I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

[twa]

and if we go back farther the rise is rather smooth and not cause for great concern

 

is satellite data accurate or not? 

 

co2 didn't increase last yr ....are we cured? 

[PeterMP]

and if we go back farther the rise is rather smooth and not cause for great concern

 

is satellite data accurate or not? 

 

co2 didn't increase last yr ....are we cured? 

1. The satellite data is almost certainly accurate at the lower trophosphere.

2. I essentially don't know anybody that thinks the longer term increase represented by the satellite data isn't of some concern that is willing to back it up with real facts (do you want to define great?). Even somebody like Judith Curry who is predicting a likely range of climate sensitivity to CO2 less than that of the IPCC and certainly very much in line with what the satellite data shows thinks we'll have to do somethings by the end of the century if we keep going the way we are.

And as I've already said, she doesn't seem to take into account all of the other issues with being (heavily) dependent on fossil fuels.

3. That certainly helps.

Edited March 19, 2015 by PeterMP

[RedskinsFan44]

and if we go back farther the rise is rather smooth and not cause for great concern

 

is satellite data accurate or not? 

 

co2 didn't increase last yr ....are we cured? 

CO2 didn't increase last year?

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

I trust the satellite data, particularly imagery.

 

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/2015-arctic-sea-ice-maximum-annual-extent-is-lowest-on-record/#.VQsno-ExB6_

[twa]

CO2 didn't increase last year?

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

I trust the satellite data, particularly imagery.

 

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/2015-arctic-sea-ice-maximum-annual-extent-is-lowest-on-record/#.VQsno-ExB6_

 

 

Global greenhouse gas emissions didn’t rise in 2014, according to the IEA data. The CO2 emissions were 32.3 billion tons in 2014 the same as in 2013.

http://rt.com/business/240345-carbon-emissions-economy-energy/

[Mad Mike]

2015 Arctic Sea Ice Maximum Annual Extent Is Lowest On Record | NASA

 

 

 

The sea ice cap of the Arctic appeared to reach its annual maximum winter extent on Feb. 25, according to data from the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) at the University of Colorado, Boulder. At 5.61 million square miles (14.54 million square kilometers), this year’s maximum extent was the smallest on the satellite record and also one of the earliest.

[Mad Mike]

The Movie Climate Science Deniers Don't Want You To See | ThinkProgress

 

 

The movie exposes many deniers, including cyberbully Marc Morano. Morano was recently Sen. Inhofe’s key climate staffer, and before that Rush Limbaugh’s “Man in Washington,” and before that, the guy who helped launch the Swift Board smear campaign against John Kerry during the 2004 election.

Morano is admittedly a bit player now who runs a low-traffic website (ClimateDepot) with 20th-century levels of social media, but he has found his “niche” in the denial ecosystem — harassing scientists. On his website he publishes the email addresses of pretty much any climate scientist who dares to publish actual peer-reviewed research explaining climate science and the potential dangers of unrestricted carbon pollution.

Climate ethicist Donald Brown, who has been the focus of Morano’s “reprehensible” tactics four times, called it “sheer intimidation.” In 2012, highly-regarded MIT climatologist (and Republican) Kerry Emanuel — another Morano target — wrote me, “I had heard about the hate mail and threats received by others, but am surprised at how little it takes these days to trigger hysterical and hateful responses from the ideologues out there.” Emanuel explained that some emails contained “veiled threats against my wife,” and other “tangible threats.” 

What you see firsthand in the movie is that Morano is gleeful and jocular about his pernicious tactics. He explains with a smile how much he enjoyed devising new strategies to “mock and ridicule” climatologists, while working for Inhofe.

[Larry]

Y'know, I think it might be nice if some of these "weather sets new record" news announcements would also state how far back their data goes. 

 

This satellite data of ice cap size, how far back does the data go?  5 years?  20? 

 

I mean, it seems to me that, if the data goes back 20 years, then there's a 1/20 chance that next year will be a record, even if things are completely random. 

[twa]

1979 on that one Larry, it is a whole 7% down from the average of that span

[Predicto]

 

Well, now I know of one that is wrong. The models have said Antarctica sea ice would go down, and it is going up.

