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

[btfoom]

14 minutes ago, Elessar78 said:

In addition to young earth creationists, if you don't believe climate change is real please stop using the internet.

again, you may not benefit from science while denying it.

Please stop the nonsense about climate change being AGW.  Yes, the climate changes often, and has done so through the age of the planet.  Nobody is claiming that there is no climate change.  

If you really know anything about science (and not control systems) then you shouldn't post about 'denying it'.  The people who see runaway global warming are seduced by models that they have no idea control their reporting. They don't know how the input affects the output, so stop with the constant trying to silence those of us who understand the real science.

[Elessar78]

More pseudo-science. On the level of Dr Mercola garbage.

Im not even debating this anymore because big boy scientists have given the verdict on this. 

 

[DogofWar1]

14 minutes ago, Elessar78 said:

More pseudo-science. On the level of Dr Mercola garbage.

Im not even debating this anymore because big boy scientists have given the verdict on this. 

At this point it's probably best for everyone to just start bracing for the consequences.  The battle to limit impact might be a lost cause because the people running the country for the next four years certainly have no interest in trying to limit it.

The one positive is that utilities have been transitioning away from dirtier fuels as renewables have dropped in price.  http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/11/environmentalists-get-a-dose-of-good-news-000233

May help to mitigate some of the issues, though of course we need that tech to trickle to other countries first to really help slow things down.

[Elessar78]

Arctic is 36 deg C warmer than normal.

scary **** to think what we've done. 

[PeterMP]

17 hours ago, btfoom said:

Maybe you should watch these things we who are in the Science community call "Facts" and "Data", not modeling that has nothing to do with the data unless it gets correlated (which it does not).

I'm going to try and address a few points, but not all your points because I just don't have the time.

First, with respect to the models and satellite data.

The CIMP5 ensemble is the models the gray bars show a 95% window for the models.  Remember, we are looking at different models and each model comes with an error associated with it so, we are looking we can think about the possible range of the model.  The lines are all satellite data.  The RSS v4 is the latest version based on a group called RSS.  The UAH is the data by Spencer, whom you quoted.  His latest version is UAHv6.

In general, the models do a good job.  In most cases, they are within 95% probability of getting the actual temperature.  The real outlier here actually appears to only be Spencer and his latest adjustment, which was down takes him further from all of the other data sets and the models.

In addition, unless something very odd happens, all of the temperature data sets are going to have 2016 as the warmest year on record, which is even going to place it above the mean of the models.  The 2016 point is going to be higher than the 1998 for all of the data sets, including the UAH (Spencer data set).  So in general, the models are doing a good job.

Now, with respect to the radiosonde data, I'm not sure why you would splice one graph onto another.  Are any of the colored lines equivalent to surface-100 MB?  How are feet connected to the idea of surface-100 MB?  Where is the surface data in the graph?  The older publication includes the surface data.  It is surface -100 MB.  I have no why you would even do that when the actual data exist, and he even accessed it to make the graphs that he made.  If there is a problem with the press release graph because they cut data off instead of going back to 1958, then he should just be able to plot all of the data going back to 1958 in one graph instead of splicing it onto a graph that includes radisonde data and surface data.  

He accessed the data to make the graphs that he made.  Now, I can't help, but notice the link he gave is dead.  Maybe they changed the link. I don't know, but here's the actual link.

ftp://ftp1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ratpac/ratpac-a/

You want the years to date file.  It comes a space delimited file.

The ratpac A data, which is what he's using to make the graphs was introduced in 2005:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005JD006169/abstract;jsessionid=9362189A4E9360A5951A5CA52D2D0186.f04t02 

At that time, they were getting a positive trend in the troposphere and a negative trend in the stratosphere (which is predicted by the models):

"The additional years of data increase trends to more than 0.1 K/decade for the global and tropical midtroposphere for 1979–2004. Trends in the stratosphere are approximately −0.5 to −0.9 K/decade and are more negative in the tropics than for the globe."

