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

[PeterMP]

Is a person's complete lack of understanding of a subject stop them from starting a thread here?  

 

Here's more showing that the whole global "warming" isn't scientifically factual.

 

Data from America’s most advanced climate monitoring system shows the U.S. has undergone a cooling trend over the last decade, despite recent claims by government scientists that warming has accelerated worldwide during that time.

The U.S. Climate Reference Network was developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to provide “high-quality” climate data. The network consists of 114 stations across the U.S. in areas NOAA expects no development for the next 50 to 100 years.

The climate stations use three independent measurements of temperature and precipitation to provide “continuity of record and maintenance of well-calibrated and highly accurate observations,” NOAA states on its website. “The stations are placed in pristine environments expected to be free of development for many decades.” In essence, NOAA chose locations so they don’t need to be adjusted for “biases” in the temperature record.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/15/americas-most-advanced-climate-station-data-shows-us-in-a-10-year-cooling-trend/#ixzz3d9eXNAvi

 

You do understand the US is just a fraction of the world, right?

 

That it is possible for the US to cool and their be net warming through out the world?

 

"Data from America’s most advanced climate monitoring system shows the U.S. has undergone a cooling trend over the last decade, despite recent claims by government scientists that warming has accelerated worldwide during that time."

 

This type of bait and switch is common in skeptic arguments.

Edited June 15, 2015 by PeterMP

[Redskins3D]

You do understand the US is just a fraction of the world, right?

That it is possible for the US to cool and their be net warming through out the world?

"Data from America’s most advanced climate monitoring system shows the U.S. has undergone a cooling trend over the last decade, despite recent claims by government scientists that warming has accelerated worldwide during that time."

This type of bait and switch is common in skeptic arguments.

Can you offer an explanation as to why the US is cooling and the rest of the world is warming, doctor?

[Predicto]

what do ya think?

 

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/spectacularly-poor-climate-science-at-nasa/

 

 Summary

For the past 30 years, NASA climate scientists under the leadership of Dr. Hansen have demonstrated nearly complete incompetence in forecasting, and they have tampered with data to try to hide their mispredictions.

 

 

Quote Stephen Goddard some more.   He's very convincing.  Even Judith Curry  and Anthony Watts (legitimate global warming sceptic scientists) say he's a liar.

 

Of course, you don't care.  You are arguing for the sake of arguing.

Can you offer an explanation as to why the US is cooling and the rest of the world is warming, doctor?

 

Because warming changes weather patterns and ocean currents, bringing cooler air and water to some places while heating the majority of areas.  

 

That's Climate Science 101.  

[NoCalMike]

People continue to confuse weather & climate so much that I am starting to feel it is being done on purpose to fool people who don't look very deep into the issue and make up their minds based on headlines.

[twa]

Quote Stephen Goddard some more.   He's very convincing.  Even Judith Curry  and Anthony Watts (legitimate global warming sceptic scientists) say he's a liar.

 

Of course, you don't care.  You are arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

Of course , hell I even quote Obama.

 

[Larry]

People continue to confuse weather & climate so much that I am starting to feel it is being done on purpose to fool people who don't look very deep into the issue and make up their minds based on headlines.

Starting?

[Redskins3D]

People continue to confuse weather & climate so much that I am starting to feel it is being done on purpose to fool people who don't look very deep into the issue and make up their minds based on headlines.

You're ignoring that these people are also continually lied to. If the facts could be presented without the propaganda, perhaps people would be more accepting. I'll again link ABC "News". prediction of what 2015 would look like. Would you like me to also link Al Gore's various predictions or would you like to admit that propaganda has done a lot more harm than good?

also I think many of you are mixing climate change "deniers" with people that reject the political policy people are attaching to it.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2015/06/12/flashback-abcs-08-prediction-nyc-under-water-climate-change-june

Edited June 17, 2015 by Redskins3D

[PeterMP]

Can you offer an explanation as to why the US is cooling and the rest of the world is warming, doctor?

 

Because there has been a change in the gulf stream that has kept colder water and air closer to the US, especially along the North East coast.

 

And US cooling is primarily driven by the north east being cooler.