 

 

 

I thought the Antarctic winter sea ice ring is wider each year because of changes in the ocean currents, but the "icy season" where that ice is present is now much shorter than it used to be.   Meanwhile, the Antarctic land ice is reducing rapidly.  And of course, the Arctic ice is much, much smaller.  

[twa]

discovering active volcanos under the ice means more study needed.

[PeterMP]

I thought the Antarctic winter sea ice ring is wider each year because of changes in the ocean currents, but the "icy season" where that ice is present is now much shorter than it used to be.   Meanwhile, the Antarctic land ice is reducing rapidly.  And of course, the Arctic ice is much, much smaller.  

 

I'm not sure about the length of the season, and the land ice at least in parts is decreasing quickly.

 

And the sea ice getting lager is being blamed on changes in wind and ocean currents, but that isn't something the models predict.

1979 on that one Larry, it is a whole 7% down from the average of that span

 

Right, but the average is trending down.  Next year the average will be lower than this year, which means it will be harder to beat the average.

 

This year the value actually appears to be significantly lower than that average, and it is 12% lower than 1979.

[twa]

 

This year the value actually appears to be significantly lower than that average, and it is 12% lower than 1979.

 

was 79 a high yr?

 

hard to say isn't it, but 7% off the known average isn't overly troubling....of course I don't mind more water

[PeterMP]

was 79 a high yr?

 

hard to say isn't it, but 7% off the known average isn't overly troubling....of course I don't mind more water

 

It is a high year.  I don't know if it is THE high year.  I just took '79 because it is the first year in the record.  Almost all of the "old" years are going to be high years because the trend has been downward.

 

This depends on what you mean be overly troubling.  Do I think based on this we are going to see sea level changes by feet in the next 20 years as the sea ice melts and that has an impact on land ice in the Arctic region?

 

No.

 

Do I think it is troubling in the context that before the current CA drought that it was predicted by climate scientists that a dry hot spot would occur essentially right where one is that is causing the CA drought and that spot would be caused by decreasing Arctic sea ice and that as sea ice continues to decline that it will only get worse?

 

Then yes.

 

I think extended droughts in that part of the country, while not directly affecting me, are overly troubling.

 

And if declining Arctic sea ice is causing them, as was predicted prior to the current drought, then I'd say I'm overly troubled by the impacts of a 7% decrease from an average that is generally trending downward.

Edited March 20, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

The Cali drought was certainly predictable, just not planned well for.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/12/08/california-drought-cause-noaa/20095869/

[Mad Mike]

The Cali drought was certainly predictable, just not planned well for.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/12/08/california-drought-cause-noaa/20095869/

 

So you trust NOAA?

 

NOAA: Climate change is getting worse | TheHill

 

 

Changes in the earth's climate are increasing at a steady rate, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) warned Thursday in a new report.

Greenhouse gas emissions, sea levels, global temperatures and super storms all are trending upward, NOAA said.

 

"These findings reinforce what scientists for decades have observed: that our planet is becoming a warmer place,” NOAA Administrator Kathryn Sullivan said in a statement Thursday. “This report provides the foundational information we need to develop tools and services for communities, business, and nations to prepare for, and build resilience to, the impacts of climate change.”

The report provides detailed updates on global climate change indicators, which 425 scientists from 57 countries helped to compile.

The NOAA found that greenhouse gas concentrations in the globe's atmosphere continued to rise and reached historically high levels. 

For the first time since the NOAA began measuring carbon dioxide at its Hawaii observatory, levels topped 400 parts per million. 

[twa]

So you trust NOAA?

 

NOAA: Climate change is getting worse | TheHill

 

Well I certainly like NOAA  , and generally find them less bombastic than some.

 

faith in projections on the other hand is gonna require substantiation..

 

The co2 readings are nothing new to me,nor the issues with them.

 

add

 

things like this are rather worthless, besides propaganda

 

"These findings reinforce what scientists for decades have observed: that our planet is becoming a warmer place,”

 

yes and will continue to warm until the next big freeze starts  , which ya better pray is not soon

Edited March 20, 2015 by twa

[RedskinsFan44]

Y'know, I think it might be nice if some of these "weather sets new record" news announcements would also state how far back their data goes. 

