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

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Let's suppose that global warming is a hoax (it's not). What does that mean? Deregulate? Pollute away?

[twa]

13 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Let's suppose that global warming is a hoax (it's not). What does that mean? Deregulate? Pollute away?

 

Changing regulation does not have to mean more pollution, in fact it can mean less.

 

Science tells ya there is more than one way to skin a cat

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

2 minutes ago, twa said:

Science tells ya there is more than one way to skin a cat

TWA's 4th grade science fair project was not well received.

[twa]

6 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

TWA's 4th grade science fair project was not well received.

 

I went with explosives, but yeah

[PeterMP]

18 hours ago, btfoom said:

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. 

Like your last post (where you seemed to have ignored my response), I am only going to respond to parts of your posts because I don't have the time to go through everything:

 

1.  There is nothing inconsistent with the concept of global warming and parts of the world cooling.  When people talk about warming, they talk about the average global mean and that is going up so far in a way very consistent with models (as I detailed in my response to your last post).

 

2.  Nobody that is taken seriously is talking about us becoming Venus.  The current consensus is to keep the increase below 2 degrees C.  We can blow by that and still not be Venus.

 

3.  The rate at which CO2 emissions since 2006 are going up have fallen.  The rate at which CO2 emissions were going up was faster than a linear rate.  That rate has decreased.  Partly, this was due to the global recession (that is still affecting some countries), the fracking boom which shifted use to natural gas, and because of government actions to actually lower CO2 production.  The US CO2 emissions per capita actually went dowon some.  The end result that is that somebody sitting in 2006 looking at rates of emission increases that said we had 10 years, probably today thinks we have at least 10 more years.  And realistically if the rate at which emission rates are increasing goes down between now and 2026, we might buy ourselves another 10 years.

 

(On a side note, I do disagree with Jansen on the general idea of a tipping point.  It is completely possible we have passed a tipping point.  It is not uncommon in systems to pass a tipping point without realizing you did until well after you have passed the tipping point.  Also though, it is possible that there is no tipping point.  There are plenty of systems where there is high reversibility in the system.  If there is a GHG tipping point in climate is not clear to me, and I suspect if there is one, it will not be clear that there was one until well after we passed it.

 

The other issues I always have is that climate change HAS happened, is happening, and having affects.  

 

 

The only real question is when is too much too much (and realistically, that's despite the fact that we spend more money than ever tracking and preparing for storms.  Despite our efforts, the costs of storms are increasing even when corrected for by inflation).  If we aren't going to do something about CO2 production, we need to do more about limiting the costs of storms because what we are doing now is just stupid.

 

To say it isn't too late to act does not make sense to me.  It is never going to be too late to act.  There is no magic line where on one side of the line we are not paying any costs for the warming that has happened and on the other we are.)

 

4.  Clouds are a complex thing.  It is clear their affects are variable. Clouds over the water do not have the same effect as clouds over the land and clouds at night do not have the same effect as clouds at night.  Low clouds do not have the same effect as high clouds and clouds in the tropics do not have the same effect as clouds near the poles.  However, most models do not include a strong cloud affect, and there is good evidence that if anything they are underestimating a positive feedback that will grow as the world warms:

 

https://www.llnl.gov/news/climate-models-underestimate-global-warming-exaggerating-cloud-brightening

 

Anybody that is pinning their hopes of decreased warming on clouds is practicing wishful thinking.  Not actually looking at the best available evidence.

 

6.  There is really no doubt that we are increasing CO2 levels.  It isn't all due to fossil fuels.  A good bit of it is changes in land use (e.g. cutting down trees and building parking lots).  There is no evidence that the rate at which natural processes generate CO2 has changed.

 

5.  There is no real evidence of a real climate based hiatus to warming where climate is a longer term events (i.e. decades) and weather can have shorter term impacts (at the level of years) on things like the global temperature.

 

 

(Note the graph is missing 2016 data which is going to be the warmest year on record in all of the temperature data sets).