Now in 2014, they introduced v2 of Ratpac.  If they made a change in 2011, I can't find any record of it.  Version 1 and version 2 are both available on line.  He's linked to something that appears to be temperature data from 2011 from something, but you and I have no idea what it is.  I can easily compare the 2006 version (v1) with the 2014 version (v2).  The version 1 data is here:

ftp://ftp1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ratpac/v1/ratpac-a/RATPAC-A-year-to-date-layers.txt

Note, the version 1 data and version 2 data both share a parent directory so if you are getting version 2 and want version 1, it is just a couple of clicks away instead of linking to some undescribed link on the web:

ftp://ftp1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ratpac/

The link that he's comparing to from 2011 isn't a Ratpac file.  He's comparing a global temperature series related to balloon data to something else that is related, but not the same.

The Ratpac data in 2005 shows 0.1 K/decade of warming in the mid-troposphere in 2005.  The 2011 data file, he's linking to comes from this publication:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/angell/angell.html

" Based on data from Angell's global network of 63 radiosonde stations, over the period from 1958 through 2010, the global mean, near-surface air temperature warmed by approximately 0.18°C/decade, the 850-300 mb tropospheric layer warmed by about 0.09°C/decade"

The data is being analyzed differently (different baselines for example) vs. Ratpac in 2005, but they are showing you essentially the same thing a 0.09 C/decade trend vs. 0.1 C/decade trend is not significant.

If you wanted to make a point about older data as compared to new data, why wouldn't you be consistent and compare the trends and compare Ratpac A v1 (2005) to Ratpac A v2 (he used the version 2 data in his picture)?  The Ratpac A data is even older than the data in 2011.  If the data was being cooked from 2011 to 2016, certainly 2005 to 2016 would show the same difference.

Because if you do that, there is very little different between Ratpac A v1 and Ratpac A v2 because in general, they are being analyzed the same way so he went out and found another baloon data set that is different and didn't compare the trends (because the trends give you about the same result). 

As the Ratpac v1 and v2 are housed at the same site, and their date sets have a shared parent directory, I can't help, but think that he avoided that comparison on purpose.  And of course, he didn't mention the trends of any of the balloon data because they are all showing the same thing.

You are being lied to!

Here's an actual graph of the Ratpac v1 temperature data:

The 800-300 MB (the troposphere) with all of the data going back to 1958 shows a clear positive trend and that's based on the older analysis method.

Edited November 20, 2016 by PeterMP

[visionary]

 

[The Sisko]

People look at me funny when I see outcomes that are almost certainly due to climate change and I yell out loud sometimes...

 

 No, I don't blame them for looking at me funny. 

[twa]

Outcomes like reduced US co2 generation due to drill baby drill?....or was that some other outcome?

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/u-s-outshines-countries-carbon-dioxide-emissions-reductions/

 

 

 

[The Sisko]

Uh, yeah, right. Might wanna try that with someone who won't bother checking your sources.

Quote

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Energy_Research

Funding

EIN: 76-0149778
This is a 501(c)(03) public charity [1]

According to the ExxonMobils Corporate Giving Reports the IER received 307.000 US$ from the oil company or its foundation between 2003 and 2007.^[9] The institute also received 175.000 US$ from Koch Industries according to a Greenpeace report.^[10]

 

1

 

Tell your bosses you're going to need additional resources to properly fund your work. It is Xmas time, might wanna ask for a raise while you're at it. 

 

As for distal outcomes, you might want to think about the ever growing cost of responding to natural disasters. So yeah, drill baby drill!!

Edited December 6, 2016 by The Sisko

[twa]

So you deny the reduction here?

 

not very sciencey are you 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

I can't believe this is a "debate". We might as well be debating if the sky is blue. One group wants it to be orange and they're just going to keep on saying orange.

