Perhaps we should wait and see or at least understand any potential action before jumping to conclusions? AFAIK, Trump hasn't done anything yet... after all, he's not the President yet.
California Governor Jerry Brown promises that no matter how "absurd" the upcoming Republican presidential administration's response to climate-change science, the state of California will be ready with a robust response – with weapons ranging from satellites to databases to lawyers. Speaking at the American Geophysical Union's …
"Brown is talking about potentially defying the Federal Government." - Kook
Are you trying to say that the Republicans will prevent private individuals from launching climate monitoring satellites so that they can hide and deny the reality of Global Climate Change?
Wouldn't that deceit be grounds for impeachment?
Are you trying to say that the Republicans will prevent private individuals from launching climate monitoring satellites so that they can hide and deny the reality of Global Climate Change?
You can get the data from the Sentinel series run by ESA anyway. It is nearly a decade ahead of USA in terms of available civilian observation precision and capacity because the NASA squeeze which Trump is threatening to do, has been done by the congress for years.
To add insult to injury, ESA publishes a lot of the data free of charge.
So in fact, if Trump and Co are to achieve their aim to prevent the observation of the Earth for climate research purposes, they will have to prohibit America access to European data and/or have a nice shoot-em-up spree testing the Aegis and other Star Wars missile systems on European targets.
"If Brown attempts to defy the Office of the President as this article implies, he could be easily charged with sedition." - Kook
Not by the definition of sedition used by the federal government.
You seem to think that the presidents whims must be followed and adherence to those whims is enforced by law.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
If Brown takes real steps to subvert the laws of the Federal government, no matter how well intentioned, from a PR standpoint not only will it go badly for him, but he faces federal charges. While Barry Obama might have been lax when his own party's governors blatantly defied him, Trump may not be so forgiving. If Brown attempts to defy the Office of the President as this article implies, he could be easily charged with sedition. Trump might provide us with the entertainment of arresting a sitting governor.
Dude, I'm British, and even I can see you haven't the foggiest idea how the US federal / state system works (or should I say "works"?) There's nothing to say state governors or Congresses have to support or align themselves with federal policy, or that it's "sedition" to do things contrary to the desires of the President. I know the country's in a hell of a mess right now, but it's not /THAT/ bad.
Bad idea. It will be too late. My governor knows what to do, and he's doing it. GO GOV MOONBEAM!!1!
Science is knowledge. Whether you like the knowledge or not, after the peer reviewing is done then it is known and available for use. No amount of political bullshit can cover up how far we've come in the understanding of how our world and universe work. Douchebags consider the what ifs when the real knowledge is already there. What if it's not man-made climate change but rather Leprechauns? That is how stupid people deal with it. Throw more bullshit to try and cover everything in it. Nice try, but people with IQs over 90 understand this.
Also, to reply to the above post; we DO know what he's up to. We can see it everyday in the shitheads he's gathering around himself for the highly paid job of Yes Man. There is no need to "wait and see." Fucking act NOW!
HACK THE USA on 1/20/17...
"Whether you like the knowledge or not, after the peer reviewing is done then it is known and available for use"
Good! I want you to keep that in mind! Because Lord Monckton just released a soon to be peer reviewed paper which details the mistakes made in the current climate model showing where it is flawed thereby proving there is no climate change.
Sorry chicken little. You're losing on ALL fronts! No more free Government money for you!
This is a three sided, rigged, FAKE debate by Alarmist BIG Darth and Luke LITTLE Warmist, both ignoring the learned Obie NO Warmists. One cannot describe a chaotic, dynamic system with a single parameter, anecdotal hypothesis, or correct that false hypothesis with a coefficient.
"One cannot describe a chaotic, dynamic system with a single parameter" - Kook
Yup. And now you know why scientists call it "climate change", while the unwashed masses call it "Global Warming".
Seems to me that you need a bath.
I am assuming Faux Science Slayer is the latest incarnation of amanfromars and as such his incomprehensible witterings are welcome.
He usually makes my head spin, and means nothing, but is harmless.
At least I think he is.
I am assuming Faux Science Slayer is the latest incarnation of amanfromars and as such his incomprehensible witterings are welcome.Dunno about amanfromars being Faux's sock puppet but incomprehensible is accurate, not to mention incoherent. He does have a website if you find his witterings amusing.
"This is a three sided, rigged, FAKE debate by Alarmist BIG Darth and Luke LITTLE Warmist, both ignoring the learned Obie NO Warmists. One cannot describe a chaotic, dynamic system with a single parameter, anecdotal hypothesis, or correct that false hypothesis with a coefficient."
Only those who are profoundly ignorant, ill-educated, ill-informed or who in the pay of oil and coal companies deny the reality of climate change.
When the vast majority of the world's science academies, atmospheric physicists and professional meteorologists all accept that climate change is happening and that humans are the primary cause then everyone else ought to wake up and pay attention.
"Only those who are profoundly ignorant, ill-educated, ill-informed or who in the pay of oil and coal companies deny the reality of climate change."
You just described 40 percent of the American population, and I am not sure it might be higher. At least if describes the 25 percent of the population which showed up and voted for the man of Orange.
This is USA and the anglosaxon way in general. Issue threats and bargain.
You, my friend, have been infected by Slavic thinking. It is their custom to await a potential action, not issue any threats in advance, just raise an eyebrow again and again at your continued infractions. When you finally cross the line they make sure you never ever bother them again. The place where the line is drawn may differ (from a few inches away in Poland, to parsecs away in Bulgaria), but it is a line none the less. You cross it - you understand why the old Bulgarian National Anthem starts with with "Maritza river will become a raging torrent running red with (Turkish) blood". That and the real meaning of "Farewell of the Slavic Woman" (regardless is it the Russian or the Polish Armia Kraiova version) (*).
The Anglo-Saxon way is not that. You have to lay down your threats in advance, show off your missiles and lawyers at their launchpads and demonstrate that you are ready to use the launch codes for either.
Gov Brown is operating according to the custom of his country and his upbringing, nothing new here. Move along
(*)This is why anglosaxons continuously bitch about Slavic unfathomable behavior. Nothing really unfathomable about it.
"AFAIK, Trump hasn't done anything yet...[...]"
He is appointing his administration to take over the important positions in January. He seems to be confirming his presumed denial of climate change. Whether Congress will refuse to confirm some of his appointees is a moot point.
Quick question: wouldn't it be reasonable to call someone who disputes the reality of evolution a person who "denies" evolution? Would you call someone who disputes the reality of heliocentrism a "denier" of heliocentrism?