 

(Relatedly:

 

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/prolonging-a-non-slowdown-in-global-warming/#more-9028

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/12/17/how-sheldon-walker-views-global-warming/#more-9145

)

 

Here's the same basic idea for a Contrarian view based on yearly  data:

 

I think it looks a little cleaner.

Edited December 17, 2016 by PeterMP

[btfoom]

On 12/17/2016 at 10:04 AM, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Let's suppose that global warming is a hoax (it's not). What does that mean? Deregulate? Pollute away?

First, the science has shown that 'global warming' has not been what has bee predicted by the models.  It is a hoax, deal with it.

 

There are lots of things that can (and are) being done to protect the environment.  Two completely different items.

 

By the way, even Obama seems to agree that the "Big Lie" about man made global warming needs to be protected at all costs, the science be damned:

 

http://freebeacon.com/politics/congress-obama-admin-fired-top-scientist-advance-climate-change-plans/

 

Congress: Obama Admin Fired Top Scientist to Advance Climate Change Plans Investigation claims Obama admin retaliated against scientists, politicized DoE

 

BY: Adam Kredo 
December 20, 2016 3:00 pm

A new congressional investigation has determined that the Obama administration fired a top scientist and intimidated staff at the Department of Energy in order to further its climate change agenda, according to a new report that alleges the administration ordered top officials to obstruct Congress in order to forward this agenda.

 

Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas), chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, released a wide-ranging reporton Tuesday that shows how senior Obama administration officials retaliated against a leading scientist and plotted ways to block a congressional inquiry surrounding key research into the impact of radiation.

 

A top DoE scientist who liaised with Congress on the matter was fired by the Obama administration for being too forthright with lawmakers, according to the report, which provides an in-depth look at the White House’s efforts to ensure senior staffers toe the administration’s line.

 

 

The report also provides evidence that the Obama administration worked to kill legislation in order to ensure that it could receive full funding for its own hotly contested climate change agenda.

 

The report additionally discovered efforts by the Obama administration to censor the information given to Congress, interfering with the body’s ability to perform critical oversight work.

 

“Instead of providing the type of scientific information needed by Congress to legislate effectively, senior departmental officials sought to hide information, lobbied against legislation, and retaliated against a scientist for being forthcoming,” Smith said in a statement. “In this staff report based on lengthy record before the committee, much has been revealed about how senior level agency officials under the Obama administration retaliated against a scientist who did not follow the party line.”

 

“Moving forward, the department needs to overhaul its management practices to ensure that Congress is provided the information it requires to legislate and that federal employees and scientists who provide that information do so without fear of retribution,” Smith said.<rest at link>

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

2 hours ago, btfoom said:

1. First, the science has shown that 'global warming'...

 

2.http://freebeacon.com/politics/congress-obama-admin-fired-top-scientist-advance-climate-change-plans/

 

Congress: Obama Admin Fired Top Scientist to Advance Climate Change Plans Investigation claims Obama admin retaliated against scientists, politicized DoE

1. Please explain. Also, what precisely is your expertise in this field?

 

2. Read several stories about it. Sounds like some slimey politics. It proves nothing about climate change though. The scientist who was fired wasn't talking about climate change at all. She was presenting on the effects of small doses of radiation to humans. The only connection was that her program was competing for funding with Obama's climate initiatives.

Edited December 21, 2016 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[PeterMP]

13 hours ago, btfoom said:

First, the science has shown that 'global warming' has not been what has bee predicted by the models.

 

This isn't true as I've addressed already in this post.  

 

Repeating it doesn't make it true.

Edited December 21, 2016 by PeterMP

[dcdiscokid]

On 12/17/2016 at 0:37 PM, PeterMP said:

(On a side note, I do disagree with Jansen on the general idea of a tipping point.  It is completely possible we have passed a tipping point.  It is not uncommon in systems to pass a tipping point without realizing you did until well after you have passed the tipping point.  Also though, it is possible that there is no tipping point.  There are plenty of systems where there is high reversibility in the system.  If there is a GHG tipping point in climate is not clear to me, and I suspect if there is one, it will not be clear that there was one until well after we passed it.

 

 

 

 

If we aren't already there we are quickly approaching it with what is going on at the poles. The more ice that melts the hotter the planet and water get, and the more ice that melts...