 

And has affected things like the polar vortex 2 years ago (note, when cold air comes down like in the polar vortex, the poles actually warm).  Colder here.  Warmer there.

 

People have speculated this might be a result of climate change for several decades, which is one reason why scientists moved from the idea of global warming to climate change with the idea that while some areas and globally, we may say warming, some areas might actually see cooling.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/03/whats-going-on-in-the-north-atlantic/

Edited June 18, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

Weren't we discussing the warmest year in the US on record just a few pages back?


Climate change sure is complicated .....and sneaky, durn thing can be cooler and hotter in the same place at the same time.
 

[Redskins3D]

Weren't we discussing the warmest year in the US on record just a few pages back?

Climate change sure is complicated .....and sneaky, durn thing can be cooler and hotter in the same place at the same time.

 

you have to understand that's after we adjust for biases. 

[PeterMP]

Weren't we discussing the warmest year in the US on record just a few pages back?

Climate change sure is complicated .....and sneaky, durn thing can be cooler and hotter in the same place at the same time.

 

 

I doubt it.

 

NOAA has 2014 the 34th warmest year on record in the US.

 

"In 2014, the contiguous United States (CONUS) average temperature was 52.6°F, 0.5°F above the 20th century average, and tied with 1977 as the 34th warmest year in the 120-year period of record. "

 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/201413

 

And 2013 even cooler:

 

"In 2013, the contiguous United States (CONUS) average temperature of 52.4°F was 0.3°F above the 20th century average, and tied with 1980 as the 37th warmest year in the 119-year period of record. "

 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/201313

 

So unless you were talking about the temperature of the US a few years ago a few pages back, we weren't.

 

We may have been talking about the warmest GLOBAL temperature, which based on some data sets 2014 was.

 

We may have been talking about the CA temperature, which the NOAA says was the warmest on record.

 

But I doubt we were talking about the US temperature from a few years ago a few pages back.

 

Now, I'm going to try and make a point that I don't exactly expect you to get at this point in time, it is possible that in the context of a decade trend that we were talking about the warmest year in the US on record a few pages back.

 

The two ideas aren't mutually exclusive.

 

So even if your point was right, it wouldn't be relevant.

you have to understand that's after we adjust for biases. 

Or just people being dumb, ignorant, wrong, and/or manipulative.

Edited June 18, 2015 by PeterMP

[Mad Mike]

Meanwhile in reality land...

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-climate-change-deniers-got-it-very-wrong

"James L. Powell, director of the National Physical Sciences Consortium, reviewed more than 24,000 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published in 2013 and 2014. Only five reject the reality of rising temperatures or the fact that human emissions are the cause, he found.

“It’s now a ruling paradigm, as much an accepted fact in climate science as plate tectonics is in geology and evolution is in biology,” he told msnbc. “It’s 99.9% plus.”

Edited June 18, 2015 by Mad Mike

[Mad Mike]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2015/06/16/republicans-criticize-pope-on-climate-change-asearth-continues-to-heat-up/#.VYI23or3anN

"NASA’s monthly update on Earth’s average temperature is out, and it shows this past May in a tie with May 2012 for second warmest on record for the month.

Only May of last year was warmer in NASA’s record, which extends back to 1881."

Edited June 18, 2015 by Mad Mike

[twa]

in that review of material did he happen to sort out % of AGW?

 

Warming or the existence of man contributing is rather weak sauce, 

 

add

 Only five reject the reality of rising temperatures or the fact that human emissions are the cause, he found.

 

or is very different than and.....so is it and or or

Edited June 18, 2015 by twa

[Mad Mike]

Warming or the existence of man contributing is rather weak sauce,

It takes a really "special" person to find something to feed their conformational bias in a report that says 99.9% of published scientists agree that their bias is wrong. LOL

in that review of material did he happen to sort out % of AGW?

Warming or the existence of man contributing is rather weak sauce,

add

Only five reject the reality of rising temperatures or the fact that human emissions are the cause, he found.

or is very different than and.....so is it and or or

You do realize that "or" allows for more opportunity to find disagreement don't you?

in that review of material did he happen to sort out % of AGW?

