Page 28 of 28 FirstFirst ... 182425262728
Results 2,701 to 2,763 of 2763

Thread: Climate change

  1. #2701
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    358
    OK fine. It wasn't really a whopper anyway. It was really more like being disingenuous. But the lesson here is not about what you said and how you said it. I think what you said is what all of us engage in from time to time. The Michael Mann hockey stick graph was called out as a fraud because he posted some data in the form of a graph, but he made the decision to leave out important information that would have changed the graph. He made the Little Ice Age disappear. It was climate science magic. What was he thinking? That he would become famous and that the IPCC would embrace his graph? Maybe. Did he really think no other climate scientists, or even a non scientists wouldn't question his hockey stick data? Like you, he would just spend several paragraphs making a non-denial denial of cheating or falsifying data. It was merely an omission, not a lie.

    Time to move on. Personal squabbles are boring. Prepare yourself for science.

  2. #2702
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    358
    Claim: CO2 Will Cause Baby Fish To Lose Their Way Home

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/...heir-way-home/

    Climate change-dory-fish.jpg

    Guest essay by Eric Worrall

    Who feels sad about the fate of the poor lost baby fish?

    Baby fish may not find their way home as the level of CO2 in the ocean rises, study finds



    University of Adelaide Professor Ivan Nagelkerken said some species of fish larvae relied on sounds in the ocean to find their way between open areas and shallow water.

    When larvae grow big enough, they find their way to their natural habitats along the coastlines.

    “A lot of larvae have evolved to use certain cues to help them find their new homes … including sounds,” Professor Nagelkerken said.

    “It’s a very reliable, directional cue that can help them to navigate to find these homes.”



    The research compared the behaviour of barramundi larvae in normal water to water with elevated CO2 levels similar to those predicted for the end of the century.

    The right sounds would have led the barramundi to their natural habitat — tropical estuarine mangroves.

    Instead, they were attracted to different sounds and white noise, leading them to habitats that were not beneficial to their survival.



    “When we raised these larvae under elevated CO2, we saw that those larvae were no longer attracted — and worse, they were deterred by — the natural sounds of their natural habitat,” he said.



    Read more: Baby fish may not find their way home as the level of CO2 in the ocean rises, study finds - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

    The abstract of the study;

    On the wrong track: ocean acidification attracts larval fish to irrelevant environmental cues

    Tullio Rossi, Jennifer C. A. Pistevos, Sean D. Connell & Ivan Nagelkerken

    Population replenishment of marine life largely depends on successful dispersal of larvae to suitable adult habitat. Ocean acidification alters behavioural responses to physical and chemical cues in marine animals, including the maladaptive deterrence of settlement-stage larval fish to odours of preferred habitat and attraction to odours of non-preferred habitat. However, sensory compensation may allow fish to use alternative settlement cues such as sound. We show that future ocean acidification reverses the attraction of larval fish (barramundi) to their preferred settlement sounds (tropical estuarine mangroves). Instead, acidification instigates an attraction to unfamiliar sounds (temperate rocky reefs) as well as artificially generated sounds (white noise), both of which were ignored by fish living in current day conditions. This finding suggests that by the end of the century, following a business as usual CO2 emission scenario, these animals might avoid functional environmental cues and become attracted to cues that provide no adaptive advantage or are potentially deleterious. This maladaptation could disrupt population replenishment of this and other economically important species if animals fail to adapt to elevated CO2 conditions.

    Read more: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-24026-6

    According to the body of the text, the study was conducted in a big fish tank.

    In my opinion the premise of this study is absurd. You can’t draw meaningful conclusions about the impact of a century of gradual change by dropping fish into an elevated CO2 environment and seeing which way they swim.

    Even if the apparent confusion was caused by CO2 rather than contaminants or problems with the sound equipment, over the next eighty years fish will have plenty of opportunity to adapt to changed conditions – an opportunity not afforded to the unfortunate baby fish which participated in this experiment.

  3. #2703
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    358
    The “Alarmist Gone Wild” Perspective of the Increase in Antarctic Snowfall

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/...ctic-snowfall/

    David Middleton / 1 day ago April 12, 2018
    Three days ago, Anthony posted a very factual summary of the recent EGU paper on the increase in Antarctic snowfall over the past 200 years:

    Big increase in Antarctic Snowfall helps to prevent sea level rise

    Earther, the folks who reported that Gorebal Warming is deforming the seafloor, have an interesting perspective of the EGU publication (including defamatory remarks about Anthony and WUWT in the first comment)…

    SCIENCE

    Antarctica Is Getting Snowier

    Maddie Stone
    Monday 3:50pm Filed to: ICE ON THIN ICE

    The world’s largest hunk of ice, the Antarctic ice sheet, holds enough frozen water to put cities like Miami several hundred feet under. How much Antarctica shrinks in the future will depend on the balance between what’s melting away, and what’s being added when it snows.

    A new study published in the journal Climate of the Past has some (small) good news as far as snowfall is concerned: it’s going up. Since the 19th century, snowfall across Antarctica has increased by about 10 percent. It isn’t nearly enough to offset sea level rise from ice melting, but the numbers are still impressive. As a press release points out, the continent is packing on about two Dead Sea’s worth of new ice each year.

    “Our new results show a significant change in the surface mass balance (from snowfall) during the twentieth century,” lead study author Elizabeth Thomas of the British Antarctic Survey said in a statement.

    […]

    Earther

    So far, not too different than Anthony’s post… And then the wheels came off.

    The dataset revealed that Antarctica gained 272 billion tons more ice per year in the first decade of the 21st century compared with the first decade of the 19th. Put another way, the additional snowfall has offset 0.02 mm of sea level rise per decade since 1800.

    Since it’s unclear as to whether or not Antarctica is currently losing or gaining ice, largely due to glacial isostatic adjustment uncertainties, two Dead Seas worth of additional ice (on top of the 19th century accumulation rate) is a lot of fracking ice… If two Dead Seas worth of ice per year were disappearing from Greenland, it would be catastrophic according to the alarmists. We know this because Greenland is currently losing an estimated 186-375 billion tons of ice per year and this is described as catastrophic, despite its insignificance to the overall mass and volume of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS). In Greenland, our friends at Skeptical Science describe this as “ominous”…

    In Antarctica, it’s described as “some (small) good news.”

    One of the things I love about Alarmists Gone Wild is their total lack of perspective.

    According to Kjeldsen et al., 2015, the GrIS lost over 9,900 km3 of ice from 1900-2010 and an article in The Economist asserted that the GrIS lost 375 Gt/yr (409 km3/yr) from 2011-2014.

    1900–1983 75.1 ± 29.4 gigatonnes per year
    1983–2003 73.8 ± 40.5 gigatonnes per year
    2003–2010 186.4 ± 18.9 gigatonnes per year
    km³/yr gigatonnes/yr
    1900–1983 (82) (75)
    1983–2003 (81) (74)
    2003–2010 (203) (186)
    2011-2014 (409) (375)
    If the estimates above are correct, the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) lost 11,077 billion tons of ice from 1900-2014… 81 Dead Seas. In the first decade of the 21st century (2001-2010), the GrIS lost 1,639 billion tons of ice… 12 Dead Seas.

    If Antarctica was gaining an additional 272 billion tons of ice relative to the 19th century, it gained an additional 2,720 billion tons of ice from 2001-2010, more than offsetting the loss from the GrIS. It’s almost as if the ice melted from Greenland and some mystical force (evapotranspiration) transported it to Antarctica and deposited it as snowfall.

    Now back to Earther…

    That’s tiny compared with the several millimeters a year of sea level rise coming from Antarctica’s melting ice each year, but it ain’t nothing.

    “Several millimeters a year of sea level rise coming from Antarctica’s melting ice each year”… On what planet?

    Tide gauge data put sea level rise in the neighborhood of 1.5 mm/yr. Satellite data puts it at 3.2 mm/yr.

    several
    adjective [not gradable ] US ​ /ˈsev·rəl, -ər·əl/

    (of an amount or number) more than two and fewer than many; some:

    I’ve seen “Star Wars” several times.

    Kind of difficult for melting ice from Antarctica to contribute “several millimeters a year” to 1.5-3.2 mm/yr of total sea level rise.

