2015 Warmest Year on Record

[Deleted member 2897]

Hmm....on further thought I wonder what the answer would be from those who view this article as gospel if they discovered that raw data adjustments were adjusted downward, not upward, about 50% of the time? That gives a whole new definition to the phrase, "nearly always adjusted upward."

I am through with this article. Thanks for playing.

Yup, half the time they were adjusted downward....in the mid 1900s. The other half of the time they were adjusted upwards...in the 2000s. The result is a much sharper line trajectory upwards showing a lot of warming. Hope that helps.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I don't believe the world is a perfect world, provided by God to us, to be abused and polluted with no ill consequence. If we treat the world like our own personal sewer, we will eventually live in a sewer. That's why I never leave anything behind on treks, hikes, camp outs, boat trips, or any other kind of expedition.....other than random foot prints.

The environment is important to me. I hate seeing it despoiled with litter or man made spills / disasters. Green house gasses do not rise to this, and there is very little real evidence it is.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

When Mann last testified before Congress he said the two main ice sheets on Antarctica were definitely losing mass. Maybe a lie, maybe just an incorrect statement.

@Northeast Stinger likes NASA data...so here is this. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ns-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

The more our scientists "know", the less they understand. But we are supposed to cripple our economy over their unproven worries...

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

But, let me try to be a little more generous to this position. Let's assume everyone from NASA to the EPA to the Pentagon to the CIA to the NSA to the Weather Channel, etc., etc., is not actually in on the conspiracy but in fact are all being duped by a few well placed people who are in on the conspiracy. Then the question arises as to what the motive is. In my mind I have exhausted every possible explanation for why a group of people would want to dupe the entire world on this topic and I find them all to be pretty far fetched.
.

As to motive. I don't know if climategate is a widespread conspiracy. I'd characterize it as a small one, continuing a history of prior small ones...the stupid and incredibly erroneous climate models I've been hearing about for the past two decades.

I'll agree that the issue as a whole has more to do with personal biases. And climategate and similar bad science has fed into it continuously.

What bias you may ask? I'll cite Delingpole and Forbes.

"The reason: Global warming is not about science, but about politics — that is, about expanding the power of elites using the coercive instruments of government to control the lives of people everywhere. Just as the governing class embraces ineffective Keynesian stimulus spending to justify expansion of government, they now extol AGW as the basis for increasing their power to rule over the rest of us."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...l-is-power-the-global-warming-conspiracy/amp/

 

[AE 87]

For many, human neg effect on climate is simply a matter of faith. Asking them to read and think is useless because it's simply faith. They are fundamentalists.

 

[awbuzz]

Curious how man caused Global Warming to slow, stop then reverse the last couple of ice ages. Do we have and data points to show how man did this? I can't find any data records to prove or disprove those reversals, nor that man caused those ice ages either.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Curious how man caused Global Warming to slow, stop then reverse the last couple of ice ages. Do we have and data points to show how man did this? I can't find any data records to prove or disprove those reversals, nor that man caused those ice ages either.

Its in the Bible in Glaciers 2:13-19.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Yup, half the time they were adjusted downward....in the mid 1900s. The other half of the time they were adjusted upwards...in the 2000s. The result is a much sharper line trajectory upwards showing a lot of warming. Hope that helps.

Are you sure?

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Here is the problem, or at least part of it.
https://thinkprogress.org/scientist...o-suggest-climate-change-is-fake-a9240a9e38e2

When scientific reports continue to be distorted then it is increasingly difficult to have an honest conversation. It was recently reported that climate change denial sites have 10 times the readership that sites honestly examining the impact of climate change have. So sorting through the noise is difficult.

Everybody on this thread seems to be settled on this issue so I see no further reason for discussion. I will now go join the majority of members on this site who choose to avoid this topic and only discuss football. Thanks for trying to keep it civil.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Here is the problem, or at least part of it.
https://thinkprogress.org/scientist...o-suggest-climate-change-is-fake-a9240a9e38e2

When scientific reports continue to be distorted then it is increasingly difficult to have an honest conversation. It was recently reported that climate change denial sites have 10 times the readership that sites honestly examining the impact of climate change have. So sorting through the noise is difficult.

