twa Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 2 hours ago, PeterMP said: I thought you were just putting it here? It sounds like you want to defend it. Like you think it has some actual merit. I think the surface temp measures have issues and agree with him the atmospheric ones don't bear out the alarmists alarm. Is that defending it or recognizing reality? The Arctic localized warming can be a natural fluctuation, it has certainly warmed before....that old wind,currents,rotation thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, twa said: I think the surface temp measures have issues and agree with him the atmospheric ones don't bear out the alarmists alarm. Is that defending it or recognizing reality? The Arctic localized warming can be a natural fluctuation, it has certainly warmed before....that old wind,currents,rotation thing How much warming does it require to be alarmist? What is the difference between the RSS satellite data and the surface temps vs. the UAH? Do you know or care? Is it just one satellite data set agrees with you and that's all you care about? Is there any reason to believe that the longer term trend in the Arctic is due to natural fluctuations? I mean it could be due to Santa's work house needing more energy to make all the toys for the growing Earth's population, but I'd bet against that. Edited January 21, 2017 by PeterMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 The warming rate I see from both the RSS and UAH does not alarm me, nor does it endorse the ignorant solutions proposed. The longer term Arctic trend till the next ice age begins?...or the shorter term one probably caused by natural fluctuations? Could be aliens ...or Al Gore and friends workshop since it is ice free The record land temp warming also doesn't distress me...well record within the margin of error Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, twa said: The warming rate I see from both the RSS and UAH does not alarm me, nor does it endorse the ignorant solutions proposed. The longer term Arctic trend till the next ice age begins?...or the shorter term one probably caused by natural fluctuations? Could be aliens ...or Al Gore and friends workshop since it is ice free The record land temp warming also doesn't distress me...well record within the margin of error What is the warming trend in the RSS compared to the surface temps? I am not sure the new record is within the margin of error for the rss. Based on orbital patterns, the arctic should be cooling and was doing so until recently. **EDIT** UAH has the temperature difference between 2016 and 1998 as 0.02 (this is a bit of a flawed comparison because it assumes equal El Nino's, but it is what was given in your article so let's work with it). Surface temperature sets have it as about 0.6 (or at least that's the linear trend since 1998, which isn't really an apples-to-apples comparison to the 0.02, but again from your article). RSS has the difference between 1998 and 2016 sort of preliminaryly (they are in the process of revising their stuff) at 0.31, which I guess is 1/2 the surface measurements, but is more than 10X the UHA data set. http://www.remss.com/node/5203 **EDIT 2** Starting from 1980 (so the longer term trend (I stated in 1980 because the satellite data started in 1979 so 1980 would be a 1st whole year I believe)), the trends look like: UAH: 0.012245 degrees/year GISS (NASA's surface): 0.0173041/year RSS: 0.0136413/year (this is their older version where their new version is showing more warming based on what they've done so far). 0.017/year is scary, but 0.0136/year isn't? How does that work? But really, the differences are small. I actually think the trend is probably less than that. The surface temperature data sets go back further. For a couple of different reasons, I think you can make the argument that we should be starting around the 1920s, which based on the GISS makes the longer term trend ~0.01/year That gives me a climate sensitivity for doubling CO2 ~2 degrees C. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Consensus_estimates "The 1990 IPCC First Assessment Report estimated that equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling lay between 1.5 and 4.5 °C, with a "best guess in the light of current knowledge" of 2.5 °C" Is that alarmist? Is there a reason we should ignore the longer term UAH/RSS trends? Edited January 22, 2017 by PeterMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 (edited) You guys who are arguing with twa just don't get it. edit: not that there's anything wrong with that. Edited January 22, 2017 by Sacks 'n' Stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted January 25, 2017 Author Share Posted January 25, 2017 Why 4.5 billion years of fluctuating global temperatures can’t explain climate change today Quote Illustrating the rise in global temperatures from 20000 BCE right up to 2016, nothing makes it more clear just how insane things have gotten during the fraction of Earth's timeline that humans have been dominating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Washington Post urging climate scientists to share research anonymously, as the White House has put a gag order on them. https://www.washingtonpost.com/securedrop/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted January 25, 2017 Author Share Posted January 25, 2017 2 hours ago, Springfield said: Washington Post urging climate scientists to share research anonymously, as the White House has put a gag order on them. https://www.washingtonpost.com/securedrop/ This is insane. Publicly funded research belongs to the american people. Ladies and gentlemen. When the government acts to suppress information like this, it's about time for a serious revolution. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 For real. What the **** is that all about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 1 hour ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said: For real. What the **** is that all about? I'd imagine a refocus effort like the CDC got on gun studies govt research is good, lobbying by dept's is not. of course I could be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 57 minutes ago, twa said: govt research is good, lobbying by dept's is not. I couldn't agree more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted January 25, 2017 Author Share Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) I see. So if the government research finds that a chemical in food is killing people, they shouldn't actually tell people about it or do anything. ******* genius. Here's reality: If the facts were on his side, Trump and his oil company buddies would be pushing the information out there. IT'S NOT. So he is suppressing information that taxpayers have paid for. Trump is a dangerous fool of a dictator, and democracy is dying right before our eyes. Edited January 25, 2017 by Mad Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 I'm sure you know the difference between lobbying and publishing research/ reporting findings. Politicizing science is dangerous like politicizing the military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 1 minute ago, twa said: I'm sure you know the difference between lobbying and publishing research/ reporting findings. Politicizing science is dangerous like politicizing the military. Can we agree that simply talking to the press or Congress about a findings does not necessarily equate to politicizing the science? And that seems to be what is banned and as such, this ban is over kill. (And certainly seems like an effort to keep results derived by taxpayer dollars out of the hands of taxpayers (i.e. to keep the public ignorant)). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 9 minutes ago, Mad Mike said: I see. So if the government research finds that a chemical in food is killing people, they shouldn't actually tell people about it or do anything. ******* genius. Here's reality: If the facts were on his side, Trump and his oil company buddies would be pushing the information out there. IT'S NOT. So he is suppressing information that taxpayers have paid for. Trump is a dangerous fool of a dictator, and democracy is dying right before our eyes. Democracy is being challenged before our eyes, threatened even, but that obliges us to stand up, speak out, defend it and even fight back. I understand what this means, more than simply empty bytes thrown to the interwinds, people will die. Hard words, hard concept but I believe it will come to this, people will die. People will die from ignorance, people will die from willful greed and even malice, and that's a damn shame. People may die standing against this, people may willingly sacrifice themselves to staunch the tide of insanity, and that is an investment in the future. While I might prefer better options I am not the one deciding on the choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 I've seen a excess in talking to the press and the public that goes well beyond reporting findings Peter. You are free to think differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, twa said: I've seen a excess in talking to the press and the public that goes well beyond reporting findings Peter. You are free to think differently. That's fine, but addressing it doesn't require a complete ban on talking to the press and Congress, does it? Beyond just the public right to know there are issues here with the first amendment (in terms of the scientists freedom of speech and freedom of the press), and the authority of Congress. You wouldn't cut off your finger to address a hang nail, would you? Edited January 25, 2017 by PeterMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 I'm sure the ban is just temporary, you know like drilling bans after disasters . certain areas need controlled at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, twa said: I'm sure the ban is just temporary, you know like drilling bans after disasters . certain areas need controlled at times. I strongly suspect the degree that the ban is lifted is directly related to the extent that people put up a stink over it. The last conservative administration in Canada put in regulations that limited the ability of scientists to discuss their results for essentially the whole time they were in office. Even in the context of scientific publications. In some fields, papers that were accepted by peer reviewed journals had to still be approved by people that were essentially political in nature. If this is just accepted by the public, the ban will in practice not be lifted (they might lift it in name, but put together a set of requirements that essentially make it impossible for the scientists and the press to communicate with one another in an effective manner). Edited January 25, 2017 by PeterMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 I wasn't too alarmed by the gag order but this is really quite something: Quote Scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency who want to publish or present their scientific findings likely will need to have their work reviewed on a "case by case basis" before it can be disseminated, according to a spokesman for the agency's transition team. If this is something that is adopted as permanent policy, it will be by far the most far reaching assault on the American science community. I will now wait for twa to tell me how this is totally normal because of his lifetime of work as a scientist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) 14 minutes ago, No Excuses said: I wasn't too alarmed by the gag order but this is really quite something: If this is something that is adopted as permanent policy, it will be by far the most far reaching assault on the American science community. I will now wait for twa to tell me how this is totally normal because of his lifetime of work as a scientist. This was policy in Canada under the Harper administration for people doing climate related reserach. You wrote your paper, got it approved by the journal, and then it had to go through an internal check (that was mostly political) before it could be published. Edited January 25, 2017 by PeterMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) We shall name it...the Office of Official Government Oversight Edited January 25, 2017 by The Evil Genius 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 19 minutes ago, PeterMP said: This was policy in Canada under the Harper administration for people doing climate related reserach. You wrote your paper, got it approved by the journal, and then it had to go through an internal check (that was mostly political) before it could be published. This seems potentially worse than what Harper admin did. This is government review before a journal editor even sees the work and assigns reviewers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 14 minutes ago, No Excuses said: This seems potentially worse than what Harper admin did. This is government review before a journal editor even sees the work and assigns reviewers. The Harper government did it that way so that they could deny it based on the changes that were made during review. They were viewing the final document. If you do it only before, then you lose control of changes made during the review process. The reviewers might request the removal or addition of statements that the government does not like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) 41 minutes ago, PeterMP said: The Harper government did it that way so that they could deny it based on the changes that were made during review. They were viewing the final document. If you do it only before, then you lose control of changes made during the review process. The reviewers might request the removal or addition of statements that the government does not like. I am not sure what journal will be interested in touching work that comes to their desk after undergoing internal review from a politicized government body. Especially in light of statements like these: Quote "We'll take a look at what's happening so that the voice coming from the EPA is one that's going to reflect the new administration," Ericksen told NPR. If I am a journal editor, my immediate concern is that this data cannot be fully trusted. Edited January 25, 2017 by No Excuses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now