    The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report estimated that losses from glaciers and ice caps contributed 0.58 ± 0.18 mm yr-1 to sea-level rise from 1961 to 2003 and 0.77 ± 0.22 mm yr-1 from 1993 to 2003 (Bindoff et al., 2007), with the most rapid ice losses occurring in Patagonia, Alaska, northwest United States, and southwest Canada (Lemke et al., 2007). Uncertainties in the net loss rate were significant, however, because of sparse point observations and incomplete knowledge of global glacier area and volume distribution for upscaling point observations. On the Greenland Ice Sheet, the IPCC (2007) found that mass was gained at high elevations because of increasing snowfall, and mass was lost near the coast because of increases in melting and in the flow speed of outlet glaciers. The IPCC estimated that the Greenland Ice Sheet contributed 0.05 ± 0.12 mm yr-1 to sea-level rise from 1961 to 2003 and 0.21 ± 0.07 mm yr-1 from 1993 to 2003. Changes in Antarctica were more challenging to interpret because of the relatively small changes in snow accumulation rates (Monaghan et al., 2006) and to different trends in the flow of individual West Antarctic outlet streams. The IPCC estimated that the Antarctic Ice Sheet contribution was between -0.28 and +0.55 mm yr-1 from 1961 to 2003 and between -0.14 and +0.55 mm yr-1 from 1993 to 2003, allowing for the possibility that the Antarctic mass change may have reduced sea-level rise, especially prior to 1993 (Bindoff et al., 2007; Lemke et al., 2007). The rate of ice loss appears to have increased since 1993 because of increasing surface melt on the Greenland Ice Sheet and faster flow of some outlet glaciers in both Greenland and Antarctica.

    National Academies Press

    The best recent estimate is that Antarctica is somewhere between gaining enough ice to lower sea level by as much as 0.14 mm/yr and losing enough ice to raise sea level by 0.55 mm/yr. So… “Several millimeters a year of sea level rise” are *not* “coming from Antarctica’s melting ice each year.”

    Most of the extra snow has fallen on the Antarctic Peninsula, while a smaller amount accumulated on the much drier (but vaster) East Antarctic Plateau.

    And this is a “good thing” because the Antarctic Peninsula is just about the only part of Antarctica experiencing a significant loss of ice mass.

    On to the first comment to this article…



    Dense non aqueous phase liquidMaddie Stone
    4/09/18 6:51pm
    Earther should hire Anthony Watts:

    Big increase is Antarctic Snowfall helps to prevent sea level rise

    Is there a meeting between environmental and climate journalists each morning on which academic research should be dragged out of the bowels of academia?

    Maddie, you saved yourself by calling up actual climate scientists to give the old, “so” quote. I like the one quote above which was something like, “so, higher temps mean more evaporation and precipitation.” Unfortunately, we’ll be hearing about this research as proof there is no climate change problem soon on the TV. Trump will divert science spending to border wall cement.

    If anybody reading this doesn’t know already, Watts up with That is a climate change denial blog. Anthony Watts is a tool. He’s sort of changed the tone of the blog a bit to reflect the obvious. But it’s still bullshit. The comments are priceless for the linked post above.

    Yes… Earther should hire Anthony Watts. His review of this study was not riddled with errors.

  4. #2704
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    358
    70+ scientific papers say: Today’s Sea Level Change Indistinguishable From Noise

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/...le-from-noise/

    Anthony Watts / 1 day ago April 12, 2018
    Holocene Sea Levels were 2 Meters Higher

    1. Are Modern ‘Anthropogenic’ Sea Levels Rising At An Unprecedented Rate? No.

    Despite the surge in CO2 concentrations since 1900, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that global sea levels only rose by an average of 1.7 mm/yr during the entire 1901-2010 period, which is a rate of just 0.17 of a meter per century.

    During the 1958 to 2014 period, when CO2 emissions rose dramatically, a recent analysis revealed that the rate of sea level rise slowed to between 1.3 mm/yr to 1.5 mm/yr, or just 0.14 of a meter per century.

    Frederiske et al.,2018 “Anthropogenic” Global Sea Level Rise Rate (1958-2014): +0.14 of a meter per century

    “For the first time, it is shown that for most basins the reconstructed sea level trend and acceleration can be explained by the sum of contributors, as well as a large part of the decadal variability. The global-mean sea level reconstruction shows a trend of 1.5 ± 0.2 mm yr−1 over 1958–2014 (1σ), compared to 1.3 ± 0.1 mm yr−1 for the sum of contributors.”

    2. ~15,000 – 11,000 Years Ago, Sea Levels Rose At Rates Of +4 to +6 Meters Per Century

    In the past few thousand years, sea levels in some regions rose and fell at rates of + or – 0.5 to 1.1 meters per century. Sea levels during the Medieval Warm Period were+170 centimeters higher than today.

    Hansen et al., 2016 Denmark, +1.7 meters higher than present during the Medieval Warm Period

    Climate change-holocene-cooling-sea-level-denmark-hansen-16.jpg

    “Continuous record of Holocene sea-level changes … (4900 years BP to present). … The curve reveals eight centennial sea-level oscillations of 0.5-1.1 m superimposed on the general trend of the RSL [relative sea level] curve [relative sea levels ~1.7 m higher than present from 1400 to 1000 years ago].”

    Cronin et al., 2017 Global Sea Level Rise Rate: +4 meters per century (14,500 to 14,000 years ago)

    “Rates and patterns of global sea level rise (SLR) following the last glacial maximum (LGM) are known from radiometric ages on coral reefs from Barbados, Tahiti, New Guinea, and the Indian Ocean, as well as sediment records from the Sunda Shelf and elsewhere. … Lambeck et al. (2014) estimate mean global rates during the main deglaciation phase of 16.5 to 8.2 kiloannum (ka) [16,500 to 8,200 years ago] at 12 mm yr−1 [+1.2 meters per century] with more rapid SLR [sea level rise] rates (∼ 40 mm yr−1) [+4 meters per century] during meltwater pulse 1A ∼ 14.5–14.0 ka [14,500 to 14,000 years ago].”

    Abdul et al., 2017 Global Sea Level Rise Rate: +4 meters per century(11,450 to 11,100 years ago)

    “We find that sea level tracked the climate oscillations remarkably well. Sea-level rise was fast in the early Allerød (25 mm yr-1), but decreased smoothly into the Younger Dryas (7 mm yr-1) when the rate plateaued to <4 mm yr-1here termed a sea-level “slow stand”. No evidence was found indicating a jump in sea level at the beginning of the Younger Dryas as proposed by some researchers. Following the “slow-stand”, the rate of sea-level rise accelerated rapidly, producing the 14 ± 2 m sea-level jump known as MWP-1B; occurred between 11.45 and 11.1 kyr BP with peak sea-level rise reaching 40 mm yr-1 [+4 meters per century].”

    Ivanovic et al., 2017 Northern Hemisphere Sea Level Rise Rate: +3.5 to +6.5 meters per century (~14,500 years ago)

    “During the Last Glacial Maximum 26–19 thousand years ago (ka), a vast ice sheet stretched over North America [Clark et al., 2009]. In subsequent millennia, as the climate warmed and this ice sheet decayed, large volumes of meltwater flooded to the oceans [Tarasov and Peltier, 2006; Wickert, 2016]. This period, known as the “last deglaciation,” included episodes of abrupt climate change, such as the Bølling warming [~14.7–14.5 ka], when Northern Hemisphere temperatures increased by 4–5°C in just a few decades [Lea et al., 2003; Buizert et al., 2014], coinciding with a 12–22 m sea level rise in less than 340 years [3.5 to 6.5 meters per century] (Meltwater Pulse 1a (MWP1a)) [Deschamps et al., 2012].”

    Zecchin et al., 2015 Regional Sea Level Rise Rate: +6 meters per century(14,500-11,500 years ago)

    “[M]elt-water pulses have punctuated the post-glacial relative sea-level rise with rates up to 60 mm/yr. [6 meters per century] for a few centuries.”

    3. Over 70 Papers Affirm Sea Levels Were 2+ Meters Higher Than Now A Few Thousand Years Ago When CO2 Levels Were ‘Safe’

    70+ Papers: Sea Levels 2+ m Higher 9,000-4,000 Years Ago While CO2 Levels Were ‘Safe’ (265 ppm) More Here

    Before the advent of the industrial revolution in the late 18th to early 19th centuries, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations hovered between 260 to 280 parts per million (ppm).

    Climate change-co2_ice_dome_c_graph.jpg

    Within the last century, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have risen dramatically. Just recently they eclipsed 400 ppm.

    Scientists like Dr. James Hansen have concluded that pre-industrial CO2 levels were climatically ideal. Though less optimal, atmospheric CO2 concentrations up to 350 ppm have been characterized as climatically “safe”.

    However, CO2 concentrations above 350 ppm are thought to be dangerous to the Earth system. It is believed that such “high” concentrations could lead to rapid warming, glacier and ice sheet melt, and a harrowing sea level rise of 10 feet within 50 years.

    To reach those catastrophic levels (10 feet within 50 years) predicted by proponents of sea level rise alarmism, the current “anthropogenic” change rate of +0.14 of a centimeter per year (since 1958) will need immediately explode into +6.1 centimeters per year.