Everybody on this thread seems to be settled on this issue so I see no further reason for discussion. I will now go join the majority of members on this site who choose to avoid this topic and only discuss football. Thanks for trying to keep it civil.

Hmmmmmmm, I have no idea what that news article is about. I was referring to the manual adjustments made to the raw temperature readings.

I choose to follow science and not scientists. That's a subtlety, but I believe an important one. I frequently find the answer is not on the left or the right, but somewhere in between. For example, to me the science shows we're polluting the hell out of the earth and while its unclear exactly what effect man is having on temperatures in terms of the numbers of degrees or tenths of a degree, to me that is irrelevant. The problem is we're polluting the earth and its not clear to me that if its 0.3F or 1.3F that it makes a bit of difference. Science also shows the scientists' models are frequently wrong, so we can't just say lets shut off use of carbon and temperatures will fall and the atmosphere will clear. We should do everything we can to protect the environment because we want to protect the environment and keep it clean. This religion of splitting pennies over how much the earth is warming is a distraction in my opinion.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Hmmmmmmm, I have no idea what that news article is about. I was referring to the manual adjustments made to the raw temperature readings.

I choose to follow science and not scientists. That's a subtlety, but I believe an important one. I frequently find the answer is not on the left or the right, but somewhere in between. For example, to me the science shows we're polluting the hell out of the earth and while its unclear exactly what effect man is having on temperatures in terms of the numbers of degrees or tenths of a degree, to me that is irrelevant. The problem is we're polluting the earth and its not clear to me that if its 0.3F or 1.3F that it makes a bit of difference. Science also shows the scientists' models are frequently wrong, so we can't just say lets shut off use of carbon and temperatures will fall and the atmosphere will clear. We should do everything we can to protect the environment because we want to protect the environment and keep it clean. This religion of splitting pennies over how much the earth is warming is a distraction in my opinion.

I actually kind of agree with you. I have heard climate change skeptics (a rare few to be sure) say that reducing carbon emissions might be a good idea to do anyway even if it has no effect on global temperatures.

The article is about the fact that those who are doing pure research often have their findings taken out of context and distorted to support a particular political position. In the case of the Daily Caller article, for instance, global temperatures since 1980 were adjusted (the reasons which were in the original report make sense to a layman like myself and do not reflect any sinister motives) but this was distorted by the later paper. The adjustments, since 1980, were equal 50% were adjusted upward and 50% were adjusted downward. But in the later paper, which the Daily Caller builds its case on, these numbers get changed. Why? I don't know but all the people who worked on the paper are funded by carbon industries. That does not make them immoral or even wrong but it does raise issues of objectivity when their "peer review" was also done by other scientists who were working for carbon industries. Not to be argumentative, but it appeared to me that they started with their conclusion and then doctored the data.

Following the science rather than scientists is a good idea. I vote for that.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I actually kind of agree with you. I have heard climate change skeptics (a rare few to be sure) say that reducing carbon emissions might be a good idea to do anyway even if it has no effect on global temperatures.

The article is about the fact that those who are doing pure research often have their findings taken out of context and distorted to support a particular political position. In the case of the Daily Caller article, for instance, global temperatures since 1980 were adjusted (the reasons which were in the original report make sense to a layman like myself and do not reflect any sinister motives) but this was distorted by the later paper. The adjustments, since 1980, were equal 50% were adjusted upward and 50% were adjusted downward. But in the later paper, which the Daily Caller builds its case on, these numbers get changed. Why? I don't know but all the people who worked on the paper are funded by carbon industries. That does not make them immoral or even wrong but it does raise issues of objectivity when their "peer review" was also done by other scientists who were working for carbon industries. Not to be argumentative, but it appeared to me that they started with their conclusion and then doctored the data.

Following the science rather than scientists is a good idea. I vote for that.

My eyes and mind started to go quickly numb again when you were discussing science and the Daily Caller in the same sentence. Trust me, all you have to say is those 2 terms together and I'm with you. If you want a conservative view and spin on politics, probably a good resource. Otherwise, meh.

 

[CTJacket]

We should do everything we can to protect the environment because we want to protect the environment and keep it clean.

