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

[twa]

21 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

Need to point that they've had to retract.  They apparently messed up propagating their error.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/11/resplandy-et-al-correction-and-response/

 

Quote

 

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/culture-civilization/science/when-the-scientific-consensus-is-corrected-by-a-skeptic/

 

That “came to our attention” line conceals the most important aspect of the story. These scientists work out of Princeton University, the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, and various international institutions that make up the much lionized “scientific consensus” on climate change. And they had their landmark study debunked by an independent global-warming skeptic of no institutional standing named Nicholas Lewis.

Where did Lewis debunk the doomsayers? No, not in the esteemed pages of Nature but in a blog post at a website called Climate Etc., a small, dissenting dot in the vast universe of online science discussion. Lewis wrote: “The findings of the…paper were peer-reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media.” He went on: “Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results. Just a few hours of analysis and calculations, based only on published information, was sufficient to uncover apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations.”

Imagine a world in which we heard only from those pushing and applauding mainstream opinion. Or, perhaps, don’t imagine it; prepare for it. Only two days after Lewis wrote his post, the New York Times published an interview with Google CEO Sundar Pichai. The Times’s David Gelles asked Pichai why tech companies couldn’t just ban propaganda and misinformation from social-media platforms as they’ve done with pornography and violence. Pichai explained that it could be hard to figure out what exactly constitutes propaganda and misinformation. He then offered examples to explain the challenge: “Should people be able to say that they don’t believe climate change is real? Or that vaccines don’t work? It’s just a genuinely hard problem.”

 

 

[Larry]

Deleted

Edited November 17, 2018 by Larry

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, twa said:

 

 

 

Lewis had published climate related work in respectable peer reviewed climate journals.  He certainly could have done the same with what he did here.

 

Prior to the internet, the process would have been slower, but the end result would have absolutely been the same.

 

The idea that is implied here that Lewis' only outlet was Curry's page is a lie.

Edited November 17, 2018 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

18 hours ago, twa said:

sure hope this trend doesn't continue....I hate cold

 

The strength of solar cycles has been declining the last few decades.  Surface temperatures have not.  The changes in solar output due to strong solar cycles and weak solar cycles is not really that much.

[twa]

6 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

The idea that is implied here that Lewis' only outlet was Curry's page is a lie.

 

Is that what you got from it?

 

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2018/11/incredible-evidence-of-p-hacking-in-research-studies-demonstrated-with-one-chart.html

[PeterMP]

53 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Is that what you got from it?

 

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2018/11/incredible-evidence-of-p-hacking-in-research-studies-demonstrated-with-one-chart.html

 

Yes.  That idea was high lighted red right in the text of your OP.  There's no reason to believe that if Lewis had not been able to put on Curry's blog page that it still wouldn't have been published and the original work retracted.  That we wouldn't have heard from Lewis and heard of the retraction of the original work.

 

p-hacking is a serious issue when it happens and is generally treated seriously by the academic community when it becomes clear it is/has happened.

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/09/26/651849441/cornell-food-researchers-downfall-raises-larger-questions-for-science

 

But that does not appear to be what happened here at all.  There are no claims or evidence that the flaw here was the result of p hacking, and if there were, these authors would likely be out of jobs.

 

I have no idea why p hacking is at all relevant to anything in this thread, and I strongly suspect that you don't either.  I strongly suspect that your next post won't be connecting p hacking to anything in this thread.

Edited November 18, 2018 by PeterMP

[twa]

12 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Yes.  That idea was high lighted red right in the text of your OP. 

 

Odd, not at all what I get from the highlight.

 

I guess people do see what they are looking for.

[PeterMP]

15 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Odd, not at all what I get from the highlight.

 

I guess people do see what they are looking for.

 

Well, why don't you tell us what you get from it and why posted it then, especially the high light, and explain how it is connected to p-hacking while you are at it?

 

Like all your posts any more, the initial post was garbage, and you followed up with something irrelevant (which then really makes that a garbage post).

Edited November 18, 2018 by PeterMP

[No Excuses]

 

 

[LD0506]

[China]

In 200 years, humans reversed a climate trend lasting 50 million years, study says

 

What do scientists see when comparing our future climate with the past? In less than 200 years, humans have reversed a multimillion-year cooling trend, new research suggests.

If global warming continues unchecked, Earth in 2030 could resemble its former self from 3 million years ago, according to a study published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds.

During that ancient time, known as the mid-Pliocene epoch, temperatures were higher by about 2 to 4 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) and sea levels were higher by roughly 20 meters (almost 66 feet) than today, explained Kevin D. Burke, lead author of the study and a researcher and Ph.D. candidate at the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

 

Today is "one of the most difficult scenarios we've ever found ourselves in," Burke said. "This is a very rapid period of climatic change. Looking for anything that we can do to curb those emissions is important."