The basic — and may I repeat that? thanks: "basic, basic, basic, basic" — and irrefutable physics behind the blockage, absorption, and re-radiation of long-wave radiation by large, active molecules such as CO2, CH4, N2O, and the like, and how that blockage and re-radiation warms the troposphere, surface, and ocean in quite easily measurable and quantifiable amounts while concomitantly and measurably cooling the stratosphere, have been well-demonstrated for many decades. Someone who calls that solid physics into question — oh, and not the intense and active squiggling around the margins regarding future effects and considered solutions, which many reasonable scientists still debate — are, quite simply, deniers of irrefutable facts. "Truth," one might even say.
"Deniers" is not a "pejorative" term. It's simply an accurate identification.
Oh, and when you have a free nanosecond, hop aboard some of the right-wing wacko websites and see who really are the "fanatics" who want to burn their enemies "at the stake." It ain't the scientists, kiddo.
The basic — and may I repeat that? thanks: "basic, basic, basic, basic" — and irrefutable physics behind the blockage, absorption, and re-radiation of long-wave radiation by large, active molecules such as CO2, CH4, N2O, and the like, and how that blockage and re-radiation warms the troposphere, surface, and ocean in quite easily measurable and quantifiable amounts while concomitantly and measurably cooling the stratosphere, have been well-demonstrated for many decades.
Sadly their effect on climate - essentially zero - has also been demonstrated for many decades.
If you actually care to run the numbers, you will find that the physics alone gives almost no importance to CO2.
The AGW theory has had to 'improve' on the physics by adding the completely unjustified concept of 'positive feedback' whose presence should have been revealed by atmospheric hotspots and particular distributions of temperature that have absolutely never been observed.
'Climate sceptics' do not deny climate change, or the physics of IR absorption. And its significant that these are always the straw men used to discredit them.
In reality the 'climate deniers' are those who cling to theories based on a feedback system supported by commercial and political interests, but sadly not by the data.
I'm quite sorry, but you are quite seriously, scientifically, and undeniably quite in error. You assert without evidence.
If you could do me the kind favor of citing peer-reviewed, well-supported, and non-moronic papers supporting your silliness, I'd be more than happy to refute them, one by one.
"I'm quite sorry, but you are quite seriously, scientifically, and undeniably quite in error. You assert without evidence."
We've all heard the arguments many times. Face it, your horse is dead. You can beat it all day long but it ain't gonna plow. Far too many intelligent commentors here disagree with you for you to be so categorically correct.
Get back to us when the temps start to rise again, okay? Heck, just the ocean would be enough.
@Big John: "Get back to us when the temps start to rise again, okay?"
Hmmm ... here's one dataset in which you might be interested: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Or do you not believe that one simply because it's "from duh gub'mint?" If not, how 'bout http://bit.ly/1ot2Lpu
Still too governmental? Then how 'bout the satellite dataset that climate-science deniers — okay, "contrarians" — seem to prefer: http://bit.ly/2hQksAC
Or what datasets are you talking about?
I don't recall "Birther" ever being okay, except to those leftists trying to stick it on people who have a serious problem with the veracity of Obama's digital birth certificate. Obama was more or less forced to release a file of a photocopy,but only after Obama quietly fought the release in court for two years.
That was suspicious enough, but then people started noticing obvious signs of forgery within the supposed "photocopy."
This was not going to end well for Obama, so the entire Left went into battle mode against anyone who dared utter these thoughts. "Birther" was a direct copy of Denier, which is also used against the Left's enemies on the AGW front. To this day it's verboten for anyone to mention the subject without being labeled 'insane' by the howling mob. Victory!
I wouldn't say you are called insane anymore. Just 'a racist wanker' covers it nicely.Because my father was an Ashkenazim? I think the shoe might belong on the other foot.
Isn't it amazing what passes for "scientific" argument among The True Believers?
Arctic Ocean is cooling -- and so the Arctic ice sheet isn't so small these days? The photos are doctored by evil henchmen?You might wish to read what NASA has to say. Summarised:
1. Eight times during the ~30 years of satellite monitoring, the ice sheet has been broken up by summer storms.
2. The wind has driven the disintegrated icepack out of the polar circle.
3. Ice is an insulator, so heat can escape the now open ocean, warming the atmosphere by convection and radiation.
4. When heat leaves, whatever it's leaving cools, in this case the ocean and this is corroborated by in situ temperature measurements..
5. Some of the radiative heat goes straight to space, some is absorbed by molecules of CO2 in the atmosphere. Somewhat more than 50% of this heat is reradiated to space.
6. Heat is exiting the planet via the poles. Not a novel observation in climatology.
You swallowed that one? Looks like you've just demonstrated your scientific illiteracy. You can't declare any year the warmest when the difference in measured temperature is less than the margin of error. You probably won't understand what I've just typed which makes the whole thing even more hilarious.
You can't declare any year the warmest when the difference in measured temperature is less than the margin of error.Er, actually you can and the evidence suggests that they do declare year XXXX "the warmest evah" with considerable frequency. It's worth understanding what's going on here. First, it's an average temperature. Note bene "an", not "the" average. There are ever so many different averages: arithmetic, root mean square, median etc. When the "highest temperature evah" is declared, it's the arithmetic mean of a mixture of arithmetic means and medians.
Second important point is that the rise is almost entirely due to overnight temperatures in winter and mostly where temperature recordings are sparse. Quite how that's causing the planet to "burn" escapes me.
If you could do me the kind favor of citing peer-reviewed,
Since 97% of peer-reviewing is done by the plas of the authors of the papers being reviewed saying that makes it 'correct' is nonsense.
You must also look at exactly how much of the 'warming' data is produced. For example, Dr Gavin Schmidt caught fudging data by wayback machine which makes thinking people wonder how much else these climate scientists have 'adjusted' their data to fit the narrative rather than fitting the narrative to the data.
Since 97% of peer-reviewing is done by the plas of the authors of the papers being reviewed saying that makes it 'correct' is nonsense.
I have reviewed papers. Without being a pal or anything. Most cases, where the paper was so sh*t that my Dad decided that it is bad for his blood pressure. His kill ratio (not counting the ones he gave to me to disembowel) was somewhere around 70%.
I have had papers reviewed. I do not recall any of the reviewers being a pal of mine. I have worked (and have publications) in 3 completely unrelated scientific fields by the way - Organic Chemistry, Molecular Biology and Numerical Methods (Applied Mathematics).
You, my friend, have never worked in R&D and Science and I suggest you locate your hot air valve and drop the pressure a bit.
