2015 Warmest Year on Record

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Because in a debate, the drones who have been convinced will actually hear arguments and data they have never heard before. Some small percentage will likely go somewhere to check out those arguments, and a few will become convinced that have been bamboozled. So, they have nothing to gain but everything to lose....

And that is exactly what they are afraid of. They don't want the American public to find out what REAL science actually says.

 

[GT_EE78]

And that is exactly what they are afraid of. They don't want the American public to find out what REAL science actually says.

 

[takethepoints]

Because in a debate, the drones who have been convinced will actually hear arguments and data they have never heard before. Some small percentage will likely go somewhere to check out those arguments, and a few will become convinced that have been bamboozled. So, they have nothing to gain but everything to lose....

What's interesting about this post - and this thread, btw - is the dearth of citations to actual scientific research on climate change. Instead what we have here is the usual: a bunch of "stories" by people who don't think the problem is that great or is a hoax of some (usually unclear) sort about "research" that supports their viewpoint.

Let's quit pussyfooting around here. If you have solid research findings that were peer reviewed, published in journals that specialize in climate research, and refute the conclusions of the consensus on this, post them. Admittedly, that'll mean a steep learning curve for most of us; science of any kind has its own jargon and background in research that can make it hard to understand. But … if you want to carry your point, that'll be what's necessary.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

What's interesting about this post - and this thread, btw - is the dearth of citations to actual scientific research on climate change. Instead what we have here is the usual: a bunch of "stories" by people who don't think the problem is that great or is a hoax of some (usually unclear) sort about "research" that supports their viewpoint.

Let's quit pussyfooting around here. If you have solid research findings that were peer reviewed, published in journals that specialize in climate research, and refute the conclusions of the consensus on this, post them. Admittedly, that'll mean a steep learning curve for most of us; science of any kind has its own jargon and background in research that can make it hard to understand. But … if you want to carry your point, that'll be what's necessary.

Well let’s quit pussyfoot around, the real issue is why can’t we agree on the science but disagree on the public policy? Why can’t I say that all the data informs my opinion that humans are trashing the planet and disrupting the climate without having to agree to with certain government programs?

Now having said that, this thread is full of tons of links which point to the fraud of raw temperature changes and nonexistent temperature readings around the world, the manipulation of data and the failure of basic understanding of how studies should be done. Someone’s livelihood shouldn’t be dependent upon delivering what those who fund the studies want to see and they shouldn’t know what results are desired in the end. That violates a ton of basic standards.

Like most issues, there is plenty of hyperbole and fraud and exaggeration on both sides of this issue.

 

[takethepoints]

Well let’s quit pussyfoot around, the real issue is why can’t we agree on the science but disagree on the public policy? Why can’t I say that all the data informs my opinion that humans are trashing the planet and disrupting the climate without having to agree to with certain government programs?

Now having said that, this thread is full of tons of links which point to the fraud of raw temperature changes and nonexistent temperature readings around the world, the manipulation of data and the failure of basic understanding of how studies should be done. Someone’s livelihood shouldn’t be dependent upon delivering what those who fund the studies want to see and they shouldn’t know what results are desired in the end. That violates a ton of basic standards.

Like most issues, there is plenty of hyperbole and fraud and exaggeration on both sides of this issue.

1. Yes. Good point, if the alternative would actually address the problem. I haven't seen anything here that does. But, admittedly, that depends on the time horizons for an actual catastrophe and how bad you think it will be. Me, I'm conservative on this and very aware of tail risks. One bad decision could wipe out a good part of humanity. Soooo … I'm for aggressive strategies that aren't as dependent on market processes. but opinions do differ on this.

2. What the thread is full of is tons of links to tendentious articles about studies and very few to the actual reputable work done that might lead to questions about the consensus. One of the reasons I called for more links to the research about "fraud" and such is that I know how uncertain a lot of it is; just like the research in the consensus, it is about interpretations of present data that give some insight into the future. Then, as said above, it is a matter of how much attention you pay to tail risk.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

1. Yes. Good point, if the alternative would actually address the problem. I haven't seen anything here that does. But, admittedly, that depends on the time horizons for an actual catastrophe and how bad you think it will be. Me, I'm conservative on this and very aware of tail risks. One bad decision could wipe out a good part of humanity. Soooo … I'm for aggressive strategies that aren't as dependent on market processes. but opinions do differ on this.

