Climate change revisited

Extended discussion forum.

Moderator: Scott Waters

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4352
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc » February 6th, 2020, 9:47 pm

I shouldnt have commented, but I dont delete my posting mishaps, unless it is requested.

You do irritate me though, because it seems you dont really care at all about the topics you post in, you only wish to start trouble.

It isnt the Trouble, its the not really caring part.

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4352
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc » February 7th, 2020, 12:34 pm

Ive met you Ernie. You were all snake love and fire.

They dont teach reptile keeping in college.

Perhaps you came to see them as a way to make money. That was a mistake.

If your bitterness has surpassed your wonder that is a sad weakness on your part. Dont be jealous of people who still experience awe, or found another way to work and make a living through the vibrant curiosity that you seem to not value any more.

You dont give a damn about climate change politics. Please stop urinating here.

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 501
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by WSTREPS » February 10th, 2020, 7:30 am

Dr. Judith Curry should write an autobiographical book. She could call it. THE LAST SCIENTIST.
Image

A wise man once said, people are really stupid and a lot of them are dumber than that.

This funny and plain-spoken truth. Automatically brings to mind the Kool-Aid drinkers armed with their phony outrage and deep concerns. Sociological lemmings always at the ready to rally around whatever IMPORTANT issue is making the BIG headlines. To these mass consumers of glittering generalities. Science is a TV game show.The winner to be determined via a rigged popularity contest. A truth sourced from a colorful bow tie wearing Disney character. All the education needed for an informed opinion can be had by reading whatever headline is on the front page of USA today. The obtuse mentality that It must be true, it was on CNN. It's time for everyone to put on their tin foil hats !!!

ERNIE EISON

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4352
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc » February 10th, 2020, 6:32 pm

Intelligent promotion of ones position doesn't lean on trite one liners or unconscious admissions of resentment.

Being intelligent in promoting a view means being effective.

When you read your posts, do you feel that is accomplished?

Do you want to look like you have a "problem" or do you want to be effective?

It is rarely possible to do both.

Jimi
Posts: 1902
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi » February 12th, 2020, 12:26 pm

Here's a slight improvement:
This rant from Ernie brings to mind the Kool-Aid drinkers armed with their phony outrage and deep concerns. The sociological lemmings always at the ready to rally around whatever IMPORTANT issue is making the BIG headlines. To these mass consumers of corporate and foreign misinformation, science is a TV game show, the winner to be determined via a rigged popularity contest. A truth sourced from a colorful bow tie wearing Disney character. All the education needed for an informed opinion can be had by watching Fox and Friends. The obtuse mentality that It must be true, it was on Fox. It's time for everyone to put on their tin foil hats !!!

User avatar
El Garia
Posts: 722
Joined: October 20th, 2011, 3:39 pm
Location: Santa Clara Co. , CA

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by El Garia » February 12th, 2020, 2:12 pm

Why do you let Ernie live in your heads? :lol:

Jimi
Posts: 1902
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi » February 13th, 2020, 1:16 pm

Horseshit doesn't get the last word.

Jimi
Posts: 1902
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi » March 10th, 2020, 11:05 am

This may interest some:

https://www.isthishowyoufeel.com/

This was a project in which climate scientists were asked a rather unusual question - "How do you feel about climate change?"

A description:
Climate change is a complex and intimidating threat. You can't see it when you look out your bedroom window. Its impacts are often not immediately noticeable, nor are the benefits of acting against it.

Luckily there are a large group of passionate individuals who have dedicated their lives to studying climate change. These people write complex research papers, unpacking every aspect of climate change, analysing it thoroughly and clinically. They understand the numbers, the facts and the figures. They know what is causing it, what the impacts will be and how we can minimise these impacts.

But they're not robots. These scientists are mothers, fathers, grandparents, daughters. They are real people. And they're concerned.

Here's one scientist's response to the question:
I’m angry because the lack of effective action on climate change, despite the wealth not only of scientific information but also of solutions to reduce emissions, has now created a climate emergency.

The students are right. Their future is now being threatening by the greed of the wealthy fossil fuel elite, the lies of the Murdoch press, and the weakness of our political leaders. These people have no right to destroy my daughter’s future and that of her generation.

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 593
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » May 18th, 2020, 11:16 am

With respect to the issue of climate change / global warming, I have previously mentioned it is best to let the scientific research continue to explore these issues as well as letting the weather tell its own story in coming years.