I have had papers reviewed. I do not recall any of the reviewers being a pal of mine. I have worked (and have publications) in 3 completely unrelated scientific fields by the way - Organic Chemistry, Molecular Biology and Numerical Methods (Applied Mathematics).I have absolutely no doubt that what you write is true. But that doesn't mean that skulduggery never takes place.
Climatology has been pretty smelly for several decades now. Von Storch attributes this to a remarkably small clique, only perhaps 30-40. But then until Hansen's 1988 paper it was a discipline few aspired to.
Happily there appears to be some turning of the tide and there's been several interesting papers published of late.
"Sadly their effect on climate - essentially zero - has also been demonstrated for many decades."
What has been demonstrated for many decades is the existence of several carbon sinks and heat sinks that to this day have kept the issue relatively in check by acting as carbon and/or heat buffers. The deniers side claims that those sinks will hold for ever against anything we throw at them, which is clearly contrary to all the currently available data and also to elementary logic.
Just to give an example, one of these sinks -probably the most important- is the oceans, which have been capturing and storing carbon for thousands of millions of years, causing climate to support life as we know it. The bad news is that this carbon sink is already failing, causing the oceans to acidify very noticeably, as proved by many -scientific, peer reviewed- studies.
This acidification is caused mainly by CO2 dissolved in seawater, and has caused already noticeable and well documented effects*. There are very strong hints that for this particular carbon sink, the tipping point may already have been reached. There are many studies regarding how this acidification is affecting coral reefs (which store teratonnes of carbon in coral skeletons), sea animals shells (ditto), and phytoplankton (that stores huge amounts of carbon in microscopic algae's bodies, frees a big fraction of the O2 we need to breath and is the base of the oceans food chain).
So, yes, in this context, "Deniers" is a pejorative term, but also very precise, as they are denying lots and lots of very strong scientific evidence. Whether they're doing it because they're stupid, scientifically illiterate, just crazy, or have vested interests in the matter and don't give a shit about the consequences for the survival of life on Earth -including human life- is a different matter. If you define yourself as an AGW denier, the next time you feel ill you should ignore all this Science thing and go straight to a bloodletter, for the sake of consistency.
Note*: as an example, I provide you with a few links to peer reviewed articles and studies (there are many many more, google them yourself) regarding the effects of human activity on coral reefs:
The last link includes a nice graphic explaining the issue in very simple terms. If you disagree with any part of that graphic, please explain why. Else, STFU.
<I>The bad news is that this carbon sink is already failing, causing the oceans to acidify very noticeably, as proved by many -scientific, peer reviewed- studies.</I>
Now I know you are a nutter!
<b>The oceans can only become acidic if the earth runs out of rocks!</b>
Most of those peer-reviewed studies were total rubbish where eg researchers chucked large doses of hydrochloric acid into the water to see how fish or coral reacted and found that it didn't go well. The fact that this research got past peer review shows that peer review is not doing what you and other people think it is doing and is a crock.
"The oceans can only become acidic if the earth runs out of rocks!"
Citation required. Take your time.
Reasons for this statement of yours being utter rubbish:
Most rocks in the ocean's floor are calcareous deposits. Guess what happens when you put calcareous rocks in acidic -i.e. containing lots of H2CO3- seawater. Nah, I'll save you the effort: part of the calcium combines with other elements and forms more stable salts that precipitate as solids. Therefore more CO2 than the amount 'neutralized' gets freed from said rocks. It's exactly the same process that shells and coral skeletons -also made of calcium carbonate- undergo. Lots of studies about this, some of them dated almost a century ago. Google them yourself, as I don't consider saving you from your ignorance one of my priorities.
"Most of those peer-reviewed studies were total rubbish where eg researchers chucked large doses of hydrochloric acid into the water to see how fish or coral reacted"
Bullshit. Such studies exist but are not a majority. The ones I'm talking about are the ones where water samples are taken, analysed, and the results correlated with the state of sea life and geological formations in the area. If you doubt this, google the relevant words and take a look at the first pages of results. Somehow I got this hunch that you won't do it, but will come back here to spew more BS instead.
"...peer review [...] is a crock."
Of course! Every scientific research should be reviewed and authorised by you and your pals instead. Much more unbiased than all those conspiring scientists, eh?
"Now I know you are a nutter!"
It's exactly the same process that shells and coral skeletons -also made of calcium carbonate- undergo.It's not actually. Shells do not form from minerals precipitated from the surrounding seawater (outside in); they form from the inside out. The internal pH of the shelly fauna is as affected by the pH of seawater as my wife's blood pH is affected by her rinsing her hair in vinegar. That is not at all.
It's also worth noting that there are many natural CO2 seeps that bubble a continuous stream of CO2 into the sea. They are surrounded by abundant sealife, including corals and shelly fauna.
CO2 Seep The article accompanying the image claims that the coccoliths are suffering from dissolved shells, but the abundance of coccoliths during the Paleocene-Eocene CO2 excursion never changed.
"The internal pH of the shelly fauna is as affected by the pH of seawater as my wife's blood pH is affected by her rinsing her hair in vinegar. That is not at all."
Yes, and as shelled fauna and coral polyps are immortal... oh, wait...
And of course what happens in the interface between the growing part of the shell and the seawater has no importance at all, eh?
And changing the water's pH absolutely doesn't affect the availability of nutrients for the shelled organisms or the abundance of minerals to be used when building the shell.
What's next? The world is a disc balanced on top of four reproductions of The Donald's hairdo?
Regarding the vinegar thingy, I'd suggest you this easy experiment: Fill a vat with warm salty water. Put you feet into the vat and let them there for half an hour or longer. See if there is any strange taste in your mouth. (hint: there will be)
You can replace the salt with a generous amount vinegar in the experiment, but don't sue me if your toenails fall off or dissolve. :-)
Oh dear! Did I really write all those words you are attributing to me? Or are you just making stuff up?
As it happens I perform the bath experiment a 3-4 times a week. I'm severely arthritic and bath salts help relieve the pain. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with CO2 dissolution in seawater.
Have you ever attempted to alter the pH of seawater with CO2? If you had, you would discover it doesn't work terribly well. Perhaps you should try reading and understanding the literature.