2. What the thread is full of is tons of links to tendentious articles about studies and very few to the actual reputable work done that might lead to questions about the consensus. One of the reasons I called for more links to the research about "fraud" and such is that I know how uncertain a lot of it is; just like the research in the consensus, it is about interpretations of present data that give some insight into the future. Then, as said above, it is a matter of how much attention you pay to tail risk.

Again, why do my public policies need to be the same as yours? Why can’t I agree to all the science but disagree that we need to make wholesale changes?

I’ll give you a couple “links” as you asked, onto your other point - go look up how many times NOAA has adjusted the RAW temperature data in the last 30 years. They acknowledge doing it. Note that in all cases, it reduced the temperatures in the past, and increased them going forward, without exception. And secondly, the pandemic gave us a massive carbon reduction over a 3 month period. How much did the temperature decrease during that time compared to where it would have been? Google around on these and you can pick your own sources to read.

 

[bobongo]

Undeniable:

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_re...ic-sea-ice-minimum-1979-2019-with-area-graph/

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Again, why do my public policies need to be the same as yours? Why can’t I agree to all the science but disagree that we need to make wholesale changes?

I’ll give you a couple “links” as you asked, onto your other point - go look up how many times NOAA has adjusted the RAW temperature data in the last 30 years. They acknowledge doing it. Note that in all cases, it reduced the temperatures in the past, and increased them going forward, without exception. And secondly, the pandemic gave us a massive carbon reduction over a 3 month period. How much did the temperature decrease during that time compared to where it would have been? Google around on these and you can pick your own sources to read.

And it’s growing in the Antarctic.
https://earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-planet/unexpected-ice

To each, I say: So.

 

[bobongo]

And it’s growing in the Antarctic.
https://earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-planet/unexpected-ice

Possible reasons, from the article:

"One study paradoxically suggests that ocean warming and enhanced melting of the Antarctic ice sheet is causing the small but statistically significant sea ice expansion in the region. Another study suggests that rain caused by a warmer climate has been causing an influx of fresh water into the Southern Ocean, making it less dense and inhibiting oceanic heat from reaching sea ice in the Antarctic."

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Possible reasons, from the article:

"One study paradoxically suggests that ocean warming and enhanced melting of the Antarctic ice sheet is causing the small but statistically significant sea ice expansion in the region. Another study suggests that rain caused by a warmer climate has been causing an influx of fresh water into the Southern Ocean, making it less dense and inhibiting oceanic heat from reaching sea ice in the Antarctic."

Right, because warming causes cooling. As the article says, their models have been all wrong. Even if their models were correct and the world is warming and oceans are warming - who cares? We’ve increased about 1 single degree in the last 150 years. We just shut carbon emissions off for 3 months and nobody could tell a single 0.000001 temperature difference. There is no evidence if we severely cut emissions the earth’s temperature would change. The earth has been much colder and much warmer before and both will happen again, and our ability to influence that is way out in some minuscule decimal position.

Our local TV station gives money to charity if the next days high temperature is within 6 degrees of their guess from the night before (+/- 3). SIX DECREES! They typically are only that close about 60% of the time. One time last week they missed by 9 degrees. That’s the high temperature as predicted at the 11pm newscast the night before.

 

[MWBATL]

If there was actual science that could be trusted to be non-political, it would be welcomed.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any of that.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

2. What the thread is full of is tons of links to tendentious articles about studies and very few to the actual reputable work done that might lead to questions about the consensus. One of the reasons I called for more links to the research about "fraud" and such is that I know how uncertain a lot of it is; just like the research in the consensus, it is about interpretations of present data that give some insight into the future. Then, as said above, it is a matter of how much attention you pay to tail risk.

In case nobody has gone out and googled about NOAA retroactively changing their historical temperature data, here are some links:
https://climatecenter.fsu.edu/does-noaa-adjust-historical-climate-data

And here is a nice picture (from that link) about what the changes to the temperature record looked like when they changed all their historical temperature data in 2015. The 2015 change (they've done this a few times) served to decrease all the old temperatures and increase them in recent history, changing the slope of average temperatures over time.