[tshile]

@PeterMP

I have a question for you... i actually enjoy your posts but I have an issue with the "the cost of storms has gone up" side of the statistics. To me it aligns with people talking about US debt in nominal figures...

 

I would imagine that, so long as we continue to have disastrous storms, the costs will continue to increase. Stuff becomes more expensive. Not just inflation, but the actual stuff people have. People carry $500 phones around in their pockets and 20 years ago majority of the country didn't carry around $500 worth total on their person day-to-day. The materials for houses are more expensive, we put more (and more expensive) stuff in them. We have build more homes. etc etc.

 

What am I missing? (I assume this isn't the first time you've seen a challenge to that, so I'm assuming I'm missing something)

 

[PeterMP]

5 hours ago, tshile said:

@PeterMP

I have a question for you... i actually enjoy your posts but I have an issue with the "the cost of storms has gone up" side of the statistics. To me it aligns with people talking about US debt in nominal figures...

 

I would imagine that, so long as we continue to have disastrous storms, the costs will continue to increase. Stuff becomes more expensive. Not just inflation, but the actual stuff people have. People carry $500 phones around in their pockets and 20 years ago majority of the country didn't carry around $500 worth total on their person day-to-day. The materials for houses are more expensive, we put more (and more expensive) stuff in them. We have build more homes. etc etc.

 

What am I missing? (I assume this isn't the first time you've seen a challenge to that, so I'm assuming I'm missing something)

 

 

Mostly, I think you are just wrong.

 

Home prices are essentially flat when adjusted for inflation over longer time periods (yes the bubble happen, and then it crashed and we pretty much are right back to where we started).  It is hard to argue costs to build homes are going up when home prices are not going up.

 

Over the period of time we are talking median wages aren't up that much (the storm values start in 1980 and over tripled.  Median wages are not going up that fast), and we know what are largely non-material costs in healthcare and education have gone up much faster than inflation.  It is hard to argue when wages are not going up that fast and people are losing more income to healthcare and education that people are spending that much more on stuff that can be destroyed in storms.

 

(Realistically, what people spend on has changed.  Phones cost a lot more, but other things cost a lot less or people don't buy at all).  

 

 

(The storm graph starts in 1980 and the value over triples.  All median household incomes have not come close to tripling in that time.)

 

The only real issue I can see is that we do have more people.  I guess what might make the most sense is an inflation and population adjusted measure, but I know of no such measure.

 

Can we agree that the amount of farm land hasn't gone up as the number of homes have gone up?  That we aren't losing more (inflation adjusted) dollars of crops because we are building more homes?

 

 

 

I took that from here:

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257633317_US_billion-dollar_weather_and_climate_disasters_Data_sources_trends_accuracy_and_biases

 

**EDIT**

Okay, looking corn and soybean yields are up so more soybean and corn is being generated in the US so therefore there would be more corn and soybeans to be destroyed that should be harvested but wheat is essentially flat since 1980.

 

http://www.roperld.com/science/cropsworld_us.htm

 

**EDIT 2**

Here's something else.  They are normalizing using a GDP based normalization and find for the US and Germany (where there are good long term data sets significant postivie trends.  Globally data is not available for as long and is likely not as high quality, they see several positive trends, but they are not significant.

 

http://www.cccep.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/WP30_insured-damage-natural-disasters.pdf

 

(I'm not sure their GDP based normalization is better than inflation adjusted, but it is something different.  They also do other things, like personal income and value of housing units for the US and see positive trends.)

 

This was actually cited in the story I linked to a page or 2 ago about Pielke his job for 538.

 

Edited December 22, 2016 by PeterMP

[Springfield]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/12/22/weather-buoy-near-north-pole-hits-melting-point/?utm_term=.c2c62e33a674

[Mad Mike]

On December 5, 2016 at 4:04 PM, twa said:

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/

 

 

 

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

Stil quoting propaganda sources I see.

[Mad Mike]

Earth Warming Faster Than Expected

[Mad Mike]

On December 20, 2016 at 8:27 PM, btfoom said:

First, the science has shown that 'global warming' has not been what has bee predicted by the models.  It is a hoax, deal with it.