Here's an interesting paper published in Geochemistry, Geophysics,Geosystems : Species-specific responses of calcifying algae to changing seawater carbonate chemistry
Uptake of half of the fossil fuel CO2 into the ocean causes gradual seawater acidification. This has been shown to slow down calcification of major calcifying groups, such as corals, foraminifera, and coccolithophores. Here we show that two of the most productive marine calcifying species, the coccolithophores Coccolithus pelagicus and Calcidiscus leptoporus, do not follow the CO2-related calcification response previously found. In batch culture experiments, particulate inorganic carbon (PIC) of C. leptoporus changes with increasing CO2 concentration in a nonlinear relationship. A PIC optimum curve is obtained, with a maximum value at present-day surface ocean pCO2 levels (∼360 ppm CO2). With particulate organic carbon (POC) remaining constant over the range of CO2 concentrations, the PIC/POC ratio also shows an optimum curve. In the C. pelagicus cultures, neither PIC nor POC changes significantly over the CO2 range tested, yielding a stable PIC/POC ratio. Since growth rate in both species did not change with pCO2, POC and PIC production show the same pattern as POC and PIC. The two investigated species respond differently to changes in the seawater carbonate chemistry, highlighting the need to consider species-specific effects when evaluating whole ecosystem responses. Changes of calcification rate (PIC production) were highly correlated to changes in coccolith morphology. Since our experimental results suggest altered coccolith morphology (at least in the case of C. leptoporus) in the geological past, coccoliths originating from sedimentary records of periods with different CO2 levels were analyzed. Analysis of sediment samples was performed on six cores obtained from locations well above the lysocline and covering a range of latitudes throughout the Atlantic Ocean. Scanning electron micrograph analysis of coccolith morphologies did not reveal any evidence for significant numbers of incomplete or malformed coccoliths of C. pelagicus and C. leptoporus in last glacial maximum and Holocene sediments. The discrepancy between experimental and geological results might be explained by adaptation to changing carbonate chemistry.
""Most of those peer-reviewed studies were total rubbish where eg researchers chucked large doses of hydrochloric acid into the water to see how fish or coral reacted"
Bullshit. Such studies exist but are not a majority. "
<i>Yet according to a survey published last month by marine scientist Christopher Cornwall, who studies ocean acidification at the University of Western Australia in Crawley, and ecologist Catriona Hurd of the University of Tasmania in Hobart, Australia, <b>most</b> reports of such laboratory experiments either used inappropriate methods or did not report their methods properly </i>
Notice where it says "MOST"
From the paper itself
<I>To assess the use of appropriate experimental design in ocean acidification research, 465 studies published between 1993 and 2014 were surveyed, focusing on the methods used to replicate experimental units. The proportion of studies that had interdependent or non-randomly interspersed treatment replicates, or did not report sufficient methodological details was 95%.</I>
95% were not fit for purpose
<I>In a comparable analysis, there was a significant decrease in the number of published studies that employed inappropriate chemical methods of manipulating seawater (i.e. acid–base only additions) from 21 to 3%, </I>
Coral is slow growing and although things have improved as recently as 2010 21% of studies were using "inappropriate chemical methods of manipulating seawater"
Kip Hansen covered this here https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/04/ocean-acidification-trying-to-get-the-science-right/
<I>Further, “the number of experimental units used per treatment in studies was low (mean = 2.0).” Think about that — imagine doing a medical study, an RCT, but using only 2 patients per cohort. Then consider that there are obvious co-confounders with the two patients, such as being siblings! No journal would touch the resultant paper – it would have no significance at all. Granted, one might get away with reporting it as a Case Study, but it would never be considered clinically important or predictive. And yet that is precisely the situation we find generally in OA research – very small numbers of experimental units poorly isolated, often with co-confounders that obfuscate or invalidate treatment effects.</I>
Note "No journal would touch the resultant paper – it would have no significance at all." and yet these papers got past peer review.
As I said you are a nutter!!!
"The bad news is that this carbon sink is already failing"
Even before that stage, our ability to put carbon into the atmosphere has been outrunning the sinks' ability to absorb it for some time. A reduction in sink capacity(*) isn't really proven at this point but it doesn't need to be if we keep emitting at current rates.
The added factor of the risk of a few gigatonnes of methane burping out off the north coast of Siberia(**) thanks to incursions of warm water into the arctic ocean shouldn't be discounted. What's allegedly come out already is probably enough to account for the "mystery methane level increases" that have been recently reported (and blamed on farming) as methane watching satellite instruments haven't been looking that far north(***)
(*)An "Anoxic event."
(**) Leptav Sea methane emissions.(****)
(***) They are now, but the instrumentation has an extremely hard job seeing methane emisions on water (not enough contrast)
(****) Some US researchers are actively poo-poohing these reports, because there's no easy way of verifying Russian reports(+) - but they're also trying to discourage anyone looking to see if they can be verified.
(+) Russia makes life hard for its own scientists, let alone foreign ones wanting to come and verify observations and the researcher's reports are accused of being extreme exaggerations.
causing the oceans to acidify very noticeably, as proved by many -scientific, peer reviewed- studies.Acidify: "To make acid or sour. Chem. To convert into an acid by combination with any substance."
The oceans are everywhere pH 8.2. To qualify as acidic, the pH would need to be less than 7. pH greater than 7 is basic. And that's basic chemistry I learnt in secondary school.
It's only in your tiny mind that people actually deny that the climate changes. What people deny is the accuracy of the climate models and the prophets of doom.
There's going to be a paper published in the not-too-distant future demonstrating exactly what's wrong with the models and proving that climate sensitivity to CO2 isn't a massive issue.
I'm sure there will be a place in Trump's USA for some scientists to continue studying the climate. However, what they won't be doing is spending billions on supercomputers and engaging in extreme Marxist political advocacy designed to crash the western economies.
All sensible people will rejoice and look forward to their tax money being spent on things which really matter to them. Obviously, dumocrats will continue to whine and expect the sky to fall on their heads.
Ah, "dumocrats!" What wit! What brilliance! What fine analytical excellence exposing "extreme Marxist political advocacy!"
Oh, and we look forward to the "paper published in the not-too-distant future demonstrating exactly what's wrong with the models and proving that climate sensitivity to CO2 isn't a massive issue." Written by a member of the Heartland Institute, perhaps?
I find it impossible to imagine people dumber than dumocrats. They voted for a mass murdering, criminal, hypocritical, rape accomplice, lying, alleged child molester and evident psychopath with a chronic neurological condition that may well kill her within the four year presidential term.
It's obvious the science is wrong because the models are complete bullshit. Someone has figured out the mistake and it'll be published soon at which point Trump will most probably close NASA;).
Enjoy your delusion for the last few months it'll have.
Please, sir, just go away. Go away. And, might I humbly request, go away quickly. There are other websites that I do believe at which you might find more comfort and cursor: Breitbart? Infowars? World News Daily? The Daily Caller?
You'll be happier there amongst your science-denying peers, those of the "Don't blind me with facts 'n' data!" ilk. And we'll all be happier when you focus your energies there, seeing as how we won't have to deal with you hateful simplicity anymore, and you won't have to deal with our pointing out such silliness as, "It's obvious the science is wrong because the models are complete bullshit."