    The likelihood of this happening is remote, especially considering Greenland and Antarctica combined only contributed a grand total of 1.54 cm since 1958 (Frederiske et al., 2018).

    It is becoming more and more apparent that sea levels rise and fall without any obvious connection to CO2 concentrations.

    And if an anthropogenic signal cannot be conspicuously connected to sea level rise (as scientists have noted), then the greatest perceived existential threat promulgated by advocates of dangerous man-made global warming will no longer be regarded as even worth considering.

    Read more at No Tricks Zone

  5. #2705
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    358
    More evidence that it’s COLD not WARMTH that hurts humanity

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/...urts-humanity/

    Anthony Watts / 19 hours ago April 12, 2018
    From the UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI and the “after the Roman Warm Period” department

    Unusual climate during Roman times plunged Eurasia into hunger and disease

    A recent study published in an esteemed academic journal indicates that volcanic eruptions in the mid 500s resulted in an unusually gloomy and cold period. A joint research project of the Chronology Laboratory of the Finnish Museum of Natural History and Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) suggests that the years 536 and 541-544 CE were very difficult for many people.

    An extended period of little light may make it difficult for humans to survive. The level of production of plants is dependent on the amount of available sunlight. Food production, i.e, farming and animal husbandry, rely on the same solar energy. Humans, meanwhile, become more prone to disease if they are not exposed to enough sunlight to produce vitamin D.

    “Our research shows that the climate anomaly, which covered all of the northern hemisphere, was the compound result of several volcanic eruptions,” says Markku Oinonen, director of the Chronology Laboratory.

    The aerosols that were released into the atmosphere with the eruptions covered the sun for a long time.

    The exceptionally poor climate conditions were significantly detrimental to farming and reduced the production of vitamin D among the populace. This means that the people who were already weakened by hunger also had to grapple with a compromised immune system.

    Trees are a re*cord of the past

    The study is based on dendrochronology or tree-ring dating. The series of annual growth rings from subfossil – or intact – tree deposits covers the past 7,600 years. The trees are often found on the bottom of small lakes, and Luke has been taking samples and recording the findings since the 1990s.

    “Researchers have put together an annual growth ring calendar of treeline pine spanning more than 7,600 years. Various historical events can be contrasted with the calendar. The growth ring calendar is an important indicator of global climate change,” says researcher Samuli Helama from Luke.

    The samples in the recent study were dated with the help of the growth ring calendar at Luke, and sample shavings were carved out of them for each calendar year. The Chronology Laboratory then conducted isotope analyses on the samples.

    Car*bon iso*topes in*dic*ate sum*mer weather

    The results of the study are based on the analysis of the variation of carbon isotopes in the annual growth rings of trees. The variety in carbon isotopes reflects the photosynthesis of the trees, which in turn is largely dependent on the amount of solar radiation available during the summer.

    The new study tracks the correlation of carbon isotope variation and volcanic eruptions from the 19th century until recent years, and shows the dramatic reduction in available sunlight in 536 as well as between 541 and 544 CE. The variation of summer temperatures was similarly reconstructed on the basis of the density of the trees’ annual growth rings.

    Hard times brought the plague

    The unusually poor years coincide with the bubonic plague epidemic that devastated the Roman Empire. The epidemic caused by the Yersinia pestis bacterium began in 542 CE and killed approximately half, or more, of the inhabitants of what was then considered the Eastern Roman Empire. The plague spread through Europe, from the Mediterranean, possibly as far north as Finland, and had killed tens of millions of people by the 8th century.

    The study was conducted as a consortium project by the University of Helsinki and Luke, with participation from researchers of the University of Eastern Finland, the Finnish Meteorological Institute, the Geological Survey of Finland and the University of Turku. The research was funded by the Academy of Finland.

    ###

    The study was published in the international series Scientific Reports and is OPEN ACCESS.

    Helama S, Arppe L, Uusitalo J, Holopainen J, Mäkelä H M, Mäkinen H, Mielikäinen K, Nöjd P, Sutinen R, Taavitsainen J-P, Timonen M and Oinonen M 2018. Volcanic dust veils from sixth century tree-ring isotopes linked to reduced irradiance, primary production and human health. Scientific Reports 8, http://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-19760-w

    Abstract

    The large volcanic eruptions of AD 536 and 540 led to climate cooling and contributed to hardships of Late Antiquity societies throughout Eurasia, and triggered a major environmental event in the historical Roman Empire. Our set of stable carbon isotope records from subfossil tree rings demonstrates a strong negative excursion in AD 536 and 541–544. Modern data from these sites show that carbon isotope variations are driven by solar radiation. A model based on sixth century isotopes reconstruct an irradiance anomaly for AD 536 and 541–544 of nearly three standard deviations below the mean value based on modern data. This anomaly can be explained by a volcanic dust veil reducing solar radiation and thus primary production threatening food security over a multitude of years. We offer a hypothesis that persistently low irradiance contributed to remarkably simultaneous outbreaks of famine and Justinianic plague in the eastern Roman Empire with adverse effects on crop production and photosynthesis of the vitamin D in human skin and thus, collectively, human health. Our results provide a hitherto unstudied proxy for exploring the mechanisms of ‘volcanic summers’ to demonstrate the post-eruption deficiencies in sunlight and to explain the human consequences during such calamity years.

    Climate change-post-rwp-solar-irradiance.png

    Climate change-post-rwp-temperature.png

    Palaeoclimate reconstructions. Tree-ring δ13C based reconstruction of irradiance (global radiation) (red line) with Monte Carlo68 based estimates of 95% (orange area) and 99% confidence (yellow area) intervals showing the reduction in irradiance in AD 536 and 541–546 (a). Negative first difference of the reconstructed irradiance recording the change in irradiance from previous to concurrent year (c). European and northern Fennoscandian summer (June–August) temperature reconstructions relative to the AD 1961–1990 baseline

    More in the paper, here: http://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-19760-w

  6. #2706
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    358
    It appears Solar Cycle 25 has begun – Solar cycle 24 one of the shortest and weakest ever

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/...-weakest-ever/

    Anthony Watts / 17 hours ago April 12, 2018
    Evidence of a Cycle 25 sunspot found

    In our previous post: Solar activity crashes – the Sun looks like a cueball,

    Our resident solar physicist, Dr. Leif Svalgaard commented and provided a link to something reported by his colleagues, something that likely would not have been possible without the fantastic solar observations of NASA’s Solar Dynamic Observeratory (SDO). He said:

    Cycle 25 has already begun
    A Sunspot from Cycle 25 for sure - RHESSI Wiki

    It looks to me that SC25 will be a bit stronger than SC24, so probably no Grand Minimum this time
    http://www.leif.org/research/Prediction-of-SC25.pdf
    http://www.leif.org/research/compara...prediction.pdf
    (ignore the 2014 in the top line – it is just a place holder).

    It seems a small sunspot has been observed, that has the opposite polarity of cycle 24 sunspots.

    From the first link at Berkeley, Tomek Mrozek and Hugh Hudson write:

    This brief Nugget simply announces that YES, we really have seen Cycle 25 [sunspot activity]. An earlier Nugget hinted at this, but it was not so clear a case as presented by today’s new tiny sunspot. Why is this interesting? It’s because spots appearing this early in a cycle – even before a minimum is well established – are quite rare. We could speculate that solar minimum may arrive early and/or may be brief, more evidence regarding the seemingly stochastic component of the development of the solar magnetic cycle.

    The Cycle 25 Sunspot

    At the time of writing, NOAA has not identified this new sunspot with an official active-region number, and so there could be some things to quibble about. But the magnetic polarity of the region unmistakeably identifies it as a piece of the new cycle, because it reverses the polarity expected for Cycle 24 regions.

    Figure 1 here shows the new spot as of this date (10-April-2018). It is marginally detectable but definitely there in relatively crude 1024×1025 .gif versions of the beautiful data from the SDO space observatory.

    Climate change-.jpg

    Figure 1: File images from the HMI instrument on SDO: left, the continuum intensity; right, the telltale magnetic field. From the latter one can see black polarity to the right (“preceding”, as the Sun rotates). This is the opposite of that shown, for example, by the exceedingly tiny region at about -5 degrees.

    It requires a bit of patience to see the spot; refer to the location of the magnetic features and perhaps dither the window on your browser screen. The icon for this Nugget on the parent page here has a slightly better view derived from a 4096×4096 image.

    Conclusion

    This sunspot has been tabulated in the excellent SOLEN page of Jan Alvestad. The Nugget-writers here thank him for his thorough monitoring of solar activity, and also thank Leif Svalgaard for paying close attention as well.