There's the point of it all. Who cares whether it does or does not affect the temperature? We should be preserving the one planet we know we can live on for our future generations.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

There's the point of it all. Who cares whether it does or does not affect the temperature? We should be preserving the one planet we know we can live on for our future generations.

Fully agree. With very important caveats. Do it without huge government subsidies, do it without major regulations that either drive up power bills or restrict future power plant expansions, do it without restricting drilling, fracking etc.

In other words do it in a manner that doesn't restrict economic growth and doesn't levy new taxes or redistribute wealth.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Fully agree. With very important caveats. Do it without huge government subsidies, do it without major regulations that either drive up power bills or restrict future power plant expansions, do it without restricting drilling, fracking etc.

In other words do it in a manner that doesn't restrict economic growth and doesn't levy new taxes or redistribute wealth.

This is where I have a slightly different opinion. I am not in favor of the government picking winners and losers. However, I do think just like there are marriage tax breaks there are times that the government has a role in encouraging good behavior. To show one case study, Tesla sales in Taiwan that had previously been around 3,000 cars dropped completely to 0 after a tax break was removed. Tesla lives off of tax breaks on both sides of the fence - they get preferred funding through the government due to their business and the customers get deals from tax breaks on the back end. These industries literally could not survive without some level of assistance. Sure, its human nature to say 'well if they can't survive on their own then that tells you all you need to know'...but I think there should be more to the story than that. I'm not advocating the pathetic level of handouts that alternative energy companies and products have today, but there is value with clean energy compared to dirty energy. I think the government's role is to provide just enough (via taxes on gas/oil for example, and reasonable tax breaks on alternative) that rich people can afford it. Then once they start purchasing and using those products the economies of scale will kick in and pricing will come down so regular people can buy it. That's how it has always worked with new technologies before. But the government (in my opinion) did need to step in somewhat here. For example, I looked into solar cells for my roof - even with getting 40% of the cost eliminated due to tax credits, the system still would only provide me a break even return in 7 years. I mean, that is just crazy. I'm not really providing a true opinion with a suggestion here, I'm just saying if we provide no tax credits these industries literally wouldn't even be able to exist. There is no way even a rich person would pay $30,000 for solar cells (in my case) when the average monthly power bill across all 12 months is about $175/month.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

This is where I have a slightly different opinion. I am not in favor of the government picking winners and losers. However, I do think just like there are marriage tax breaks there are times that the government has a role in encouraging good behavior. To show one case study, Tesla sales in Taiwan that had previously been around 3,000 cars dropped completely to 0 after a tax break was removed. Tesla lives off of tax breaks on both sides of the fence - they get preferred funding through the government due to their business and the customers get deals from tax breaks on the back end. These industries literally could not survive without some level of assistance. Sure, its human nature to say 'well if they can't survive on their own then that tells you all you need to know'...but I think there should be more to the story than that. I'm not advocating the pathetic level of handouts that alternative energy companies and products have today, but there is value with clean energy compared to dirty energy. I think the government's role is to provide just enough (via taxes on gas/oil for example, and reasonable tax breaks on alternative) that rich people can afford it. Then once they start purchasing and using those products the economies of scale will kick in and pricing will come down so regular people can buy it. That's how it has always worked with new technologies before. But the government (in my opinion) did need to step in somewhat here. For example, I looked into solar cells for my roof - even with getting 40% of the cost eliminated due to tax credits, the system still would only provide me a break even return in 7 years. I mean, that is just crazy. I'm not really providing a true opinion with a suggestion here, I'm just saying if we provide no tax credits these industries literally wouldn't even be able to exist. There is no way even a rich person would pay $30,000 for solar cells (in my case) when the average monthly power bill across all 12 months is about $175/month.

Tesla and dirty energy.....what do you consider to be dirty energy? Coal, nuke, natural gas? That tesla that gets plugged in at night could mostly be powered by one of the above. So why the heck should they be so heavily subsidized?

Musk is a big producer in solar. The champion "clean" energy. Except solar is very inefficient for large scale energy production. The manufacturing of the panels creates toxic waste, requires a lot of energy to produce (hello again coal power) which produces guess what..? ...greenhouse gasses lol. The manufacturing of them also requires rare earth metals.....which are expensive and...rare of course. The widespread use of these materials for production isn't going to help the scarcity or price of these materials.