Warming or the existence of man contributing is rather weak sauce,

add

Only five reject the reality of rising temperatures or the fact that human emissions are the cause, he found.

or is very different than and.....so is it and or or

You do realize that "or" allows for more opportunity to find disagreement don't you?

[twa]

yes, it is why I asked.

 

ya are wrong on the % btw 

[Mad Mike]

yes, it is why I asked.

ya are wrong on the % btw

You mean James L. Powell, director of the National Physical Sciences Consortium is wrong? And you have done a study that refutes him?

Man you are one funny dude.

[twa]

You mean James L. Powell, director of the National Physical Sciences Consortium is wrong? And you have done a study that refutes him?

Man you are one funny dude.

 

 

I mean changing a word changes the matter....and thanks

[tshile]

I have a question for those of you a little more in tune with the actual scientific part of the climate change/agw stuff...

 

NASA just came out with a report about aquifers - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/16/new-nasa-studies-show-how-the-world-is-running-out-of-water/

 

At the risk of sounding stupid...

 

Is it not possible that part of our sea temperature changes and level increases is being caused by water being pulled out of the aquifers?

 

How does NASA's report conflict with/support the main points of climate change from the scientific community?

 

What sort of claims in regards to climate change/agw could be significantly affected by introducing this new idea/problem/discovery that we're sucking all the water out of the aquifers?

Edited June 18, 2015 by tshile

[twa]

the added water would be rather insignificant as a % of the whole imo, but they claim water vapor as a greenhouse gas .....so ?

 

Of course I think added reductions to US co2 output would be insignificant

[PeterMP]

I have a question for those of you a little more in tune with the actual scientific part of the climate change/agw stuff...

 

NASA just came out with a report about aquifers - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/16/new-nasa-studies-show-how-the-world-is-running-out-of-water/

 

At the risk of sounding stupid...

 

Is it not possible that part of our sea temperature changes and level increases is being caused by water being pulled out of the aquifers?

 

How does NASA's report conflict with/support the main points of climate change from the scientific community?

 

What sort of claims in regards to climate change/agw could be significantly affected by introducing this new idea/problem/discovery that we're sucking all the water out of the aquifers?

 

Ground water usage is without a doubt a contributing factor of sea level change.  People have looked at the numbers and we have a pretty good idea of what the effect should be/is.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/05/120531-groundwater-depletion-may-accelerate-sea-level-rise/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/06/what-makes-sea-level-rise/

 

I'm not sure how/why that would affect temperature significantly though.  We have a mechanism for affecting temperature (CO2 is a green house gas).  Making up a new one seems like reaching.  Generally, precipitation is cooling.  Water coming out of the ground and to the surface where it can make it into the air (or even goes directly into the air) if anything I would think would increase precipitation and therefore have a cooling affect.

 

Do know something else or have a specific idea/mechanism in mind?

 

Generally, what they state is true.  Global climate models are generally good at predicting long term global changes.  For the most part, we have issues with global climate models predicting regional climate changes or making good regional climate models.

 

So talking about any given aquifer is going to be an issue.

 

But generally making warm/hot areas hotter dries them out, and making cold areas warmer generates more precipitation there.

the added water would be rather insignificant as a % of the whole imo, but they claim water vapor as a greenhouse gas .....so ?

 

Of course I think added reductions to US co2 output would be insignificant

 

Yeah and the US unilaterally banning CFCs wouldn't have any impact on the ozone hole.

 

But we did it, and then most of the rest of the world followed and the problem of CFCs is at least greatly reduced.

 

Kinda funny how that happens when what people like to claim is the leader of the free world and the greatest nation on Earth actually acts like it.

Edited June 18, 2015 by PeterMP

[visionary]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/18/world/pope-francis-climate-technology-encyclical/index.html

Pope Francis: 'Revolution' needed to combat climate change

 

Pope Francis warned Thursday that a broad sweep of human activities -- from a blind worship of technology to an addiction to fossil fuels and mindless consumerism -- has brought the planet to the "breaking point."

 

"Doomsday predictions," the Pope said in a sharply worded manifesto, "can no longer be met with irony or disdain."

 

Citing scientific consensus that we are witnessing a "disturbing warming" of the Earth, Francis embraced the view that humans are largely to blame for a dramatic change in the climate.