    Robert Zimmerman, in our previous story, noted this:

    If the solar minimum has actually arrived now, this would make this cycle only ten years long, one of the shortest solar cycles on record. More important, it is a weak cycle. In the past, all short cycles were active cycles. This is the first time we have seen a short and weak cycle since scientists began tracking the solar cycle in the 1700s, following the last grand minimum in the 1600s when there were almost no sunspots.

    Climate change-screenshot-2018-04-11-13-38-271.jpg

    We’ll be watching for “official confirmation”, but if Dr. Svalgaard says Cycle25 has happened, it is almost certain to be true. Now comes the waiting to find out if Cycle 25 is going to be a strong or weak cycle.

  7. #2707
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    358
    Exxon Mobil Did Not Suppress Climate Science, Federal Judges Say

    https://seekingalpha.com/article/416...ral-judges-say

    Tristan R. Brown

    Summary

    Two different federal judges took a dim view of arguments like those that have been advanced by New York's AG as part of his climate fraud investigation into Exxon Mobil.

    While the federal lawsuits have no direct bearing on the state investigation, the judges' responses highlight the investigation's multiple weaknesses.

    The second federal judge also dismissed the argument that Exxon Mobil has been using the "wrong" carbon price in its internal accounting methodology.

    New York State attorney general Eric Schneiderman's climate fraud investigation into Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM) was dealt a notable, albeit indirect, blow in recent weeks as two different federal judges took issue with two of the legal arguments that have served as grounds for the investigation. The investigation was not directly affected by these developments, since it is being pursued under a particularly expansive state law rather than a federal statute. That said, the fact that the arguments advanced by Mr. Schneiderman have been found to be lacking at the federal level explains why his office's investigation has continuously had to find new causes of action in order to keep moving forward.

    When Mr. Schneiderman launched the investigation back in 2015, he argued that Exxon Mobil may have committed fraud by failing to broadly announce the results of research conducted by its own scientists on the contribution of fossil fuel combustion to climate change in the 1970s and 1980s. As a coalition of Democratic attorneys general that Mr. Schneiderman helped to form stated a few months after the investigation was announced:

    If there are companies - whether utilities or fossil fuel companies - committing fraud in an effort to maximize their short-term profit at the expense of the people we represent, we want to find out about it and want to expose it and we want to pursue them to the fullest extent of the law, prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.

    As Exxon Mobil pointed out, it had allowed dozens of peer-reviewed publications to be released on the subject by its scientists over the time period in question, which is not normally something that an entity does when it is trying to suppress a scientific finding.

    Last month, federal judge William Alsup, who is hearing a lawsuit for climate change-related damages brought by several California municipalities against Exxon Mobil and its industry peers ConocoPhillips (NYSE:COP), Chevron Corp. (NYSE:CVX), Royal Dutch Shell (RDS.A, RDS.B), and BP plc (NYSE:BP), poured cold water on the suppression claim. The judge, who also made headlines last month for requesting a tutorial on climate change from both sides of the lawsuit, ended the tutorial by concluding that no research was actually suppressed by the companies.

    A federal judge overseeing a separate lawsuit brought by Exxon Mobil employees (both past and present) against the company reached a similar conclusion in a ruling last week. As reported by ClimateLiabilityNews, the employees claimed that Exxon Mobil "endangered the value of their retirement accounts by... misrepresenting what it [knew] about the risks of climate change to its business." The judge's ruling went so far as to state that "Exxon’s decades-long misinformation campaign about the causes and effects of climate change should not be understated." Even then, though, the judge concluded that "[t]o pretend that environmental risks about climate change were unknown until Exxon itself shared information about climate change is an affront to scientists, academics, and government bodies..." and further that the lawsuit "provides no plausible reason to believe that the risks posed by climate change were not incorporated into the Exxon stock price [by an efficient market]." While the lawsuit focused on a 12-month period in 2015 and 2016, the ruling's logic could also be applied to any period in which Exxon Mobil's scientists were publishing the results of their research.

    Mr. Schneiderman's office appeared to have reached a similar conclusion last June. At that point, the investigation changed tack and abandoned the research suppression cause of action in favor of a focus on the carbon price used by Exxon Mobil in its internal accounting. Specifically, the office announced that it was focusing on whether the company committed fraud by understating the costs of climate regulations in the future. The counter to this claim was that specific regulatory costs cannot be assumed when the regulations in question don't exist and are not expected to exist anytime soon. The federal judge agreed, writing that:

    Plaintiffs do not allege any facts to show why this particular price of carbon was a misrepresentation or did not account for the current or an anticipated regulatory landscape. Plaintiffs seem to believe that the estimated price of carbon was wrong, but they do not plausibly link inaccuracies about the price of carbon to the eventual write-down in reserves or stock price decline. Nor do they allege a regulatory landscape that would change the price of carbon.
    The employees could not allege such a regulatory landscape, of course, because it does not currently exist and is extremely unlikely to exist before 2021, at the very earliest.

    The above is not to say that Exxon Mobil's legal teams have been winning all of the myriad climate litigation actions in which they are involved of late. The company's attempt to shut down the investigations led by Mr. Schneiderman and other Democratic AGs was rejected by a third federal judge in late March on the grounds that it was "implausible" that the investigations are a politically motivated attempt to deprive the company of its constitutional rights.

    Also in late March, Exxon Mobil was ordered by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to allow a shareholder vote that would, if successful, require the company "to outline for investors how its profitability may be affected by climate change and the legislation that aims to combat it." New York State's Comptroller has been pushing the company to release additional details from a similar report that it released last year. Regardless of how these other legal actions develop, however, it is difficult to argue that the first two federal court developments do not harm the outlook for Mr. Schneiderman's investigation.

    Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.

    I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

  8. #2708
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    358
    A conversation with Dr. Willie Soon – on polar bears, the sun, and Earth’s climate

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/...arths-climate/

    Science, Philosophy and Inquiry on a Galactic Scale

    Contributed by Grégoire Canlorbe © 2017 Publised at WUWT by request of Mr. Canlorbe. These are the opinions of the author and interviewee.

    Name:  a-dr-willie-soon-gc-article-11.png
Views: 405
Size:  167.6 KB

    Dr. Willie Soon is an independent solar physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who has been studying the Sun and its influence on the Earth’s climate for more than a quarter of a century. A short while ago, he had a conversation with Mr. Grégoire Canlorbe, an independent journalist who is also vice president of the French Parti National-Libéral (“National-Liberal Party,” conservative, nationalist, and free-marketist). Here Dr. Soon speaks for himself.




    Canlorbe: You say polar bears are far less endangered by global warming than by environmentalists dreading ice melt. Could you expand?

    Dr. Soon: Yes, indeed. I have argued that too much ice will be the ultimate enemy for polar bears. Polar bears need less sea ice to be well fed and to reproduce. Why? Think about this for a minute: Polar bears eat a lot. Any large colony will need a great deal of food. The bears’ staple diet is seal blubber. But seals are a long way up the food chain. So a fully functional and healthy eco-system is required. And that means oceans warm enough to support the lower links in the food chain from plankton all the way up to seals.

    Indeed, a good puzzle for polar-bear science is to answer the question how polar bears survived during the ice ages, when ice covered coastal zones and large parts of the global ocean. Ice was piled miles deep on land, making it extremely difficult for eco-systems to provide enough food. Of course, areas of relative warmth, which population biologists call refugia, always exist. They may well be the key to explaining how polar bears survived the Last Glacial Maximum about 21,000 years ago.

    Climate change-willie-soon-number-polar-bears-rev1.jpg

    The so-called “environmentalists”, who seem to allow unreasoning emotion and political prejudice to stand in place of rational thought and sound science, became very angry when I asked them whether they would prefer to see a billion polar bears instead of the 20,000–30,000 living now. The real threat to polar bears was unregulated hunting, which reduced the population to perhaps as few as 5,000 bears in the early 1970s.

    After the November 1973 agreement to regulate hunting and outlaw hunting from aircraft and icebreakers, the polar bear population rebounded. By 2017 it was approaching 30,000. In 2016 a survey by the Nunavut government found a vulnerable population in the western Hudson Bay region to have been stable for at least five years.

    I should say categorically that this polar bear fear-mongering is evidence of mass delusion promoted by group think. As a physical scientist rather than a biologist, I am generally reluctant to get involved in such topics as the influence of climate on polar-bear population, health and biology. But in 2002, Markus Dyck asked me to examine independently these strange and insupportable claims by environmental extremists that polar bears are threatened with extinction by global warming.

    Consider the facts. From 6,000 to 10,000 years ago, the Earth was considerably warmer than today. Yet the polar bears survived. In fact, they had evolved from land-based brown bears some 150,000 to 200,000 years ago, and to this day they rear their cubs in land-based dens burrowed into the snow.