Silly, silly man ...
G'bye. Be well. And don't forget to write when you find work ...
It seems that climate scientists borrowed feedback math from electronic network analysis without really understanding it. Silly billies. Hopefully, they will all be summarily dismissed at the very least or held criminally responsible for the mess they've made. Those guys are the congenital liars. My biggest congential problem is a having an enormous cock.
"I'm sure there will be a place in Trump's USA for some scientists to continue studying the climate. However, what they won't be doing is spending billions on supercomputers and engaging in extreme Marxist political advocacy designed to crash the western economies."
^ It is actually depressing to see such anti-science, political and economic ignorance on public display in one place for all to see. When scientifically literate Republicans and Christian Evangelists accept the reality of climate change then that is a clear indication that something really is happening and that something has got to be done about it. It is not a matter of the end of Western market economies but just of tweaking them in the right way to move smoothly without undue disruption to a sustainable low carbon economy.
"The physics wasn't as solid as you seem to think" - Denialist Coward
Says the scientific illiterate.
The facts are simple. Long wave radiation is absorbed by CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, and re-radiated in a random direction - 50% of the time with a downward directional component.
This makes the movement of that long wave radiation a random walk, and the statistics of random walks is well known.
So unless you are going to invalidate the last 200 years of science, your childish pronouncements are not going to be realised.
On the other hand if you think that you are going to invalidate the last 200 years of science developed by literally millions of experts, then you have some serious mental illness and need to get some psychiatric help.
Indeed it is pejorative and provoking. There are many of us who know there's climate change and warming going on. We're not sure of the reasons though due to too much screaming, urinating contests and manipulation of the data by both sides. The jury is out on why.
Having said that.. I'm all for nuke fusion/fission plants to generate power. It's the smart thing although maybe not politically correct thing to do.
I am happy enough to believe that there are gasses that manage to stop some heat being lost, I also suspect that as the earth warms it will lose heat more rapidly to the relative cold space, no idea and frankly little interest in the over all balance and whether we end up 20 degrees warmer next year.
What I know is that all the major governments are actually doing is to use it as an excuse to add even more to my already ridiculous tax bill. They are NOT fixing the roads, not removing road blocks, not helping with sensible alternative transports (fireless steam, compressed air and the likes) but are wasting time and effort on the impractical and useless (electric cars that will require 3 or 4 charging stations each, more rare earth metals than the earth possesses and will never manage to 'refuel' in a sensible time), not forcing people to allow for home working (no taxing my fuel and taxing my car, taxing my parking space while there is no public transport means I get a choice work or not, rather than a chance to save time, effort and money doing my job from home....... and the company that says I must be in the office so I can communicate effectively is the same one that happily offshored the jobs of most of my colleagues because of course I can run my project with people in 12 different countries, even though I obviously need to do that from the office because phoning from 15 miles down the road isnt possible.....
"I also suspect that as the earth warms it will lose heat more rapidly to the relative cold space,"
The relative change in planetary heat vs space is a tiny fraction of 1% (you need to refer it on the Kelvin scale). A warming capable of obliterating life on earth would result in a very tiny increased reradiation rate into space, so your suspicion is mostly wishful thinking.
The basic — and may I repeat that? thanks: "basic, basic, basic, basic" — and irrefutable physics behind the blockage, absorption, and re-radiation of long-wave radiation by large, active molecules such as CO2, CH4, N2O, and the like, and how that blockage and re-radiation warms the troposphere, surface, and ocean in quite easily measurable and quantifiable amounts while concomitantly and measurably cooling the stratosphere, have been well-demonstrated for many decades.But that is not climate. Climate is the "Condition (of a region or country) in relation to prevailing atmospheric phenomena, as temperature, dryness or humidity, wind, clearness or dullness of sky, etc., esp. as these affect human, animal, or vegetable life."
To which end we have the most widely used climate classification system: Köppen climate classification. Here is the current map.
Please tell me which of these Köppen climate zones have changed over the last century and provide evidence for your assertion. Calling me a "climate denialist" doesn't cut the mustard. Especially since my understanding of climate (obtained at Big School) is that Earth's climates were different 6,000 years ago, 10,000 years ago etc.
Until you provide the evidence I will continue to believe that "Deniers" is a "pejorative" term.
"Please tell me which of these Köppen climate zones have changed over the last century and provide evidence for your assertion. Calling me a "climate denialist" doesn't cut the mustard. Especially since my understanding of climate (obtained at Big School) is that Earth's climates were different 6,000 years ago, 10,000 years ago etc.
Until you provide the evidence I will continue to believe that "Deniers" is a "pejorative" term."
How about you please stop posting your total anti-science BS on this technology website instead? If you really want to know and understand what's going on then all you have to do is read the information supplied by major national science academies such as the USA's National Academy of Sciences or the UK's Royal Society since they are composed of the very best scientists that this planet has.
How about you please stop posting your total anti-science BS on this technology website instead?M. C. Peel (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering (The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia), B. L. Finlayson (School of Anthropology, Geography and Environmental Studies, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia), and T. A. McMahon (The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) are the authors of Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification published in Hydrology and Earth System Sciences. What precisely makes referring to the work of scientists published in an academic scientific journal "anti-science bullshit"? What makes reading "information" from the NAS and RS preferable to taking undergraduate classes that cover climatology? Do you attain to a degree by reading "information"? When I studied biology, physics and chemistry in the 1960s, was that anti-science too?
Here you have the temperature variations over the last 22000 years: https://xkcd.com/1732/ :-)
Seriously; glaciers _are_ retreating just about everywhere (and at an accelerating rate), and Arctic sea-ice is diminishing.
I am sure you will get your rethinking of climate zones.
Seriously; glaciers _are_ retreating just about everywhere (and at an accelerating rate), and Arctic sea-ice is diminishing.I M Bahuguna et al studied changes to 2,000 glaciers throughout the Himalayas between 2001 and 2011. They concluded that 1,700 were stable, showing the same surface area and no change of direction. 248 glaciers exhibited a retreat, and 18 an advance. Are the Himalayan glaciers retreating?
Isn't it funny how them who get their "science" from The Grauniad and The Daily Fail call those of us who actually read the literature "anti-science"?
doesnt composting also release co2?