[twa]

 

not really a debate, more like a war

 

Quote

The Successful Progressive Conspiracy to Burn a 'Climate Heretic'

Wikileaks reveals how activists orchestrated a campaign to silence climate researcher Roger Pielke Jr.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/12/05/the-successful-progressive-conspiracy-to

 

 

[PeterMP]

On 12/6/2016 at 11:33 AM, twa said:

 

not really a debate, more like a war

 

 

 

It wasn't a conspiracy.  Lot's of people were publicly calling for Piekle to be fire EVEN before he wrote his first piece based on his history, and it became worse after it.  Anybody that thinks it was a conspiracy is either ignorant or a liar!

 

As one example:

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/03/nate_silver_climate_change_denial_it_s_time_to_dump_fivethirtyeight_s_roger.html

 

Your piece also misrepresents the rebuttal:

 

The rebuttal actually talks about things that HAVE happened and not just things that WILL happen based on models.  The rebuttal is not based only on what the models predict as suggested by the garbage you have posted.  For example:

 

" For Germany and the United States, with 29 and 36 years of data, respectively, they detected “statistically significant upward trends in normalized insured losses from all non-geophysical disasters as well as from certain specific disaster types,” but for the globe as a whole, with 19 years of data available, they could find no significant trends. "

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mit-climate-scientist-responds-on-disaster-costs-and-climate-change/

 

Pielke's piece was garbage for several reasons, including his graphs included geophysical disasters (e.g. earthquakes) that aren't (at least heavily) tied to climate change and are large drivers of losses when included and of course Pielke should have know this or at least could have easily found it out if he bothered to read the disaster related literature as it is openly in the public domain.  He was either incompetent or dishonest (and realistically likely both).  And so yes, people put a lot of pressure to have him removed..

 

Should people allow garbage to spread without calling out the people spreading the garbage and trying to prevent the further spread of garbage?

 

But hey, let's not get dragged down in to easily checked and verified facts (just like you didn't take the time to verify the facts when you made your post or didn't actually care about the facts (e.g you were either lazy, stupid, or dishonest)). 

 

Let's put more garbage out there and see what sticks, right?

Edited December 7, 2016 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

There is no doubt our CO2 production levels have come down partly due to increase use of natural gas and going back to 2007 partly because of the recession.

 

But by any reasonable measure (e.g. per capita or GDP) we easily still out produce much of the world, especially other developed western countries (e.g. Europe).

[twa]

14 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

It wasn't a conspiracy.  Lot's of people were publicly calling for Piekle to be fire EVEN before he wrote his first piece based on his history, and it became worse after it.

 

 

who did those people work for?

[PeterMP]

10 hours ago, twa said:

 

who did those people work for?

 

They worked for many different places, including Climate Progress.  The Climate Progress web page has a long history of housing pieces that attack Pielke.  That shouldn't have been an unknown to anybody paying attention.

Edited December 8, 2016 by PeterMP

[Springfield]

This one's good:

 

Weather Channel Brutally Owns Breitbart

Yesterday 5:54pm

Image: YouTube

The Weather Channel has been known to publish rubbish articles like “Woman Hit By Waves During Selfie” and “Before the Bikini: Vintage Beach Photos.” But even the channels’s thirsty editors can brutally own the internet’s bull**** vendors. A brand new segment calls out the climate change-denying reporting at Breitbart, and it’s two minutes’ of burns.

Reporter Kait Parker posted a compelling video today that condemns the conservative website for misrepresenting her own climate report as well as climate change data in general.

“Last week, Breitbart-dot-com published a story claiming global warming is nothing but a scare, and global temperatures were actually falling,” Parker says in her new video retort. “The problem is, they used a completely unrelated video about La Niña with my face in it to attempt to back their point.”

Parker is referencing a now-famous Breitbart story titled “Global Temperatures Plunge. Icy Silence From Climate Alarmists” that was published last week. The story was riddled with errors and erroneous scientific data. But what made matters worse is that the US House Committee on Space, Science, and Technology tweeted the story out as evidence of climate change denial.