    Climate change-willie-soon-bears-rev1.jpg

    Four dead bears found in an aerial survey of the Beaufort Sea (Monnett & Gleason, 2006)

    Readers curious about Al Gore’s false statement that a scientific survey had found polar bears drowning because they could not find ice should see my talk on how environmentalists are the real threat to polar bears: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmoKRz5VcbI. The survey cited by Gore in his sci-fi comedy horror movie in fact found that just four polar bears had drowned, three of them very close to land, and they had died because of high winds and high waves in an exceptional Arctic storm. The authors of the paper were later victimized by their academic colleagues at the instigation of environmental extremists because they had stated – correctly – that it was the storm, and not global warming, that had killed the bears.

    What is more, in the dozen years before the survey, the sea ice extent in the Beaufort Sea, where the survey took place, had actually increased slightly. At no point was Al Gore’s story true. In 2007 the High Court in London condemned Gore for his false statements about polar bears, whose Linnaean classification is ursus maritimus – the Bear of the Sea. It is now known that they can swim for more than 100 miles over periods of several days. Al Gore could not even ride a pushbike that far.

    One positive aspect of my work in science is that I have befriended many seekers after truth. A polar bear expert, Professor Mitch Taylor of Lakehead University, told me late in 2017:

    Just finished up in Davis Strait with 275 DNA samples. The bears were in better condition this year than they were during the 2005–2007 study years. The Wrangel Island bears in the photo are in good condition, but the Davis Strait bears were even fatter. Markus [Dyck] has found the same in the Cape Dyer area. Local people confirm the bears are very fat this year and are also reporting a big increase in ringed seals (immigration, not local productivity).



    Keen readers who may want solid information and frequent scientific updates about the overall health and trends of all 19 subpopulations of polar bears should visit the website of another friend of mine, Dr. Susan Crockford: http://polarbearscience.com.

    Is climate change naturally cyclical?

    Climate change-willie-soon-global-temp-rev-676x4771.jpg

    Canlorbe: Climate change is surely nothing new. It is a long-established, cyclical behavior of our planet, which has long been oscillating between glaciations and interglacial warm periods. Should we diagnose Mother Nature with a bipolar disorder?

    Dr. Soon: Earth’s climate system dynamically oscillates between icehouse and hothouse conditions in geological time or, to a lesser degree, between the glacial and interglacial climates of the last 1–2 million years. But, as with many interesting questions about the Earth’s climate, there is no certain answer. The data do not support over-simplistic accounts.

    Sea level rise – mother of all scares
    I was fascinated to discover that changing sea levels, including extremely high global sea levels 65–250 feet (20–75 m) above today’s mean, occurred during the “hothouse Earth” era. One does not need an enormous ice sheet for sea level to be high, chiefly because the Earth’s coastal zones and ocean basins may be more porous and capacious than one would imagine. Indeed, deep geological studies proffer good evidence to support my position. I included this empirical evidence in an essay I recently co-wrote with Viscount (Christopher) Monckton of Brenchley.

    In addition to the ever-changing shape and depth of the ocean basins and coastal zone boundaries, one must also bear in mind the “leaky Earth”: There appears to be a continuous exchange of water between the ocean bottom and the Earth’s crust, as Professor Shige Maruyama of Tokyo Institute of Technology has shown.

    Sea level has risen by 400 feet over the past 10,000 years. For the past 200 years it has been rising at about 8 inches per century, and that rate may well continue. It has very little to do with global warming and much more to do with long-term climate cycles. In fact, so slowly has sea level been rising that environmental-extremist scientists have tampered with the raw data by adding an imagined (and imaginary) “global isostatic adjustment”, torturing the data until they show a rate of sea-level rise that has not in reality occurred.

    Climate change-willie-soon-radical-effect-rev-676x5041.jpg

    The Earth in the solar system in the galaxy in the universe

    My own examination of the Earth’s climate system extends beyond the solar system to include our place in the galaxy. When the solar system was born, we were 1–3 kiloparsecs closer to the galactic center than today. We are now 8 kiloparsecs from the galactic center.

    The solar system drifts along the spiral density wave that orbits the center of the galaxy about every quarter of a billion years. Sometimes, the solar system has lain above or below the plane of the galactic disk. Also, we need to consider the evolution of the Sun from its thermonuclear-burning core to its outer thermosphere. Furthermore, for 4.5 billion years the planets have continued to push and pull the Sun around the barycenter of the solar system.

    It was 13.82 billion years ago that, at the moment of creation that we now call the Big Bang, God said, Let there be light, and there was light. The solar system, including our planet, is thus one-third as old as the known universe. Our place and time in the universe cannot be ignored in assessing the climate. The original proposition to resolve the Faint Young Sun Paradox by WeiJia Zhang of Peking University concerned the relevance of Hubble expansion flow in affecting the mean distance between the Sun and the Earth over geological time. One must even consider our galaxy’s interaction with passing stellar systems, especially the coming merger (in a few billion years) between the Milky Way and the M31 Andromeda galaxy to form the Milkomeda cluster. This very likely event will occur within the five billion years of the Sun’s lifetime. Gravity rules even over very large distances.

    These are just a few of the considerations that lead me to insist on being open-minded in pursuing my scientific study. I study the Sun mainly to improve my own understanding. As A.E. Housman’s Greek chorus used to put it, “I only ask because I want to know.”

    It’s the Sun, stupid!

    Name:  magnificent_cme_erupts_on_the_sun_-_august_31-300x1691.jpg
Views: 400
Size:  18.3 KB

    On August 31, 2012 a long filament of solar material that had been hovering in the sun’s atmosphere, the corona, erupted out into space at 4:36 p.m. EDT. The coronal mass ejection, or CME, traveled at over 900 miles per second. The CME did not travel directly toward Earth, but did connect with Earth’s magnetic environment, or magnetosphere, causing aurora to appear on the night of Monday, September 3. Picuted here is a lighten blended version of the 304 and 171 angstrom wavelengths. Cropped Credit: NASA/GSFC/SDO NASA image use policy. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center enables NASA’s mission through four scientific endeavors: Earth Science, Heliophysics, Solar System Exploration, and Astrophysics. Goddard plays a leading role in NASA’s accomplishments by contributing compelling scientific knowledge to advance the Agency’s mission.

    Canlorbe: You suggest that the Sun’s behavior is the driving force of climate warming, not factory smokestacks, urban sprawl or our sins of emission. Would you like to remind us of the keystones of your hypothesis?

    Dr. Soon: For a quarter of a century I have studied the hypothesis that solar radiation is causing or at lest modulating climatic variations over periods of several decades. The most up-to-date report of my sun-climate connection research is in a chapter I and my colleague Dr. Sallie Baliunas contributed to a book in honor of my late colleague Professor Bob Carter of Australia (1942–2016). For the more serious science geeks, a fuller paper, with my two excellent colleagues from Ireland, the Connollys pere et fils, is worth reading. If your readers have any difficulty in finding these works, just contact me.

    I have sought the best empirical evidence to show how changes in incoming solar radiation, accounted for by intrinsic solar magnetic modulation of the irradianceoutput as well as planetary modulation of the seasonal distribution of sunlight, affects the thermal properties of land and sea, including temperatures. In turn, temperature change affects atmospheric water vapor as well as the more dynamical components of equator-to-pole insolationand of temperature gradients that vary on timescales of decades to hundreds of years.

    Readers may like to follow the original hypothesis of a connection between the Sun and climate advanced by the team led by my excellent colleague Professor Hong Yan of the Institute of Earth Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences at Xi’an, China. Our paper examines how the incoming solar radiation modulates the expansion and shrinkage of the rain-belts in dynamically active regions such as the Western Pacific Warm Pool. A second example shows how the Indian summer monsoonal rainfall is correlated with a specific metric for incoming solar radiation.

    A third example would be the research on how incoming solar irradiance influences China’s thermometer temperature records, showing that over periods of many decades the variations in total solar irradiance in the upper atmosphere are matched by variations at the surface.

    I regard this empirical result, detectable notwithstanding the complexities of cloud fields within the atmospheric column, as of the highest importance. We are on the right track after all in investigating solar radiation (rather than something else) as the driver and modulator of most things climatic.

    The Maunder Minimum
    Canlorbe: The Maunder Minimum, also known as the “prolonged sunspot minimum”, was the subject of a book you co-authored with Steven H. Yaskell in 2003. For the layman, would you like to explain the stellar phenomena observed during this period?