Below is a message received from son Ryan in Utah. It had four links but I have included just on link. In reading the information in that one link, I came across a box with the following message:
“Another Climate Scientist with Impeccable Credentials Breaks Ranks: “Our models are Mickey-Mouse Mockeries of the Real World””

I suggest you access that link. You can either click on that box to access that narrative or enter the above in a web search to access the narrative.

Richard F. Hoyer (Corvallis, Oregon)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I had begun to pull together some links a few weeks back when I brought up the topic of grand solar minimum. I realize I won't be getting back to this any time soon, so will forward the links I found if you are interested.

https://electroverse.net/nasa-predicts- ... lications/

Jimi
Posts: 1902
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi » May 18th, 2020, 3:06 pm

This is probably the second-most used climate change denier myth.
the topic of grand solar minimum

The source for the following pasted material:

https://skepticalscience.com/solar-acti ... vanced.htm

Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions

What the science says...

In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.


Climate Myth...

It's the sun




As supplier of almost all the energy in Earth's climate, the sun has a strong influence on climate. A comparison of sun and climate over the past 1150 years found temperatures closely match solar activity (Usoskin 2005). However, after 1975, temperatures rose while solar activity showed little to no long-term trend. This led the study to conclude, "...during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

In fact, a number of independent measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960, over the same period that global temperatures have been warming. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. An analysis of solar trends concluded that the sun has actually contributed a slight cooling influence in recent decades (Lockwood 2008).

Jimi
Posts: 1902
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi » May 18th, 2020, 3:24 pm

As for this:
it is best to let the scientific research continue to explore these issues as well as letting the weather tell its own story in coming years


Well, the weather is indeed telling its own story. Always has, always will. Hey,
  • the Atlantic hurricane season is now off to an earlier-than-usual start for the 6th straight year, and
  • the decade 2010-2019 was the hottest decade on record, and
  • in 2010, the same was true for the the decade 2000-2009, and
  • the last five years have been the five hottest years on record, and
  • record high temps are exceeding record low temps by at least a 2:1 margin, and
  • the oceans are 30% more acidic than they were at the dawn of the Industrial Age and by 2100 are likely to be 100% more (twice as) acidic...


it just goes on. Really, it does.

But don't believe your own damn lyin' eyes, just trust the alternative-facts guys.


Why bother having scientific research? I mean, if your answer to the question "what do you do with credible information of an urgent nature" is "oh - not a damned thing" - well then. I'm not sure what to offer or prescribe. You won't get my complicity or acquiescence.

Horseshit doesn't get the last word.

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3660
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by jonathan » May 18th, 2020, 9:58 pm

Richard F. Hoyer wrote:
May 18th, 2020, 11:16 am
With respect to the issue of climate change / global warming, I have previously mentioned it is best to let the scientific research continue to explore these issues as well as letting the weather tell its own story in coming years.

Below is a message received from son Ryan in Utah. It had four links but I have included just on link. In reading the information in that one link, I came across a box with the following message:
“Another Climate Scientist with Impeccable Credentials Breaks Ranks: “Our models are Mickey-Mouse Mockeries of the Real World””
I looked it up, and it appears to be a sensationalist title - the scientist in the article has been writing papers attacking climate change models since at least 1994, and back in 2013 predicted that we would hit a cooling cycle starting in 2015.

That prediction was obviously wildly off.


The topic of his book appears to generally be that climate is enormously difficult to predict, with numerous factors, and thus attempts to model the climate must use a great deal of simplification. From what I read it doesn't seem to argue "the Earth is not warming" so much as it argues "Yes, the Earth is warming, but we're unsure how much more it will warm or how unprecedented this is." Which probably is at least a somewhat defensible position.

At that point though, Richard, it's tough for me to see what your endgame is. You can look at mere land use statistics and see that humans have taken over far too much of the land surface of the Earth. It's obvious that we've cut/burned down too many forests, produce too much pollution. We're in the middle of a biodiversity crisis that you don't have to believe anything about global warming to see clearly with your own eyes. Not to mention that the way our oil dependence funds middle eastern wars, economic instability, and corrupt states like Venezuela, Nigeria, Russia, etc....Stopping deforestation, reducing meat intake, pulling away from fossil fuels, reducing overconsumption in general...how are those bad things?

How are they not extremely necessary right now whether or not you want to deal with the obvious warming of the Earth that's accompanying them?

Jimi
Posts: 1902
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi » May 19th, 2020, 6:09 am

More from the weather - "warming has increased the likelihood of a hurricane developing into a major one of Category 3 or higher, with sustained winds greater than 110 miles an hour, by about 8 percent a decade."