 

Nothing short of a "bold cultural revolution" can halt humanity's spiral into self-destruction, the Pope warned.

 

"The earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth," Francis said. "In many parts of the planet, the elderly lament that once beautiful landscapes are now covered with rubbish."

 

The popular pontiff castigated big businesses, energy companies, short-sighted politicians, scurrilous scientists, laissez faire economists, callous Christians and myopic media professionals. Scarcely any area of society escapes his probing pen.

 

Though it ends with a prayer, it is a deeply pessimistic statement, at least in parts, particularly from a spiritual leader known for his hopeful messages of mercy and openness. People no longer seem to believe in a happy future, the Pope lamented.

Edited June 18, 2015 by visionary

[twa]

we have significantly reduced co2 already.... the rest?

[tshile]

I'm not sure how/why that would affect temperature significantly though.  We have a mechanism for affecting temperature (CO2 is a green house gas).  Making up a new one seems like reaching.

 

 

 

I'm operating under the assumption that, as far as water is concerned, the earth is a closed system. water moves or changes state, but otherwise we don't magically get/lose water?

 

if water is being moved from location to another, in significant quantities, i would think it would have an affect on water temperature? especially if the rate of water temperature change is related to the volume of water we're talking about? if it's not finding its way back to the aquifers, then it must be going to the ocean?

 

i don't know, it's why i was asking

 

i approach this topic the same way i approach most of the controversial science topics - i side with the majority of researchers while also understanding that there may be some factor they're not aware of that plays a role they haven't considered. so when NASA comes out with this report my first thought was 'lol water shortage', my second was how/if it could play a role in AGW/climate change.

 

as much as i side with the majority of researches on this issue at this time, i'm not opposed to the idea that they're wrong and one day we'll have a piece of information that reveals/explains that. i'm not convinced that'll happen but if it does i won't be the least bit surprised.

Edited June 18, 2015 by tshile

[PeterMP]

we have significantly reduced co2 already.... the rest?

 

I missed it.  When?

 

We had a slight step back mostly because of an economic recession, however, per capita or GDP we still have more emissions than much of the rest of the world.

 

Are you really calling that slight step back significant?

 

(We have fewer emissions than Canada per capitia, but more than essentially every other western country, and per GDP we are even larger then Canada.  We have lower emissions per GDP than China, but per capita.)

 

And other countries also have decreased CO2 production.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/13/3633362/iea-co2-emissions-decouple-growth/

 

China cut CO2 production by 1% in 2014.

 

While ours have gone up the last 2 years.

 

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=20872

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/14/us-carbon-emissions-rise-coal-energy

http://mashable.com/2015/04/20/united-states-greenhouse-gas/

 

We're trailing.  Not leading.

I'm operating under the assumption that, as far as water is concerned, the earth is a closed system. water moves or changes state, but otherwise we don't magically get/lose water?

 

if water is being moved from location to another, in significant quantities, i would think it would have an affect on water temperature? especially if the rate of water temperature change is related to the volume of water we're talking about? if it's not finding its way back to the aquifers, then it must be going to the ocean?

 

i don't know, it's why i was asking

 

i approach this topic the same way i approach most of the controversial science topics - i side with the majority of researchers while also understanding that there may be some factor they're not aware of that plays a role they haven't considered. so when NASA comes out with this report my first thought was 'lol water shortage', my second was how/if it could play a role in AGW/climate change.

 

as much as i side with the majority of researches on this issue at this time, i'm not opposed to the idea that they're wrong and one day we'll have a piece of information that reveals/explains that. i'm not convinced that'll happen but if it does i won't be the least bit surprised.

 

I edited presumably after you responded.  I think you are right with respect to water and it being a closed a system generally (realistically, we are constantly converting oxygen to water, but plants are converting water to oxygen).  Generally, precipitation is cooling (generally).  I'd expect if nothing else that bringing water to the surface because you increase its chances of precipitating or putting directly into the air (i.e. any thing that takes ground water and generates steam) would increase precipitation and be cooling, but I wouldn't expect the effect to be that great.

 

I don't know for sure.  I don't know of or really see a mechanism by which aquifer use would affect temperatures to any significant amount.

Edited June 18, 2015 by PeterMP