    Dr. Soon: The Maunder Minimum was indeed a very notable period in the study of sunspot activity or, more specifically, of the Sun’s magnetism. It lasted from 1645–1715, covering most of the reign of the Sun King (Louis XIV, 1638–1715; regnavit May 14, 1643 to September 1, 1715). Indeed, the late Jack Eddy (1931–2009) was fond of popularizing this fact by saying that “the Sun King’s reign appears to have been a time of real anomaly in the behavior of the Sun”.

    Another interesting coincidence is the fact that Saint-Gobain, makers of the glass for the Hall of Mirrors of Versailles, also made the mirrors for the 60-inch telescope at the Mount Wilson Observatory where my colleagues (especially Dr. Sallie Baliunas) and I used to study the variations in the activity of solar-type stars. From these observations, we were able to confirm the general Maunder-Minimum-like phase of solar-stellar magnetism.

    I worked with Steve Yaskell in writing this book as a labor of love. Our first purpose was to honor the insights of the two dedicated observers of our Star, E. Walter Maunder (1851–1928) and Annie Maunder (1868–1947). I also wanted to dismiss the arrogance and poor scholarship I had noticed among climate scientists. Professors Raymond Bradley and Philip Jones, for instance, had said with great certainty in one of their books that the geologist Francois Emile Matthes (1874–1948) had originated the term “Little Ice Age” which is roughly coincidental with the period of the Maunder Minimum. However, a little research (see pp. 208–209 of our book) shows that Matthes had attributed the phrase not to himself but to “a clever journalist”.

    Only a few decades before Louis XIV came to the throne of France, Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) and others had first observed sunspots. During more modern times, the Maunders, re-examining sunspot records kept at the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, England, established the famous butterfly diagram that shows the quasi-symmetrical distribution of sunspots between about 40 °N and 40 °S over the 11-year solar cycle – one butterfly per cycle.

    What is special about the Maunder Minimum is the fact that during that period sunspots barely appeared on the Sun’s northern hemisphere and, when they appeared in the Southern portion, the dark spots were very narrowly crowded within a narrow band 20 degrees off the solar equator. This information is uniquely available thanks to the impeccable telescopic observations from L’Observatoire de Paris. My late colleague, Elisabeth Nesme-Ribes (1942–1996), very poetically described this period as that of the “broken butterfly wings”.


    Click on link to read second half of interview

  9. #2709
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    358
    Green activist lawyer burns himself to death to protest global warming

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/...lobal-warming/

    Anthony Watts / 1 day ago April 14, 2018

    A sad case of self-immolation with fossil fuels, to protest fossil fuels

    A green activist who was a pioneering lawyer for gay and transgender rights — including in the infamous “Boys Don’t Cry” murder case — committed suicide by setting himself on fire Saturday morning in Brooklyn’s Prospect Park.

    Name:  activist-immolated.jpg
Views: 387
Size:  20.3 KB
    Attorney David Buckel in 2006AP

    In a gruesome protest against the ecological destruction of the earth, David Buckel, 60, left behind a charred corpse and a typed suicide note that said he was burning himself to death using “fossil fuel” to reflect how mankind was likewise killing itself, police sources said.

    He left the note behind in a manila envelope marked “To The Police,” recovered from inside a black metal push cart he discarded at the scene.

    Passersby were horrified to see Buckel’s blackened, prone remains.

    Climate change-warming-suicide-body-prospect-park.jpg

    “It was just lying there, on its back, knees slightly bent like someone would lie on the sand at the beach,” said Irena Ryjova, 44, who rollerbladed past at around 7 a.m., less than an hour after the immolation.



    More recently, he worked as an urban gardener and ecologist with the Brooklyn Botanic Garden, helping run what he called the largest composting program in the country to use only renewable sources of energy.

    “There’s no denying that sticking with renewable resources means a lot of elbow grease with pitchforks and shovels,” he wrote in a 2016 article on the garden website.

    More here at the NYPost: https://nypost.com/2018/04/14/burned...to-be-suicide/

    h/t to “Charles the moderator”

  10. #2710
    mtbr member
    Reputation: blockphi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,560
    Well that's just effing nuts.

  11. #2711
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    358
    I've known a few people who killed themselves or murdered someone and then killed them self. It seemed as if they were either enraged about something going on in their life or they were very sad and lonely. This guy seemed to have some positive things in his life but he also might have been very upset with the world for ignoring what he believed was a serious issue that will destroy the planet.

    Once in a while, South Park plays an episode about Al Gore's search for man-bear-pig (global warming). He is so sincere and really believes man-bear-pig has to be stopped. He tries to enlist the children to help bring awareness of man-bear-pig, but ends up alienating them. But in his case, there is little reason to be sad, since he has become a billionaire selling fear and doom.

    Name:  man+bear+pig.jpg
Views: 392
Size:  32.1 KB

  12. #2712
    mtbr member
    Reputation: blockphi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Boris Badenov View Post
    NASA Doubling Warming Since 2001

    NASA has massively altered their global temperature data over the past 15 years, to double global warming.

    Attachment 1192477


    https://realclimatescience.com/nasa-...ng-since-2001/
    I know BB ain't round no mo, but I can't just let this thread die before it gets to 50 pages... and have to just point out that the graphic from realclimatescience.com is such a gross misrepresentation that it has to make one a bit ill.

    Go check out NASA's site - looks to me like the data that this RCS graph shows for 2001 is the same data that is being shown on the NASA site in 2018 - So where did the data come from that is represented at 2015 that supposedly shows NASA altering the data? Any fool with MS Paint and a bit of time can add NASA 2015 to any graph they want. And, clearly, the table label of Global Temperature (meteorological stations) has been added to both graphs, and poorly, to make it look like they are from the same source.

    And that's what irks me so badly about certain people's undue faith in these denier sites - that so often the misrepresentation of data is so obvious as to be laughable, but it's believed anyway and then defended as if it is gospel.

    There - back to the top of the listings for a few minutes... cuz I am bored.

  13. #2713
    Self Appointed Judge&Jury
    Reputation: DIRTJUNKIE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    31,653
    Just to make it clear.

    I believe in global warming and humans are a huge contributor to this.

    I also believe the earth is a sphere.

    Elvis Presley and Jim Morrison both faked their own deaths and are living together on an island in the Caribbean.

    As for Jimmy Hoffa: In the book The Iceman: Confessions of a Mafia Contract Killer, Richard Kuklinski claimed to know the fate of Hoffa: his body was placed in a drum and set on fire for "a half hour or so," then the drum was welded shut and buried in a junkyard. Later, according to Kuklinski, an accomplice started to talk to federal authorities and there was fear that he would use the information to try to get out of trouble. The drum was dug up, placed in the trunk of a car, and compacted to a 4 × 2 foot rectangular prism. It was sold, along with hundreds of other compacted cars, as scrap metal. It was shipped off to Japan to be used in making new cars.
    Quote Originally Posted by mileslong View Post
    I passionately remove rocks and corners and other stuff I find too hard to ride.

  14. #2714
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BCTJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by DIRTJUNKIE View Post
    Just to make it clear.
    I believe in global warming and humans are a huge contributor to this.
    What? No colorful graphs. No references to scientific journals? No citations to NASA? Come on DJ. At least I always post photos of a dying polar bear on the few occasions that I venture into this thread.

    Climate change-untitled.jpg

  15. #2715
    mtbr member
    Reputation: blockphi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,560
    Quote Originally Posted by BCTJ View Post
    What? No colorful graphs. No references to scientific journals? No citations to NASA? Come on DJ. At least I always post photos of a dying polar bear on the few occasions that I venture into this thread.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	untitled.jpg 
Views:	33 
Size:	68.2 KB 
ID:	1193850
    Good point. Good point.

    I was going to put a graph here, but have to get back to work...

  16. #2716
    Self Appointed Judge&Jury
    Reputation: DIRTJUNKIE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    31,653
    Quote Originally Posted by BCTJ View Post
    What? No colorful graphs. No references to scientific journals? No citations to NASA? Come on DJ. At least I always post photos of a dying polar bear on the few occasions that I venture into this thread.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	untitled.jpg 
Views:	33 
Size:	68.2 KB 
ID:	1193850
    I’m lagging as usual.

    I also kept it to under 200 words.
    Quote Originally Posted by mileslong View Post
    I passionately remove rocks and corners and other stuff I find too hard to ride.

  17. #2717
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tungsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    464
    “Humanity is conducting an unprecedented experiment with the Earth’s climate system through emissions from large-scale fossil-fuel combustion, widespread deforestation, and other changes to the atmosphere and landscape. While researchers and policymakers must rely on climate model projections for a representative picture of the future Earth system under these conditions, there are still elements of the Earth system that models do not capture well. For this reason, there is significant potential for humankind’s planetary experiment to result in unanticipated surprises — and the further and faster the Earth’s climate system is changed, the greater the risk of such surprises.