One thing we dont do that might be sensible... burn methane, waste and other decomposing stuff in power stations instead of the fossil fuels. As I understand methane is 'worse' than co2 for its capacity to warm so decomposing the methane to the slightly less bad co2 might be at least a start, lots of other things decompose (rotting paper, wood, food, people...) giving off all sorts. OK it doesnt stop producing co2 but turns the equation total warming = effects of methane + effects of fossil fuel burning + effects of decomposition to a more manageable warming = effects of burning rubbish
Burning rubbish can be done... the Danes do it now and the Victorian engineers in Cambridge did it 100+ years ago when they wanted to get the turds out of the Cambridge streets
... and an inventor, scientist, philanthropist to the city of Metropolis, and one of the most intelligent people in the world.
So, no contest there, really. Although I'm open to being surprised; after all who can tell just what really is under that all that orange, well I hesitate to call it hair. Not holding my breath, though.
There are quite a few. My favorite is Fort Ord:
It has the (Mazda-branded) Laguna Seca racetrack on premise and can be converted to a launch site with minimal funding.
Mather is too close to populations for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mather_Air_Force_Base
Same for Moffett: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moffett_Federal_Airfield
And the always rockin' Edwards AFB the popular place to land space shuttles and other land-able spacecraft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_Air_Force_Base
And many more that I'm too lazy to look up! :)
"how Moonbeam is going to keep the satellite over California at all times"
Nice soundbit. Incredibly stupid, also. If you really think that global climate research can be carried out by studying only California, you probably should watch again Sesame Street, several times in a row.
And even if you wanted a satellite to study only California -e.g. to obtain data about fires, surface temperatures, humidity and plant coverage in said State- there are two revolutionary, never carried out before, state of the art concepts that you may not be aware of. Namely, Geostationary satellites and satellite constellations. This may look like Science Fiction to you and many of your fellow deniers, but strong evidence suggests it's perfectly doable. ;-)
"Mephistro, was your sense of humour surgically removed at birth?"
I reckon that there are online discussions -often related to religion, ideology, race and lately also climate- where jokes can be taken as statements of fact by some of the less intellectually gifted readers, and, alas, cause said readers to take very bad decisions. As an example: The supposed support of Pope Francis for the Trump presidential campaign, which even being clearly a hoax has probably given Trumpf a few hundreds or even thousands of votes. ;-)
> "I reckon that there are online discussions -often related to religion, ideology, race and lately also climate- where jokes can be taken as statements of fact by some of the less intellectually gifted readers, and, alas, cause said readers to take very bad decisions."
@Mephistro, I joked about California having a satellite in orbit only over one state. Your worry that innocents might take this seriously and make bad decisions is touching, but misplaced. Just like your sense of humour. ;-/
There are launch sites for hire outside the US too. The same deregulation and chaos used to make Billionaires Great Again would also make it hard to keep track of what California is up to. California depends on the weather being as it is so they won't hesitate to fight industrial activity that may change it.
"which other launch facilities are to hand?"
I'm sure ESA would be only too pleased to launch on Ariane, or rent out a launchpad.
Or the Russians. Or Ukrainians. Chinese, Indians etc.
Even the NORKS might be happy to get some foreign exchange currency. Although the USD might not be so valuable by then.
"califorinia: 100:1 they never launch a single climate satellite"
They didn't need to as those activities were carried out by the Federal government. Now that the Donald's aim seems to be destroying said federal activities, it makes sense to look for alternatives, as a big chunk of California's economy relies on climate.
Will they be able to do it? Well, as has been said often, California would be the 6th economy in the world, up there with France, and, trust me, France can launch lots of satellites both alone and integrated in the ESA. Now that I think of it, collaboration agreements between the ESA and California would make a lot of sense in this scenario.
This of course ignores statistics. The absolute number of registered Democrats in California continue to increase, registered Republicans continues to decrease.
As far as support someone like Trump, who promised to deport all Spanish speakers, regardless of legal status or country of origin, to Mexico. California just passed the 50% point of it's citizens self identifying as Latino or of mixed heritage including Latino. Why would someone who lists themselves in this way ever vote for someone who is campaigning on having them deported. FYI- I am not one of those who registered themselves as Latino, despite my name.
BTW - I love California, that state that is most likely subsidizing your state to keep it afloat, as many states operate with a huge deficit to the federal government.
Brown has given quite a few examples where he is as much of a science denier as Trump. One was when the Mediterranean Fruit Fly was causing havoc in Nor Cal, most scientists agreed that Malathion was a safe pesticide to use, but he went through the effort of finding one that disagreed. Another is his opposition to nuclear energy, if CO2 is so bad, why is he so intent on shutting down the let plant operating in the state?
He is also one heck of a hypocrite, using state resources to determine the oil/gas potential of his property.
Brown aptly dismisses WUWT and Delingpole, with "Breitbart and the other clowns". However, it didn't take long for a who's who of those clowns to gather to discuss how they can reward their fossil fuel paymasters, once Trump's in charge. None of them cares what state they leave the climate in for future generations, as long as they can extract maximum profit for themselves now!
California may be the 6th largest economy in the world and the creator of modern american wealth, but it is also a net payer of taxes to the federal government. It would obviously be wrong for a Trump admin to with-hold federal money back to California in any significant manner... but if it did happen - the real and really only question is; is Gov. Brown going to lead a tax revolt?
I am waiting for a link to the actual questions. I did follow a link yesterday to someone's posting of what they claimed was the questions (very possible) but I left due to the notes they made beneath each question showing extreme bias (anti-climate change*). From the few questions I did read (of 70+?) it seemed fairly good for establishing the cost-effectiveness (and if they are at all doing anything productive) of the various departments/initiatives involved in the climate debate.
*Anyone who has read my posts on climate change should know I have no problem with the idea of climate change, I can also accept we can/do affect it but I am sceptical of MMCC co2 theory.
@ Thought About IT
Sorry about that I am referring to the latter half of the article-
In response to Republican efforts to subpoena scientists' records and emails or create lists of Department of Energy scientists working on climate change, Brown noted that California not only has its share of scientists, it also has "plenty of lawyers" — and he'll not be shy about calling on them for help.
Apparently one of Trumps choices sent 70+ questions to the government climate change researchers which they shouted witch hunt. Since California seems to be reacting to that (according to the article) and it has been reported elsewhere I assumed I didnt need to add that bit. My bad, could have been clearer.
>Apparently one of Trumps choices sent 70+ questions to the government climate change researchers which they shouted witch hunt.
There's a long and unedifying history of deniers clogging up the work of scientists, by lobbing long, intricate lists of questions at them. Since most climate departments are quite small (sometimes solo), they are then faced with abandoning their work to answer these questions, or open themselves to charges of secrecy, when the questions are unanswered.
Climate change deniers are not honourable people.
Sure of that?