Not to mention the fact that solar panels don't last forever, there is not an adequate means of recycling them, and they are adding toxins to our landfills.

Solar is a huge circle jerk until there is some technology breakthrough making them cleaner and more economically viable.

 

[MWBATL]

I have two comments about what I have read thus far in this thread......

(1) My compliments to all of the participants. I have found many of the links you have posted on both sides of the argument to be informative and helpful in my own thinking about this issue. And my further compliments that at a time when most folks on both sides simply seem to be yelling at each other, that there are still places like this one where civil discourse can be found and mutual respect is shown even when disagreeing. Kudos to all of you!
(2) I think the recent comments about not fouling the planet because that's the sensible thing to do moves me the most personally. While I generally dislike government interference and think both sides exaggerate the issues involved, I do believe pretty strongly in being sensible about managing scarce resources and trying to manage our planet more sensibly. Putting aside US policies, however....
(3) am I wrong to think that the elephant in the room is really over-population? Isn't most of the issue being driven by rapidly expanding human population that is increasing demand for energy (coal fired power plants in India and China) and decreasing rain forests and other resources that could help reduce atmospheric CO2?

Should we really be talking about how we reduce over-population?

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Reducing over-population is a slippery slope indeed with few good solutions.

1. Kill people. How, who, and how many?
2. Restrict births like the China one child law.
3. Deny / restrict healthcare which prolongs life and thus increases overall population.
4. Colonize space.

I'm just not seeing a solution to this. Perhaps global war or plague will "solve" this problem but I'm personally not pulling for either of those scenarios either.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Reducing over-population is a slippery slope indeed with few good solutions.

1. Kill people. How, who, and how many?
2. Restrict births like the China one child law.
3. Deny / restrict healthcare which prolongs life and thus increases overall population.
4. Colonize space.

I'm just not seeing a solution to this. Perhaps global war or plague will "solve" this problem but I'm personally not pulling for either of those scenarios either.

I agree with both of you - the short answer to the first question is yes. The short answer to the second comment is that yes there are also no easy answers.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Got some sun the other day then wondered how much I might have harmed myself with the ozone hole over North America....so I did some research.

https://realclimatescience.com/2017/07/twenty-five-years-since-the-ozone-hole-killed-us-all/

Luckily it was just....alarmism after all...whew!....I mean thank you Montreal Protocol

Some of the posters' comments were interesting.

"

Joseph Blackston MD JD FACP says:
July 19, 2017 at 11:46 pm
Dr. Hession,

You are 100% correct. I am also a physician, board-certified, and work as an Emergency Physician. These “MDI’s” or “metered dose inhalers were literally dirt cheap ($10-12) for many years, just as you say. The medication (albuterol) is readily available as a generic and has been around for 35 years.

Now, even the cheapest of these MDI’s are $60-80. People on Medicaid pay zero. People with Blue Cross pay $10-15. People with NO insurance pay the FULL PRICE.

A couple of times per month I hospitalize and occasionally have to intubate a patient who is “non compliant” with his/her asthma medication, because they cannot afford it.

Al Gore, and the idiots who misguidedly follow him, should be forced to spend a Friday and Saturday night in my ER.
____________________________

In the endeavor to be balanced here is some good alarmism from very reputable science mags.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ozone-hole-was-super-scary-what-happened-it-180957775/

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/climate-change-could-erode-ozone-layer-over-us-8598603/

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...ole-load-ozone-depleting-chemicals-180952449/

https://www.google.com/amp/relay.na...00505-science-environment-ozone-hole-25-years

The ozone hole is fixed thanks to man, the healed ozone hole will cause more global warming, global warming will cause an ozone hole catastrophe.....thank the Lord for scientific consensus!!

And for Al Gore fans.... http://pagesix.com/2017/07/18/al-go...7403.4104357.1500470272-1243360469.1500470272

Elon Musk supports the Gore sequel??? The guy making billions in bogus government subsidies to save us from Global Warning?? Nah!!!!