Climate scientists say that our globe is about 1 degree Celsius hotter today than it was between 1850 and 1900 and that this is due in part to gas emissions from cars, planes and other human activities. Some gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, trap heat in the atmosphere, producing a "greenhouse effect" that makes the planet warmer.

 

The new study is basically "a similarity assessment," Burke said. "We have projections of future climate available for the year 2020, 2030 and so forth." For nearly 30 future decades, then, he and his co-authors drew future-to-past comparisons based on six reference periods.

The reference periods were the Historical, about mid-20th century; the Pre-Industrial, around 1850; the mid-Holocene, about 6,000 years ago; the last Interglacial Period, about 125,000 years ago; the mid-Pliocene, about 3 million years ago; and the early Eocene, about 50 million years ago.

If we continue our current level of greenhouse gas emissions -- what some would say is a "business as usual" scenario -- the overall global climate in 2030 will most closely resemble the overall climate of the mid-Pliocene period, Burke said.

What did Earth look like then? Annual temperatures on average were about 2 to 4 degrees Celsius warmer than today, there was little permanent ice cover in the Northern Hemisphere, and the sea level was about 20 meters higher.

In some places, though, including cities in the United States, temperatures in 2030 would be roughly double the global average.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

 

 

[FanboyOf91]

 

[FanboyOf91]

 

[PleaseBlitz]

https://weather.com/science/environment/news/2019-01-15-antarctic-ice-loss-six-times-more-than-40-years-ago

 

Quote

An alarming new study found that Antarctica is losing six times more ice each year than it was 40 years ago. Researchers believe the accelerated melt could cause sea levels to rise at a quicker rate than predicted in coming years.

 

"That's just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak," the study's lead author, Eric Rignot, who serves as a research scientist for both NASA and the University of California — Irvine, said in a university press release. "As the Antarctic ice sheet continues to melt away, we expect multi-meter sea level rise from Antarctica in the coming centuries."

 

From 1979 to 1989, Antarctic glaciers saw some 40 billion tons of ice melt each year. That amount jumped to 252 billion tons each year starting in 2009, the stud published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found after observing data from 176 drainage basins over 18 regions.

 

Currently, the Antarctic ice sheet holds about 90 percent of the world's ice, and if it were all to melt, sea level would rise some 240 feet, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. If the rest of the glacier ice on Earth were to melt — a measly 25 feet on top of Antarctica's drastic total — every coastal city on the planet would flood.

 

[No Excuses]

1 hour ago, FanboyOf91 said:

 

 

We are still a couple years away from the business community realizing that they should have listened to the scientists earlier. 

 

I think the banks are almost there. Venture Capital is kind of their too. Not all of them, but a radical transformation of the private sector towards more sustainabile practices is inevitable IMO purely because of economics. 

 

I attended a Synthetic Biology conference last year where I learned just how much this relatively new field has already disrupted the petrochemicals sector. From what data is available, it seems Syn Bio companies have already overtaken 1/6th of the petrochemicals sector. 

 

[PeterMP]

Just want to point out global CO2 levels are still increasing.  Emissions are increasing.-reached a global high based on best estimates.  US emissions are going to be up for 2018.

 

Oh and the oceans are warming faster than we thought:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2019/jan/16/our-oceans-broke-heat-records-in-2018-and-the-consequences-are-catastrophic

 

Oh and emissions are down in Germany with positive GDP growth.

 

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-co2-emissions-set-fall-strongly-2018

 

 

Edited January 16, 2019 by PeterMP

[twa]

Germany 

 

due to warmer weather and higher priced electricity

[PeterMP]

11 hours ago, twa said:

Germany 

 

due to warmer weather and higher priced electricity

 

You don't generate less CO2 because electricity prices went up.  You generate less CO2 if people use less electricity.  Is there a reason that people using less electricity is inherently bad?

 

They increased production of electricity through non-fossil fuels also increased.  Overall renewables were up 3%.   Wind power generation was up 13%.  Solar up 14%.  Those are the result of real investments in long term infrastructure.

[twa]

9 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

You don't generate less CO2 because electricity prices went up. 

 

your links says they did.....and not to expect lower emissions to last

 

it is true they expanded electricity generation with non-fossil fuels.....in a highly erratic fashion that requires dumping it for nothing at peak production and buying it at higher prices from other countries when it craters.

 

do they count the CO2 emissions from imported electricity?

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, twa said:

 

your links says they did.....and not to expect lower emissions to last

 

it is true they expanded electricity generation with non-fossil fuels.....in a highly erratic fashion that requires dumping it for nothing at peak production and buying it at higher prices from other countries when it craters.

 

do they count the CO2 emissions from imported electricity?

2 hours ago, twa said:

 

your links says they did.....and not to expect lower emissions to last

 

it is true they expanded electricity generation with non-fossil fuels.....in a highly erratic fashion that requires dumping it for nothing at peak production and buying it at higher prices from other countries when it craters.