I wonder what the people who wanted to stick to the earth is flat and the universe revolves around it with a heaven above that and a hell below us said about the people who denied that 'truth'
Or perhaps those who decided to deny the 'truth' that the human race would be extinct because the 'lower orders' bred more (believed by many many politicians and scientists in the 1930s)
I judge how serious a problem is by the response. If the response is to do nothing but increase my taxes I see it is just an excuse with no real threat.
"There's a long and unedifying history of deniers clogging up the work of scientists, by lobbing long, intricate lists of questions at them. Since most climate departments are quite small (sometimes solo), they are then faced with abandoning their work to answer these questions, or open themselves to charges of secrecy, when the questions are unanswered."
This is plausible but the excuse given was to do with protecting the scientists from being persecuted by the gov. Not an unbelievable stance if that is what the questions are aimed at but thats why I want to know what was asked, and if it is as I had read then they seem pretty sensible questions (I just dont trust the source). It also seemed concerned at the scale of the departments and projects without definitive aims/end points.
"Climate change deniers are not honourable people."
That is a very sweeping statement. However in relative terms the MMCC co2 theory has been represented by extreme fabrication and lies even if there is honourable work being done. The religion of MMCC co2 theory was and possibly is still a fact which caused massive credibility issues around the science. I consider it one of the worst subjects for the devaluing of the title science.
On MMoc "extreme fabrication" - provide the evidence for your assertions - and don't blather on about the university of east anglia hack as we know that that was just the researchers attempting to keep the trendline smooth and avoid attacks from the various and assorted nut jobs who hang around the fringes of the denial movement. The lagged relationship between temperature rise and human C02 emmissions since the start of the industrial revolution is well established and I have never seen or heard any scientific study which disproves this relationship. Feel free to explain how this matches you extreme fabrication ideas....
@ Anonymous Coward
I can understand your point but I am not talking about disputes of lag and such. I mean the outright lies and failures that made this theory leap off and then bring 'science' into disrepute. Things like the IPCC report claiming the Himalayas would be ice free by whatever the date was, only to find nobody fact checked anything and it was an off the cuff comment by some scientist who obviously wouldnt stand by such a statement as a fact. Or the amusing fail from NASA that Lewis Page pointed out some time back when they readjusted some data from flat to an insane climb that even the IPCC wouldnt back, and NASA then took it down. The lack of defined targets to 'prove' the theory after all the defined targets were missed.
Add to that the political failures such as x days to save the earth (regularly repeated to no resolution). The serious failure to report honestly about wind and solar (wind being the worst) and deployment of technology which rips off the tax payer, risks energy security and was intentionally misleading.
I do think there is good science being done and that real problems may be found. However any evidence is going to be automatically suspect since this all came from a hockey stick diagram that had a predetermined conclusion before importing any data. It has caused harm to an area of science which could be hugely beneficial to us all if conducted honestly.
Sorry Harri Koppel, but only in one country on earth is there even any question about the science behind climate change. Nothing to do with your petty party politics. You might want to follow the money, and see why climate change denial is such a popular stance among a certain sub-section of your ruling elites. As for why it is so popular among your voters, perhaps it might be a good idea to take a close look at your education system at the same time...
perhaps it might be a good idea to take a close look at your education system at the same time...The standard text at university level for studying the boundary layer climates is Terry Oke's Boundary Layer Climates. It makes no mention of CO2. There is no equivalent tertiary level text that does. Why do you think that is? It can't be a shortage of funds given the billions of dollars spent on "climate change".
Harri, Harri, Harri, Harri — chill, dude, chill. May I buy you a beer?
I'm currently among the 25,000 scientists at the American Geophysical Union conference in San Francisco, and I'm sure I could find a few who could thoroughly and convincingly answer any and all of your scientific questions — and I'd be more than willing to cover the bar tab, m'kay?
Oh, and if you're into fruitcakes, may I suggest Fullstream Brewery's "Fruitcake ... The Beer" from North Carolina? Might chill you out a bit. I'm buyin' ...
I'm currently among the 25,000 scientists at the American Geophysical Union conference in San FranciscoPlease say hi to Dan Seidov, Bernd J. Haupt and Mark Maslin for me if you run into them. They're the dudes who edited The Oceans and Rapid Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future.
Quote from Michael Crichton
"Let's remember where we live. We live on the third planet from a medium size sun. Our planet is five billion years old and it is changing constantly all during that time. The earth is now in its third atmosphere.
The first atmosphere was helium and hydrogen. It dissipated early on because the planet was so hot. Then, as the planet cooled volcanic eruptions produced a second atmosphere of steam and carbon dioxide. Later the water vapor condensed to form the oceans that cover most of the planet. Then, about three billion years ago some bacteria evolved to consume carbon dioxide and excrete a highly toxic gas, oxygen. Other bacteria released nitrogen. The atmospheric concentration of these gases slowly increased. Organisms that could not adapt died out.
Meanwhile the planet's land masses floating on huge tectonic plates eventually came together in a configuration that interfered with the circulation of ocean currents. It began to get cold for the first time. The first ice appeared 2 billion years ago.
And for the last seven hundred thousand years, our planet has been in a geological ice age, characterized by advancing and retreating glacial ice. No one is entirely sure why, but ice now covers the planet every hundred thousand years, with smaller advances every twenty thousand or so. The last advance was twenty thousand years ago, so we’re due for the next one.
And even today, after five billion years, our planet remains amazingly active. We have five hundred volcanoes, and an eruption every two weeks. Earthquakes are continuous: a million and a half a year, a moderate Richter 5 quake every six hours, a big earthquake every ten days. Tsunamis race across the Pacific Ocean every three months.
Our atmosphere is as violent as the land beneath it. At any moment there are one thousand five hundred electrical storms across the planet. Eleven lightning bolts strike the ground each second. A tornado tears across the surface every six hours. And every four days, a giant cyclonic storm, hundreds of miles in diameter, spins over the ocean and wreaks havoc on the land.
The nasty little apes that call themselves human beings can do nothing except run and hide. For these same apes to imagine they can stabilize this atmosphere is arrogant beyond belief. They can’t control the climate.
The reality is, they run from the storms."
maxpower: perhaps we cannot control the climate, but with somewhere approaching 8 billion of us on this planet, it would be foolish to assume that we cannot affect it. After all, as your post itself highlights, far more primitive lifeform (bacteria) managed to effect a significantly greater change, and barely more advanced lifeforms in the sea managed to not only mould the climate but the very planet itself (visit any mountain range you care to name, and marvel at the sheer mass of rock that is entirely built from the fossil remains of once-living creatures.
maxpower, I hope you don't write software, because you're hopeless with logic. The fact that the climate has changed in the past, without our help, in no way precludes it from changing in the future, due to our greenhouse gas emissions. Global warming is caused by industry, not science.