 

This satellite data of ice cap size, how far back does the data go?  5 years?  20? 

 

I mean, it seems to me that, if the data goes back 20 years, then there's a 1/20 chance that next year will be a record, even if things are completely random. 

There is a clear trend which reinforces the CO2 and temperature data.  It would be nice if we had satellite data going back at the beginning of the industrial revolution, but we don't, and mapping sea ice extent is untenable without it.  As to chance, if you are familiar with statistics you can see that the decline is not likely to be random from this graph (standard deviations).

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

 

Given the world temp data linked below you might guess that  1979 sea ice extent would be around the average for the century be, note that the average for the satellite data is well below 1979.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=7

 

Edited March 20, 2015 by RedskinsFan44

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Blind allegiance to a political party is not something I understand.

[Skins24]

Can't wait for another hundred years or so. I hope I'm still around. More data, and hopefully better technology to peer into the past. What may seem anomalous to us, may not be...at all. Data X is 20% higher now than it was in year Y!

Yeah, but it's 25% lower than it was in year Z, and year Z was 10% cooler than the average for the rest of century B.

Hopefully in the future, we'll have a better understanding of what we think the avg. temp (et al) of planet earth should be THEN we can say whether we're above average or not

[PeterMP]

yes and will continue to warm until the next big freeze starts  , which ya better pray is not soon

 

There is no evidence that this is true.  There is no reason that the planet can't and shouldn't maintain a relatively constant temperature currently (obviously there is going to be variation), especially in the context of decades.

 

The cycles that cause glaciation are very slow and you need centuries to observer their affects, and we aren't really in the middle of a change in a cycle anyway.

 

But even if you were, on the level of decades, climate could at least appear as a random walk.

[Larry]

Can't wait for another hundred years or so. I hope I'm still around. More data, and hopefully better technology to peer into the past. What may seem anomalous to us, may not be...at all. Data X is 20% higher now than it was in year Y!

Yeah, but it's 25% lower than it was in year Z, and year Z was 10% cooler than the average for the rest of century B.

Hopefully in the future, we'll have a better understanding of what we think the avg. temp (et al) of planet earth should be THEN we can say whether we're above average or not

Actually, part of the problem is that, the things we're looking at, 100 years' data is nothing. A million years' data might not be conclusive.

 

On the other hand, it's been 150 years since science proved, in a reproducible, laboratory, experiment, that CO2

 

1)  Allows the colors of light that the sun puts out, through, to warm the Earth. 

2)  But it blocks the colors of light that the Earth uses, to shed heat to space. 

 

That fact has been known.  For 150 years.  And yet, we still have people determined that they're going to shout this information down, so that we can keep dumping half a billion tons of waste products into the atmosphere, every year.  

[twa]

There is no evidence that this is true.  There is no reason that the planet can't and shouldn't maintain a relatively constant temperature currently (obviously there is going to be variation), especially in the context of decades.

 

The cycles that cause glaciation are very slow and you need centuries to observer their affects, and we aren't really in the middle of a change in a cycle anyway.

 

But even if you were, on the level of decades, climate could at least appear as a random walk.

 

It never has stayed constant, we are simply arguing rate of change.

 

The earth and company can change that rate much faster than man.

[Mad Mike]

FEMA to States: No Climate Planning, No Money | InsideClimate News

 

 

 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency is making it tougher for governors to deny man-made climate change. Starting next year, the agency will approve disaster preparedness funds only for states whose governors approve hazard mitigation plans that address climate change.

 

FEMA Climate Change Adaptation Policy Statement | FEMA.gov

 

I love it. They are saying that the state must do their part if they want federal money to prepare for disasters.

 

The GOP is after all the party of personal responsibility, right?  

[Mad Mike]

For those who don't understand the scientific method and why the 97% who have published peer reviewed papers matter.

 

 

 

 

 

I would like to think that governance is based on objective verifiable truths. Otherwise what kind of culture have you created? What have you done?

[twa]

and the year after that? 

 

New Bozo, new rules?

 

I look forward to the East coasts mitigation plan, and of course Cali's drought one.