 

The story alone wouldn’t have been so bad—Breitbart’s track record on science news is abysmal—but when the US House Committee tweeted out the link, it lent credibility to the story that it simply didn’t deserve. Scientistsand politicians voiced their frustrations to no avail. And Parker defended her story with good old fashioned facts, helping climate change skeptics understand what’s really happening to planet Earth as outlets like Breitbart mislead millions of readers.

 

Then, the Weather Channel launched an all-out assault against Breitbart News, and the lies it’s spreading about climate change. The team published a line-by-line retort to the false Brietbart post titled explaining how it got the facts wrong.

The skewered climate change article is hardly the only one of its ilk to grace the pages of Breitbart.com, though. The conservative website has been promoting misinformation about climate change for years, having published shady science stories with headlines like, “Rebutting Climate Alarmists With Simple Facts,” “Climate Change: The Hoax That Costs Us $4 Billion a Day,” and “Climate Change: The Greatest-Ever Conspiracy Against The Taxpayer.”

 

We’ve reached out to Breitbart for comment on the takedown and will update this post if we hear back.

 

http://gizmodo.com/weather-channel-brutally-owns-breitbart-1789750877?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_facebook&utm_source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

Edited December 8, 2016 by Springfield

[PeterMP]

The Antarctic sea ice is melting.  The western ice sheet appears to have weak spots along it.

 

http://phys.org/news/2016-11-west-antarctic-ice-shelf.html

 

And the Eastern ice sheet, which people thought was stable, is now showing signs of pretty large instability:

 

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/12/13/world/science-health-world/warming-seen-threatening-east-antarctica-ice-sheet-causing-global-mountain-glacier-melt/#.WFQ66FUrLDc

 

"East Antarctica’s massive ice sheet may be more exposed to global warming than long assumed, according to a study Monday that shows how strong winds can erode ice shelves that help hold it in place.

 

There is enough frozen water sitting on top of the world’s polar continent to raise sea level by dozens of meters and redraw the world map if it melts.

But understanding the dynamics of the region — which includes the much smaller West Antarctica ice sheet — has proven difficult.

Up to now, scientists have focused on the threat of West Antarctica.

Recent studies have suggested that climate change may already have condemned large chunks of its ice sheet to disintegration, whether on a time scale of centuries or millennia.

In contrast, ice covering East Antarctica was seen as far more stable, even gaining mass."

https://robertscribbler.com/2016/11/28/did-fohn-winds-just-melt-two-miles-of-east-antarctic-surface-ice-in-one-day/

---

Edited December 16, 2016 by PeterMP

[btfoom]

5 hours ago, PeterMP said:

The Antarctic sea ice is melting.  The western ice sheet appears to have weak spots along it.

 

http://phys.org/news/2016-11-west-antarctic-ice-shelf.html

 

And the Eastern ice sheet, which people thought was stable, is now showing signs of pretty large instability:

 

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/12/13/world/science-health-world/warming-seen-threatening-east-antarctica-ice-sheet-causing-global-mountain-glacier-melt/#.WFQ66FUrLDc

 

"East Antarctica’s massive ice sheet may be more exposed to global warming than long assumed, according to a study Monday that shows how strong winds can erode ice shelves that help hold it in place.

 

There is enough frozen water sitting on top of the world’s polar continent to raise sea level by dozens of meters and redraw the world map if it melts.

But understanding the dynamics of the region — which includes the much smaller West Antarctica ice sheet — has proven difficult.

Up to now, scientists have focused on the threat of West Antarctica.

Recent studies have suggested that climate change may already have condemned large chunks of its ice sheet to disintegration, whether on a time scale of centuries or millennia.

In contrast, ice covering East Antarctica was seen as far more stable, even gaining mass."

https://robertscribbler.com/2016/11/28/did-fohn-winds-just-melt-two-miles-of-east-antarctic-surface-ice-in-one-day/

---

So, even your own self-selected media shows that parts of the Earth are warming while parts are cooling.  How does this fit the narrative that humans, and specifically CO2, are leading to a run-away global warming that will make us into a new Venus?