Thought about IT: It amazes me how many so called intelligent people can be duped. Have you ever heard of the Vostok ice core sample study? Probably not. It says in a nut shell, that for the past 450,000 years ice ages have come and gone (by the way without cars and factories). Each de-glaciation, the temperature rose first followed by a rise in CO2 levels. How can than be? All the academic liberals state that man raises CO2 levels, which cause greenhouse gas which raises the temperature. Based on this study and other ice core samples, the opposite is true.
Global Warming is a billion dollar enterprise. Ask Al Gore. A report from the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, which said it used figures from the Nashville Electric service says that Gore’s 20 room mansion used 221,000 kwh of electricity in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kwh. Can you say hypocrite. Try taking off the blinders and stop drinking the cool aide.
A report from the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, which said it used figures from the Nashville Electric service says that Gore’s 20 room mansion used 221,000 kwh of electricity in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kwh.I heard 10 times, but that's splitting hairs.
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, George W. Bush's home in Crawford, Texas, was designed by Austin architect David Heymann, associate dean for undergraduate programs at the University of Texas School of Architecture. "The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude". Go figure...
@maxpower: Ah, Michael Crichton — a reasonably talented writer of entertaining potboilers, but an absolute shite when it comes to verifiable science.
Why is it that some folks — entertainers, athletes, politicians — consider themselves able to pontificate in areas outside their expertise after finding some success in their own fields?
What did the Greeks call it — hubris?
I like Gov Brown, but I think this is the wrong approach to keep the satellites and databases. The satellites were launched for weather prediction, navigational aid. The further forward we can predict bad weather, the better we can re-route ships and planes, etc. If we can go far out enough we can apply this to farming. So we need the weather satellites to lower business costs, something Trump is supposedly in office to do.
Please note, there are multiple ways of predicting the weather, we can use a physical model of the environment, or a statistical model of the environment. Note that both are computer models. The statistical approach is not just what is the typical weather for this time of year and range. The statistical model is when similar conditions occur, these are the likely outcomes. This statistical approach requires the existing databases of weather conditions to predict the weather.
The physical model also requires the data,. As computers become faster, we can take more variables into account, creating better, more refined models that can predict further into the future.To validate these models we need historical data, ie if the model cannot predict weather conditions that have already occurred, then it is a bad model.
It is also a good idea to keep obsolete models. The reasons are two fold. First, it keeps you from repeating the same old mistakes. It also allows you to take a step back in the model if you find that when you add new variables that make your model better show that some of the variables you added in before were modeled wrong, or lead to a false adjustment due to "other variables" that you have not figured out yet.
Global warming, climate change are both issues that i believe to be real, but that discussion is separate from the need to maintain and update the existing databases and satellite infrastructure. It just makes good business sense. If someone uses that data for issues beyond immediate business needs, ie Global warming, it's their own business and does not change the need for the satellites.
"Well, I remember back in 1978 I proposed a Landsat for California ... they called me Governor Moonbeam because of that, so if they turn off the satellites, California will launch its own damn satellites."
Uh, no, that's not why at all:
The nickname was coined by Mike Royko, the famed Chicago columnist, who in 1976 said that Mr. Brown appeared to be attracting “the moonbeam vote,” which in Chicago political parlance meant young, idealistic and nontraditional.
From Physical Geography Vol 21, issue 1:
The spatial and temporal variation of the C/D Köppen climate boundary in the central United States is examined for the period 1900 to 1999. Mean January temperature data from the U.S. Historical Climatology Network for 67 sites located between 37°N and 41.5°N latitude and 90°W and 100°W longitude are utilized. The variation of the boundary between the C and D climates (i.e., 26.6°F isoline) is illustrated for the entire 100-year study period and four quarter-century periods, as well as for individual decades (1900s, 1910s, …, 1980s, 1990s). For the quarter-century climatic periods, the latter two (1950 to 1974, 1975 to 1999) had C/D boundaries farther south (implying “colder” winters) compared to the positions for the first two quarter-century periods. The most anomalous feature for the decadal maps is the distinct southerly location of the C/D boundary for the recent decade of the 1970s. Although the C/D boundaries for the decades of the 1980s and 1990s generally are located slightly north of the 100-year overall mean location (implying “warmer” than average winter conditions), several earlier decades (e.g., 1900s, 1920s, 1930s) had even more northerly positions. Therefore, this study does not provide evidence of a trend toward wintertime warming and a northerly migration of the C/D climate boundary within the central United States. [Emphasis mine]
Regardless of whether you believe in human induced climate change causing runaway global warming, consistent data collection is essential just to monitor natural climate change. They should consider very carefully what information to collect and not make some rash decision. If budgets are threatened, perhaps funding can be shared with other institutions? California seems to have money to spare.
Regardless of whether you believe in human induced climate change causing runaway global warming, consistent data collection is essential just to monitor natural climate change. They should consider very carefully what information to collect and not make some rash decision.The oddity here is that the information of interest, the energy budget of Earth, is not measured, but only estimated. Temperature is not a measure of energy. Energy arrives from the sun and energy is radiated by Earth to outer space. This is always more or less in equilibrium, but when it changes the planet cools or warms before a new equilibrium becomes established. Different equilibrium states over time illustrated here: 600 million years of climate change
... was more than a decade ago when Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit at U East Anglia announced the year's results. Both the southern and northern hemisphere had cooled over the year, but the average temperature of both had increased. Ya gotta laugh :-)
As the forum continued to grow, as the blog began to catch traffic, and as I continued to try and recruit green members I continued to be disappointed with the debate. In short, and I am sorry to say it, anti-greens (Reds, as we call them) appear to be more willing to comment, more structured, more able to quote peer reviewed research, more apparently rational and apparently wider read and better informed.[Emphasis mine] Green Advocates Failing in Climate Debate
The only feasible explanation that I can come up with so far is that perhaps Greens are less invested in the status quo, and therefore less motivated to protect it? The other possibility is that we are all completely wrong and we’re deluded – please tell me this isn’t so.
Its getting less united, but that may be a good thing...
Regarding all the talk of lawyers, I'm assuming that you can easily make a legal battle last at least four years if you want to, and then someone (hopefully a little more sensible) will be in charge over there...
I believe you understate the issue here in Kommieforniastan. If people had even the slightest clue how far down the rabbit hole this insane state truly is they'd be marching on Sack-0-Tomatoes with hot tar and feathers. What will be the final nail in the coffin will be the dream of Single Failure 'health' care.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019