 

do they count the CO2 emissions from imported electricity?

 

The link said that demand dropped for a number of reasons, including higher prices.  Using less electricity causes less CO2 production.  Raising prices alone doesn't cause CO2 emission to drop, but using less electricity, which higher prices encourage, does.  So I'll ask again, what is inherently wrong with people using less electricity?

 

Germany is actually a net exporter of electricity.

 

https://www.renewable-ei.org/en/activities/column/20180302.html

 

France doesn't actually generate enough electricity during periods of high demand to meet their needs with their nuclear power so they end up buying electricity from Germany.  Then, when demand is low, France generates more power then they need so Germany buys it (cheaply) (You don't just turn nuclear power plants off when demand is low).  Germany does do the same with some its other neighbors with respect to not clean electricity (e.g. coal), but if you are going to punish them for importing (cheap) dirty electricity at times of low demand, then you have to give them credit for exporting green electricity to France and some of their other neighbors when demand is high.

 

Germany is also heavily invested in home solar batteries (and the prices of home Li solar batteries is dropping make this more affordable), which helps even out their issues with supply and demand from solar.  They went the wrong way with cars going to diesel instead of electrics, but after the issues with companies lying about emissions, they are now going the other way, which will also help them reduce CO2 emissions and help even out supply and demand issues by encouraging people to charge their cars at peak production times by offering low electric prices.

 

It is clear that Germany is generating more electricity every year with renewables, while lessening excess demand.  It isn't clear if they are doing enough fast enough to keep up with a growing economy and population.  But that also doesn't mean the same won't happen next year too.

 

Are they going to be down 7% again this year, probably not, but that doesn't mean they won't be down period.

Edited January 17, 2019 by PeterMP

[twa]

https://stopthesethings.com/2019/01/06/germanys-renewable-energy-fail-german-co2-emissions-10-times-higher-than-nuclear-powered-france/

Germany’s Renewable Energy Fail: German CO2 Emissions 10 Times Higher than Nuclear-Powered France

 

 

[Larry]

Wow. You mean a "renewable" plan, which is built around the concept of producing CO2, and then removing it (by replacing the plants you burned), produces more CO2 than forms which neither produce nor remove it?  

 

You sure convinced me to abandon renewables (and go back to burning things and not replacing them). 

[twa]

I'm fine with Germany to keep burning Texas wood while wrapping themselves in green. .....not like I have to pay for it.

 

btw, the neighbors are setting up roadblocks to Germany dumping energy to save their systems

 

 

Quote

 

Indeed, the Netherlands already has a phase shifting transformer on the German border to give it the option of rejecting imports, and both Poland and the Czech republic are in the process of taking similar self-defensive measures. – They do not wish to expensively reinforce their systems to carry surplus wind and solar energy from Germany. 

https://www.thegwpf.com/german-electricity-exports-and-the-european-internal-energy-market/

 

 

 

[Larry]

Oh, no. You mean Germany's energy system (which you are trying to paint as a failure) is producing so much surplus energy that their neighbors are afraid that their networks can't tolerate the electricity?

[twa]

9 hours ago, Larry said:

Oh, no. You mean Germany's energy system (which you are trying to paint as a failure) is producing so much surplus energy that their neighbors are afraid that their networks can't tolerate the electricity?

 

certainly at peak times ....you do know too much crashes the system?

You do know the peaks and valleys(which also is a problem) do not align with needs?

 

throw in crap like the feed in tarrif and poof

 

Quote

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/369386-germany-shows-how-shifting-to-renewable-energy-can-backfire

Mismatching supply and demand isn’t the only problem that variable renewables create - there are also environmental costs. As energy policy expert Richard Martin of the MIT Technology Review wrote last year of Germany’s renewable energy policy, “after years of declines, Germany’s carbon emissions rose slightly in 2015, largely because the country produces much more electricity than it needs.”

Germany has to produce extra electricity in part because the wind might flag or clouds might obscure the sun. If that happens and there aren’t other sources that can be ramped up running in the background, the grid fails and creates blackouts.

Usually, the sources kept running as a safeguard against grid failures caused by calming winds and clouds are dirty energy sources like coal. In fact, since Germany has been phasing out much of its nuclear power they’re left with few options other than coal.

Thus, Energiewende has required that Germany build more coal fired electricity plants; 10 gigawatts worth in the last several years. In sum, despite Germany’s expensive and exuberant renewable energy support, they aren’t even achieving their supposed goal of lowering carbon emissions. This is true even though renewables make up about 40 percentof Germany’s total electricity supply.

Negative electricity pricing is driven, at least in part, by the aggressive energy policies taken up by governments that spurred huge increases in renewable energy deployment.

At first glance, this appears to be a boon to the environment and consumers who are paid to use electricity. A closer look, however, reveals that negative prices do neither of these things. Instead, negative prices come at the expense of both the environment and the average taxpayer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 18, 2019 by twa