As scientists, we all know that instruments drift, need to be recalibrated...the environment changes around them (eg one weather station now has a huge set of parking lots around it that weren't there 20 years ago and they radiate a lot of heat), and so on. But the notion that you'd go back and change your official temperatures back 10, 20, 100 years is really obscene.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

9th named storm on the way. We’ll finish the first third of hurricane season with 1 hurricane. When I was growing up, summer storms with 30-40 mph winds were called thunder storms. Now we have to name them all to create hysteria. We’ve only had less than 3 hurricanes in a season once in the last like 40 years.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

You can google cause of 2017 fires, cause of Napa fire, cause of Oregon fires - we’re still running at almost 100% caused by arson or power lines.

 

[orientalnc]

You can google cause of 2017 fires, cause of Napa fire, cause of Oregon fires - we’re still running at almost 100% caused by arson or power lines.

The cause of the fires is not in dispute. It's the conditions that create the extremely volatile situation. The very hot, dry days and little rain created a tender box on the ground and it doesn't take much for the fires to start and burn out of control quickly.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

The cause of the fires is not in dispute. It's the conditions that create the extremely volatile situation. The very hot, dry days and little rain created a tender box on the ground and it doesn't take much for the fires to start and burn out of control quickly.

It’s always been like that. I’ve lived out there. There wouldn’t be a drop of rain from May until November. But we didn’t have arsonists everywhere back then. And homes weren’t built all up in and around the hills like they've been over the last 20-30 years. There is no safe ability to manage the forest anymore.

Where I live on the east coast, if people set fires in the woods all over the place, we’d have tremendous fires too. Thankfully nobody thinks it’s a fun hobby over here.

 

[orientalnc]

It’s always been like that. I’ve lived out there. There wouldn’t be a drop of rain from May until November. But we didn’t have arsonists everywhere back then. And homes weren’t built all up in and around the hills like they've been over the last 20-30 years. There is no safe ability to manage the forest anymore.

Where I live on the east coast, if people set fires in the woods all over the place, we’d have tremendous fires too. Thankfully nobody thinks it’s a fun hobby over here.

I agree. There have been big fires out west my entire life. When NC had the big Aligator River Wildlife Refuge fire a few years ago it was scary, but there are no homes near the refuge and it is almost completely surrounded by water. These fires in California and Oregon are pushing people out of homes and destroying entire towns. I am not sure how you manage a forest the size of these fires. The Dept of Agriculture is certainly not doing enough, but it may be all they can do.

 

[GTBandman]

Rainouts at Dodger Stadium are extremely rare. Since 1962, there have been only 17. A story in the April 13, 1976, Los Angeles Times reported, “The rainout was the first for a regular season game at Dodger Stadium since April 21, 1967, when Don Drysdale was scheduled to face Bob Gibson of the St. Louis Cardinals. LA Times Apr 11, 2019

“it never rains in California” in summer. “Man it pours” occasionally in winter.

Maybe it would be a good idea to manage the forests to protect the spotted owls instead of leaving the forests alone to burn to a crisp?

 

[MWBATL]

Undeniable:

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_re...ic-sea-ice-minimum-1979-2019-with-area-graph/

The Great Barrier Reef has undergone five different death events

Researchers found that the Great Barrier Reef has suffered 5 death events driven by sea-level changes, and in response to these changes, the reef migrated across the ocean floor.

www.earth.com

5 "Death Events"...none of which were caused by humanity, and none of which actually killed the Great Barrier Reef. The underlying article explains that the sea level changes reached as much as 100 meters that the GBR has survived....

This does not mean that there are not issues, but it does suggest there is a LOT of panic porn out there to try to scare people (and governments) into postures and funding which benefit a few

 

[Deleted member 2897]

The Great Barrier Reef has undergone five different death events

Researchers found that the Great Barrier Reef has suffered 5 death events driven by sea-level changes, and in response to these changes, the reef migrated across the ocean floor.

www.earth.com

5 "Death Events"...none of which were caused by humanity, and none of which actually killed the Great Barrier Reef. The underlying article explains that the sea level changes reached as much as 100 meters that the GBR has survived....

This does not mean that there are not issues, but it does suggest there is a LOT of panic porn out there to try to scare people (and governments) into postures and funding which benefit a few

/makes note of the 347th piece of information which contradicts the “consensus”