 

There are lots of things that can (and are) being done to protect the environment.  Two completely different items.

 

By the way, even Obama seems to agree that the "Big Lie" about man made global warming needs to be protected at all costs, the science be damned:

 

http://freebeacon.com/politics/congress-obama-admin-fired-top-scientist-advance-climate-change-plans/

 

 

 

The Free Beacon? REALLY?

It should be mandatory to publicly ridicule anyone who considers such a blatant propaganda source to be reputable.

This is why I cant post here often. I would loose my **** if I had to read such drivel every day. The acceptance of such mind numbing ignorance for the sake of being polite is how we came to elect a moron like Trump.

 

2016 Climate Trends Continue to Break Records - NASA

 

Edited January 16, 2017 by Mad Mike

[twa]

6 hours ago, Mad Mike said:

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

Stil quoting propaganda sources I see.

 

Has increased domestic sources of NG reduced our co2 levels or not ? 

or have you run back to your safe place

 

[Elessar78]

The one line responses don't make you look clever or right. Put up something substantive.

[TradeTheBeal!]

This will end poorly.

[Mad Mike]

TWA is a troll. He doesn't have anything substantive to say. 

 

Meanwhile...

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2118093-global-sea-ice-is-at-lowest-level-ever-recorded/?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Facebook&utm_term=Autofeed&cmpid=SOC%7CNSNS%7C2017-Echobox

 

"

The extent of Arctic sea ice should be growing rapidly during the northern hemisphere winter. But not only has the Arctic been warming rapidly, this winter repeated incursions of warm air have pushed temperatures even further above average.

It has been so warm that on occasions this winter the sea ice coverage has actually temporarily shrunk, as shown by dips in the blue line in the graph below."

 

Edited January 16, 2017 by Mad Mike

[Mad Mike]

one more time.... 

Climate change and the fuel of denial

 

[FanboyOf91]

I wish all the climate change deniers would send winter to Florida. Save for that cold spell two weeks ago, it's basically been spring/autumn.

[PokerPacker]

Anyone read Bill Nye's Unstoppable?

[skinsmarydu]

On 12/17/2016 at 10:21 AM, twa said:

 

Science tells ya there is more than one way to skin a cat

And logic retorts, "Why do you need more than one way?"

 

[twa]

1 hour ago, skinsmarydu said:

And logic retorts, "Why do you need more than one way?"

 

Cause your way sucks? 

[Mad Mike]

People keep asking me if I'm mad while people like TWA keep making jokes. Meanwhile this is happening... I'm thinking yeah, I'm mad.

New studies show Rex Tillerson is wrong about climate risks

Quote

The Gulf Stream could shut down sooner than anticipated

 

The Gulf Stream – which keeps the UK and surrounding area significantly warmer than it would otherwise be – is part of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). Research has shown it could shut down as a result of global warming:

In 1997, the oceanographer Wallace Broecker, of Columbia University in New York, suggested that if the Gulf stream turned off, winter temperatures in the British Isles could fall by an average of 11°C - plunging Blackpool or Berwick to the same temperatures as Spitsbergen, inside the Arctic circle. Any dramatic drop in temperature could have devastating implications for agriculture - and for Europe’s ability to feed itself.

 

Just how quickly such a shutdown could happen has been a subject of debate and research among climate scientists. A study published in Science Advances in early January corrected for a bias recently identified in climate models that acted to keep the AMOC and Gulf Stream more stable than it appears to be in reality:

 

Freshwater continually flows into the northern Atlantic through precipitation, rivers and ice-melting. But supply of salty waters from the south, through the Gulf Stream System, balances this. If however the current slows, there is less salt supply, and the surface ocean gets less salty. This fresher water is lighter than saltier water and therefore cannot sink into the depths so easily. Since this sinking – the so-called deep water formation – drives the Gulf Stream System, the current continues to weaken. There is a critical point when this becomes an unstoppable vicious circle. This is one of the classic tipping points in the climate system.

"

 

Edited January 17, 2017 by Mad Mike