities that would render the "Doomsday in 1000 years" expectations a moot point.
So the concern about man-made global warming extends from the present, to somewhere between just 200 or 300 years from now (on the low end), to about 1000 years from now--at most. What lies in store for humanity beyond 1000 years from now is a moot point, in terms of the concerns about man-made global warming.
I think most climate researchers hold that there is no known reason to expect the earth's climate to change much during the next 1000 years, provided that the CO2 component of the atmosphere is stabilized at about 350 ppm. Is the earth's orbit around the sun going to change in any significant way during the next 1000 years? The earth's diurnal axis of rotation? The moon's orbit around the earth? Would the processes of plate tectonics or "continental drift" change the configuration of the earth's continents in any significant way during the next 1000 years? Will the earth be receiving significantly more or less solar energy as the next 1000 years go by? The climate researchers that I have been reading about are saying "No" on all of these counts.
So that's why the concerns about CO2 in the atmosphere, and the human contributions to CO2 in the atmosphere are relevant, and why this prehistoric jungle that E.Furgal just referenced--a climate interval that ended considerably more than 10,000 years ago--has no practical relevance to the concerns about man-made global warming.
I just referenced the CO2 "target" of 350 ppm. That will take some doing. It's mostly above 400 ppm. It crossed the 400 ppm threshold just a few years ago.
i could try to be more exacting about all this, by resorting to some new online searches to refresh my memory. When (exactly) was the 400 ppm CO2 threshold exceeded? How many tens of thousands or millions of years have passed since most of North American was a jungle? But I've already made my argument. Any more exactness would be overkill. I have "bounded" the problem, as the "math heads" (not to be confused with the meth heads) are prone to saying.
I find when an overwhelming majority of scientists and experts in the field of a certain subject agree I usually tend to believe them, not saying they are always right but until proven otherwise it's usually the safer bet.
You did..... And you back it up by dismissing anything to the contrary. I don't think you will ever see a flaw in the science you believe in. You and a couple of other members act like your on a mission to protect every aspect of global warming. While many of us are more than willing to accept that the climate is or may be changing. It's hard to have a scientific conversation with a 3 friggin parrots singing like a broken record.
you guys are inflexible, dismissive and demeaning to any post that challenges the gray areas of the so called settled science. Once again, you can not conclusively can any aspect of science as settled until we absolutely know everything that can be known. True scientists welcome the discovery of a flaw just as easily as a new detail. Either way it clarifies what we know and improves the accuracy of what we understand.
A wide spread agreement of facts that must remain true to support a desire out come or agenda is not science, it's fraud and misinformation. If you think the data and it's relevance are more important than any reputation, political view or agenda then it is reasonable to expect that the influence of money and power of an entity outside of the scientific community would present the unnecessary potential for corruption for all of the obvious reasons. I have not seen or heard of any scientist/expert in recent history who joined a consensus that required the rebuild of their research, reputation and income. No , those epiphanies accompanied by an 180 degree pivot from their original consensus usually comes after realizing that you can not compete with the bottomless wallet of the federal tax payer.
When your Dr. tells you that you have 6 months to live, don't doubt him. After all his medical opinion is based on peer reviewed studies and has the support of a great majority of medical professionals. The fact that you have 6 months to live is settled since based of the consensus scientific medical experts. A second opinion is not warranted at all , right..... Settled science? thank god a bunch of foolish scientist and researcher didn't stop asking for more data after they deemed cancer to be certain death..... We'd still be teaching the flat earth theory if "settled science" based on the "consensus of experts" were the end of the discussion.
Settled Science, really.... Blind Faith.....
We are still digging into the facts and asking question. You guys are stuck in a fox hole reusing ammo. I'll agree that recycling is a good thing but I will at least agree that each time the material is reprocessed it becomes degraded and loses the qualities for which it was originally chosen.
We are still looking...Not following... we can disagree on what would be a safe bet...
so here is a major CLUE if the heat coming in is less but the avg temp is still rising the effect of the greenhouse gases is there by proven game set and match your side lost maybe you are to dumb to admit it or like mr jones know something is happening but don't know what it is or trust it or like it but mother nature don't give a damm
Your side lost? We have sides? This is the total BS this whole debate has been degraded to. Your side lost. Like we aren't in this together. We have sides now. No discussion of the flaws in the data. How the models have utterly failed to predict real world data. Your side lost. Pathetic really.
bet they could make more by lying/working for the oil & coal corpRATs lying machine but some study the world rather then try to get rich
dude just like DNA once we can really read it will kill the creationist's BS with proof the data is over whelming the no warming oil&coal flacks you can argue you just donot like the results and no it has not been as bad or as quick as some early models indicated but the trend is clear esp in view of the solar output and spot numbers
your sides conspiracy theory is just dumb sorry but the data is piling up now
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
How does this change any science?