 

Maybe some of you need to see the latest items showing the hysteria about man-made global warming is a scam:

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/03/shock-the-father-of-global-warming-james-hansen-dials-back-alarm/

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/

 

https://judithcurry.com/2016/12/15/the-latest-climate-conspiracy-theory/

 

https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/21/busting-or-not-the-mid-20th-century-global-warming-hiatus/

 

As I've said many times, If the OP had actually taken the GOP to court, he'd have been laughed out of court and still paying for their court costs. 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

16 minutes ago, btfoom said:

anything btfoom says

I don't know enough about the science to speak on global warming. I can tell you from my own observations that global stupiding is very real and is a serious threat.

[btfoom]

5 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

I don't know enough about the science to speak on global warming. I can tell you from my own observations that global stupiding is very real and is a serious threat.

Well, maybe you shouldn't criticize what I post (directly in your response) without knowing that I do know, directly through my job, about the science of global warming (and the non-science and hysteria about it as well).

 

By the way, please let us know your "own observations" that show "global stupiding (what is that???) is very real and a serious threat".  What exactly is the threat?  How is it 'very real'?

Edited December 17, 2016 by btfoom

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

40 minutes ago, btfoom said:

By the way, please let us know your "own observations" that show "global stupiding (what is that???) is very real and a serious threat".  What exactly is the threat?  How is it 'very real'?

Here's a radar map that shows some of the serious, and very real effects of exactly what I'm talking about right here in our own country.

 

[twa]

48 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

I don't know enough about the science to speak on global warming. I can tell you from my own observations that global stupiding is very real and is a serious threat.

 

I blame the internet.......and Al Gore

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

1 hour ago, btfoom said:

Well, maybe you shouldn't criticize what I post (directly in your response) without knowing that I do know, directly through my job, about the science of global warming (and the non-science and hysteria about it as well).

I've asked you this once before but could you give a little more detail about your job, then?

[twa]

the more ya know ,the more ya know

 

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-porter-ranch-soil-microbes-20161213-story.html

 

“People are quick to go out and find out what’s happening during an oil spill in the ocean, and I thought it made sense to do the same thing in the soils,” Tavormina said. 

The scientists sampled areas from about 40 yards to 2.5 miles from the Southern California Gas Co. leak site. They jammed PVC pipe about 20 inches into the earth, pulling up cylinders of soil that could be sampled at different depths.

That was the easy part.

Back in the lab, the samples threw the researchers for a loop. The typical methane-eating microbes in this soil community did not seem to be responding to the influx of natural gas. So the scientists ran a test looking for a wide array of enzymes with the ability to break down alkanes, a group of hydrocarbons that includes gases like methane and ethane.

The usual suspects were MIA, just as the usual microbes had been. But the scientists did discover plenty of an unexpected enzyme that seemed utterly out of place in the Porter Ranch soils. In fact, it was similar to one found in a very different type of bacteria that bloomed in the Gulf of Mexico after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

In Porter Ranch, however, this enzyme was being used by a previously unknown kind of Sphingobium microbe. Near the leak, these soil bacteria appeared to have experienced a massive population boom — the ones found near the rupture were about 100,000 times more abundant than those at spots that were farther from the leak. The scientists also saw the abundance of Sphingobium drop off over time, a sign that the surge was linked to the methane leak.

Here’s the really confusing part: The Sphingobium bacteria were not supposed to have this enzyme, and were not supposed to be eating methane in soil. That job was supposed to belong to other well-known microbes using different enzymes — which, in spite of the sudden abundance of natural gas, didn’t seem to be doing much at all. 

How did deep-sea microbes and surface-soil microbes, living worlds apart and in vastly different conditions, both end up with these so-called Group X enzymes?