So since 1979 the odds of a hurricane going major have increased about 26%. Nice one, humanity. Well played.
Global increase in major tropical cyclone exceedance probability over the past four decades
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020 ... 1920849117
Abstract

Theoretical understanding of the thermodynamic controls on tropical cyclone (TC) wind intensity, as well as numerical simulations, implies a positive trend in TC intensity in a warming world. The global instrumental record of TC intensity, however, is known to be heterogeneous in both space and time and is generally unsuitable for global trend analysis. To address this, a homogenized data record based on satellite data was previously created for the period 1982–2009. The 28-y homogenized record exhibited increasing global TC intensity trends, but they were not statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. Based on observed trends in the thermodynamic mean state of the tropical environment during this period, however, it was argued that the 28-y period was likely close to, but shorter than, the time required for a statistically significant positive global TC intensity trend to appear. Here the homogenized global TC intensity record is extended to the 39-y period 1979–2017, and statistically significant (at the 95% confidence level) increases are identified. Increases and trends are found in the exceedance probability and proportion of major (Saffir−Simpson categories 3 to 5) TC intensities, which is consistent with expectations based on theoretical understanding and trends identified in numerical simulations in warming scenarios. Major TCs pose, by far, the greatest threat to lives and property. Between the early and latter halves of the time period, the major TC exceedance probability increases by about 8% per decade, with a 95% CI of 2 to 15% per decade.
Significance

Tropical cyclones (TCs), and particularly major TCs, pose substantial risk to many regions around the globe. Identifying changes in this risk and determining causal factors for the changes is a critical element for taking steps toward adaptation. Theory and numerical models consistently link increasing TC intensity to a warming world, but confidence in this link is compromised by difficulties in detecting significant intensity trends in observations. These difficulties are largely caused by known heterogeneities in the past instrumental records of TCs. Here we address and reduce these heterogeneities and identify significant global trends in TC intensity over the past four decades. The results should serve to increase confidence in projections of increased TC intensity under continued warming.

Jimi
Posts: 1902
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi » May 19th, 2020, 6:14 am

From what I read it doesn't seem to argue "the Earth is not warming" so much as it argues "Yes, the Earth is warming, but we're unsure how much more it will warm or how unprecedented this is."
That's from the standard deniers' playbook. The next play is "well, we still don't know why it's warming so we'd better not do anything about it". It's like when seatbelts killed people by making it harder to escape a wrecked car, and smoking cigarettes didn't hurt people, but actually they were good for weight loss (hey, so is cancer, right?)

Horseshit.

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 501
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by WSTREPS » May 23rd, 2020, 3:26 am

Horseshit doesn't get the last word.
That's right, it shouldn't. And that's why the last word belongs to Professor Judith Curry.


It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. — Upton Sinclair.

ERNIE EISON

Jimi
Posts: 1902
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi » May 26th, 2020, 2:55 pm

As for so-called ClimateGate, try FactCheck https://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
Summary

In late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.’s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming. We find that to be unfounded:

- The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there’s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.
- Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.
- E-mails being cited as “smoking guns” have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to “hiding the decline” isn’t talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The “decline” actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.


Well there you go again, trying to let horseshit have the last word.
The question, What happened to Tucker Carlson? is worth answering. If we can figure out how an intelligent writer and conservative can go from writing National Magazine Award–nominated articles and being hailed by some of the best editors in the business, to shouting about immigrants on Fox News, perhaps we can understand what is happening to this country, or at least to journalism, in 2018.
Source - Columbia Journalism Review: https://www.cjr.org/the_profile/tucker-carlson.php


Horseshit doesn't get the last word.

That's right, it shouldn't. And that's why the last word belongs to ....


The last word belongs to Richard West. He's describing Tucker Carlson, but also inadvertently describing our least-favorite narcissist here at FHF.
“It’s quite a remarkable tactic,” West explains, “because you don’t give people an opportunity to digest … I do believe he’s a conversational narcissist. He hijacks the conversation and contorts it to his own value structure.”

AEthelred
Posts: 35
Joined: July 16th, 2019, 9:56 am
Location: North Adams,Massachusetts

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by AEthelred » May 27th, 2020, 2:36 am

88 fahrenheit in the Berkshire hills of Massachusetts yesterday in may,it must have topped 90 in Boston.There is something going on with the climate,that's for sure.

Post Reply