    “There are at least two types of potential surprises: compound events, where multiple extreme climate events occur simultaneously or sequentially (creating greater overall impact), and critical threshold or tipping point events, where some threshold is crossed in the climate system (that leads to large impacts). The probability of such surprises — some of which may be abrupt and/or irreversible — as well as other more predictable but difficult-to-manage impacts, increases as the influence of human activities on the climate system increases.”
    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...al-Report.html

  18. #2718
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,452
    Climate models are more often wrong than not

    Would be lying if I said I read that article but I skimmed most of it and not one mention of low solar, high cosmic rays and how it exaggerated the QBO, and MJO, which are currently the biggest most extreme things going on with our climate. Not to mention weakening magnetosphere, which helps amplify all mentioned.

    Without bringing up those points one has to conclude they either don’t understand, or are up to trickery. Hard to take that article seriously without it.

    Not to mention the typical cherry picking time scales that shows what you want
    Round and round we go

  19. #2719
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    22,371
    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post
    Climate models are more often wrong than not
    Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful.

    - George E. P. Box, statistician (1919 - 2013)

    Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

  20. #2720
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,452
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold View Post
    Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful.

    - George E. P. Box, statistician (1919 - 2013)

    Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
    True

    As far as what climate models are proving to be useful for, is showing that if you put crap biased info in, you get crap biased info out.
    Round and round we go

  21. #2721
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,452
    Round and round we go

  22. #2722
    mtbr member
    Reputation: blockphi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,560
    Macron also made a full-throated argument for global action to combat climate change, built around the 2015 Paris accord, which Trump announced in June he was walking away from.

    “What is the meaning of our life if we [are] destroying the planet while sacrificing the future of our children?” the French president asked. “Let us face it. There is no planet B.”

    He said the rift over the Paris accord was but a “short-term disagreement”.

    “In the long run, we will have to face the same reality that we are citizens of the same planet,” he added.
    Damned Frenchies - acting alarmist...

    Full context here:https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...nuclear-accord

    Funnily enough, the right-leaning outlets aren't yet mentioning this or, if they are, are talking about some strange and twisted logic that equates Macron's statements about the whole Iran thing as him implying it was a crappy deal... https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortne...stunk-n2474523Which has nothing to do with climate change, but is rather interestingly shows some impressive mental gymnastics.

  23. #2723

  24. #2724
    mtbr member
    Reputation: blockphi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,560
    Funny how the ones who are most responsible for the problems are never the ones who end up paying the highest price.

    https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...ould-be-coming

  25. #2725
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,994
    Quote Originally Posted by blockphi View Post
    Funny how the ones who are most responsible for the problems are never the ones who end up paying the highest price.

    https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...ould-be-coming
    so it isn’t really global after all

    if this were true, which is highly unlikely, it is a much easier problem to address.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  26. #2726
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,452
    Oh the drama

    “A Temperature Roller Coaster may be On It’s Way”

    We’ve been on a temperature roller coaster since the beginning of time
    Round and round we go

  27. #2727
    mtbr member
    Reputation: blockphi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,560
    Where's Boris when you need him?

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...obal-warming-/

    What's interesting to me, after reading the study is that the Washington Times directly and clearly misrepresents some of the data - As the Washington Times states:

    "The skeptics were the more likely than the “highly concerned” to recycle, use public transportation and reusable shopping bags, and buy eco-friendly products."

    However, the study clearly states the following: "For recycling, the “Cautiously Worried” reported significantly lower frequency of recycling than the “Highly Concerned,” who did not differ from the “Skeptical”"

    Where the WT did get the representation of the study correct, though, is that the finding did show the "Highly Concerned" did use less public transport, reusable bags, and 'eco-friendly' products.

    "The present research has several implications for research about Americans' climate change beliefs. First, these beliefs vary seasonally, and belief cluster membership influences the degree of seasonal fluctuation. Those holding strong beliefs initially maintained them over time, whereas those with initially weaker beliefs were
    more influenced by seasons."

    There's a lot going on in this study and it's hard to get a clear grasp on how the questions influenced the results -"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" - but it is certainly interesting and in personal experience I've seen a lot of hippy-dippy "environmentalists" who were absolutely repugnant in their personal lives with regards to personal efforts, but who were amazing at things like fund raising and group efforts.

  28. #2728
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,452
    After winter must come spring

    https://youtu.be/i3_dOWYHS7I
    Round and round we go

  29. #2729
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Curveball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,199
    Quote Originally Posted by blockphi View Post
    Where's Boris when you need him?

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...obal-warming-/

    What's interesting to me, after reading the study is that the Washington Times directly and clearly misrepresents some of the data - As the Washington Times states:

    "The skeptics were the more likely than the “highly concerned” to recycle, use public transportation and reusable shopping bags, and buy eco-friendly products."

    However, the study clearly states the following: "For recycling, the “Cautiously Worried” reported significantly lower frequency of recycling than the “Highly Concerned,” who did not differ from the “Skeptical”"

    Where the WT did get the representation of the study correct, though, is that the finding did show the "Highly Concerned" did use less public transport, reusable bags, and 'eco-friendly' products.

    "The present research has several implications for research about Americans' climate change beliefs. First, these beliefs vary seasonally, and belief cluster membership influences the degree of seasonal fluctuation. Those holding strong beliefs initially maintained them over time, whereas those with initially weaker beliefs were
    more influenced by seasons."

    There's a lot going on in this study and it's hard to get a clear grasp on how the questions influenced the results -"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" - but it is certainly interesting and in personal experience I've seen a lot of hippy-dippy "environmentalists" who were absolutely repugnant in their personal lives with regards to personal efforts, but who were amazing at things like fund raising and group efforts.
    Interesting. On a bass player's forum, I was having a conversation with a guy who was very conservative and didn't believe in climate change at all. Yet, he also led a rather simple lifestyle, recycled, and used very few resources. That guy was probably doing more to reduce his carbon footprint than most environmentalists even though he didn't believe in anthropogenic climate change. And I also personally know quite a few people who do accept climate change and yet seem to expect someone else to make the sacrifices to reduce carbon emissions.

    On another note, it's nice that I can return to this thread again for obvious reasons.
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  30. #2730
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Curveball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,199
    Quote Originally Posted by blockphi View Post
    Because I know how much love there is here for Al Gore.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...or-people-more
    I don't think he has a clue as to how much damage he does to the anti-GW movement with his staggering hypocrisy. Gore is a gift the AGW skeptics around the world.
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  31. #2731
    mtbr member
    Reputation: blockphi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Curveball View Post
    I don't think he has a clue as to how much damage he does to the anti-GW movement with his staggering hypocrisy. Gore is a gift the AGW skeptics around the world.
    Yes he is.

  32. #2732
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,452
    Round and round we go

  33. #2733
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,452
    Climate change-038ea1c8-beef-4363-a8f5-8ef4f22b7bd0.jpeg

    And from the media, crickets
    Round and round we go

  34. #2734
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,415
    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	038EA1C8-BEEF-4363-A8F5-8EF4F22B7BD0.jpeg 
Views:	23 
Size:	81.1 KB 
ID:	1204842

    And from the media, crickets
    What does this mean?

    Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

  35. #2735
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    28
    All this impressive knowledge going to waste for me. I don't know what to believe. Everything so politicized for the 21st century. I rather believe this 1953 doc before politicization-




    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql52...&persist_app=1

  36. #2736
    mtbr member
    Reputation: blockphi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,560
    Quote Originally Posted by tfinator View Post
    What does this mean?

    Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
    It means that Meat is trying to say that because the 2018 sea ice measurements are matching fairly closely that 2014 number that sea ice isn't melting as fast as what "the media" would have us believe and that there is no need to worry about climate change.

    The graph in and of itself doesn't really show anything of much value as it is a small sample of the data and more shows the seasonal flux rather than trend-lines.

    Wait until someone posts the inevitable .gif of this graph superimposed on another that purports to show the same data and shows a shocking growth in sea ice - scroll back through this wonderful thread a half dozen or so pages to see an number of examples of the deniers presenting graphs and visuals in a way intended directly to confuse the viewer.

    The Meat is not one to do that. Often he will give us a graph like this - a good graph and from a reliable data source, but will not put any context around the argument he is trying to make using said content.

  37. #2737
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,390
    Very hot day today.

  38. #2738
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,452
    Quote Originally Posted by tfinator View Post
    What does this mean?

    Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
    It means that summer time melt in the Arctic is at average of the means. Way above over some of our more recent years. What’s significant about this is the extreme 6 month cooling of the Atlantic. Especially northern Atlantic. So far have looked back to the 70s and cannot find this much cooling, this fast in that time. I won’t say it coldest on record because i’m sure it’s been colder, and you can’t just look at the satellite era means and make that claim. Although we know the planet has been warmer, and warmer for longer in our past. Yet we hear warmest on record all the time.
    Round and round we go

  39. #2739
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,415
    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post
    It means that summer time melt in the Arctic is at average of the means. Way above over some of our more recent years. What’s significant about this is the extreme 6 month cooling of the Atlantic. Especially northern Atlantic. So far have looked back to the 70s and cannot find this much cooling, this fast in that time. I won’t say it coldest on record because i’m sure it’s been colder, and you can’t just look at the satellite era means and make that claim. Although we know the planet has been warmer, and warmer for longer in our past. Yet we hear warmest on record all the time.
    Kind of a tiny time scale though isn't it?

    Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

  40. #2740
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,764
    Anyone remember the millennium bug? We were all doomed, civilization was going to end and we'd all die. Except we weren't, it didn't and we're still here.

    The lab-coats selling that theory were fairly convincing too.

  41. #2741
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,452
    Quote Originally Posted by tfinator View Post
    Kind of a tiny time scale though isn't it?

    Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
    Yup. Just as when we hear warmest on record against satellite era.

    The oceans have 99% thermal capacity of the planet.
    Can say with certainty that the QBO is at an extreme. The strongest on record. It recently didn’t climax west before returning east. Something not known possible before. The stronger QBO, because of and predicted by low solar activity, gives more effect to the MJO. These extremes, as we had the coldest 30 day period in late January, followed by the 4th warmest 30 day period in June are a product of that, not c02. Which leads me to point out that the models aren’t picking it up yet, but the mjo points to possible mayhem from Florida, across the gulf, through Texas over the next week or three. Keep your eye on that

    Not bragging, but have been saying for a year now that Atlantic will start cooling fast. With another modoki El Niño taking shape in the pacific during a cool phase of that pdo, is another strong signal that the pacific is sure to cool as well.
    This maybe has nothing to do with our monumental low solar activity, in terms of how it effects and allows more cosmic rays to enter our atmosphere. Which increase water vapor, as well as positively effect earths magna core and volcanic activity. Since the ocean is closer to that heat source it gets effected more, and the oceans have 99% of the planets thermal capacity.
    Round and round we go

  42. #2742
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,390
    Quote Originally Posted by tfinator View Post
    Kind of a tiny time scale though isn't it?

    Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
    Just like the most of the alarmist discussions.

  43. #2743
    mtbr member
    Reputation: blockphi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,560
    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post
    It means that summer time melt in the Arctic is at average of the means. Way above over some of our more recent years. What’s significant about this is the extreme 6 month cooling of the Atlantic. Especially northern Atlantic. So far have looked back to the 70s and cannot find this much cooling, this fast in that time. I won’t say it coldest on record because i’m sure it’s been colder, and you can’t just look at the satellite era means and make that claim. Although we know the planet has been warmer, and warmer for longer in our past. Yet we hear warmest on record all the time.
    Share your data, please.

    The graph doesn't suggest anything about north Atlantic ocean temps or temperature trends. Suggesting that the fact that the ice melt for this month, being similar to that in 2014 shows extreme six month cooling of the Atlantic is irresponsible. The graphic presented tells us nothing about sea temps, where the largest value of ice loss is occurring (interior of the flows or oceanic edge), or air temps. It provides a simple view of a single variable - total sea ice volume.

    I'm not disputing your point. Just saying that the graphic you've provided and the discussion you've posted doesn't support your claim unless you want to share all your data that is being used to form the claim.

    I also want to make a quick note of the red herring you've conveniently thrown in here to cast doubt on statements made. And, I don't disagree with your base argument - that the media, particularly, only reports things when they are at the most extreme - the hottest summer on record, etc. - because that is what sells ads and makes money.

    However, making a claim of, for example, 2017 being the hottest year on record is not necessarily a fallacious statement. You are correct, we have a good sense that the earth has been way hotter for long periods in the past. Periods both before the existence of life as well as a few periods after life had gotten a good foot-hold. However, those periods are, indeed, outside recorded history. We cannot say that a summer 200,000,000 years ago was hotter than the summer of 2017 with any definitiveness because we don't have direct measurements of that summer. Yes, we "know" that it was hotter then based on geologic records. However; we also know that when someone makes the claim that something is the most of something on record, that the claim is made based on the ability to point to direct measurements and not secondary or tertiary measurements. As readers and watchers, then, it is our job to ask - "What is the record against which this claim is made?" "Is the claim taking into account the totality of the available data?" " What is the reason that the claim is being made?" "Who is the claim maker? A news talking head or a person with credentials to make such a claim?"

    To your logic, anytime that anyone says that an event has broken a record, they are implicitly wrong because we can say that before direct measurement - hell, even before human existence - there was something outside the bounds of our records. What is the purpose of that? It is a weak rhetorical ploy is what it is - a way to make the claim that anyone who makes a statement about how one directly measured set of data stacks against another, directly measured, set of data is a liar. Your implication is that you'd like to see direct measurements compared against indirect measurements, which will prove that climate change isn't anything to worry about, because, see, there's been much hotter and much colder times in the planet's existence.

    It's a really old and tired argument - it's been hotter before it'll be hotter again so why bother? Why are humans so ego-centric that they think their actions have any affect on the climate? Why are humans so ego-centric to think that the earth is meant for them and their comfort?

    What always tickles my funnybone with folks like our dearly-departed Boris is on the one hand is the conservative/republican point of view of the market will dictate while on the other hand the bible likes to teach us that this planet and everything on it was put here for our use and our betterment - yet so many of the arguments made against any action on climate change makes the claim that the planet is not ours to use and not given to human-kind. It's a strange dichotomy to my mind, but... And I'm not trying to put words into BB's mouth, particularly as he is not here any longer, I just invoke his name as he openly stated his religious beliefs and in his writings here his stance on religion and on climate change were often directly at odds.

  44. #2744
    mtbr member
    Reputation: blockphi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pig View Post
    Anyone remember the millennium bug? We were all doomed, civilization was going to end and we'd all die. Except we weren't, it didn't and we're still here.

    The lab-coats selling that theory were fairly convincing too.
    This again? Really? This is the best argument you can make?

    You're right, the millennium bug amounted to nothing. The reason that it amounted to nothing? Because there were people who assessed the predictions and said "Shit, we need to fix this" and then deployed hundreds of thousands of people to decommission old mainframes, re-write code, deploy new distributed computing servers, etc., etc.

    The reason that y2k didn't cause the end of the world was because we accepted there was an issue and took steps to address the issue. We didn't know that those steps would work which is the reason there was still so much talk about how to be prepared for the worse case scenario, but actions were being taken.

    That's what turned the y2k bug from a potential massive cluster**** into a non-event. Action and work. Not sitting around saying "Nothing we can do about it. It's just another example of the experts talking out their asses again. It's been hotter before. It's a hot one today."

  45. #2745
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,390
    You mixed up “action and work” with “taxes and scaremongering”. As it is the latter that is being proposed in the climate debate.

    If we had been treating climate issues like Y2K bug we would be investing in nuclear energy and decreasing bureaucracy, not increasing it.

  46. #2746
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    Just like the most of the alarmist discussions.
    Isn't the meat on the other side of the coin?

    Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

  47. #2747
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,390
    Does it make a difference?

  48. #2748
    mtbr member
    Reputation: blockphi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    Does it make a difference?
    Maybe. I mean, shouldn't we all have very clearly defined sides and only ever stay on those sides? That's how political discourse works in the modern world, right?

  49. #2749
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,390
    I am allergic to all kinds of bullshit.

  50. #2750
    mtbr member
    Reputation: blockphi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,560
    Quote Originally Posted by blockphi View Post


    I predict that the judge will either dismiss the case or rule that while, as precedent has shown, climate change is a thing, that the oil companies cannot be held liable. All the consumers of their products are complicit. It's not quite like the cigarette litigations where the tobacco companies advertised to children, increased the nicotine levels to increase addictive properties. However, there are some similarities in that some in the oil industry have expended a lot of money, as the tobacco companies did, to sow disinformation.

    Called it. See post 2476

    Not that it makes any real difference in either direction.

    https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envir...change-lawsuit

  51. #2751
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    4,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pig View Post
    Anyone remember the millennium bug? We were all doomed, civilization was going to end and we'd all die. Except we weren't, it didn't and we're still here.

    The lab-coats selling that theory were fairly convincing too.
    But wasn't that because programmers went in a and took care of it prior to the event occurring?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2000_problem
    There are two types of people in this world:
    1) Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data

  52. #2752
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,764
    Quote Originally Posted by chazpat View Post
    But wasn't that because programmers went in a and took care of it prior to the event occurring?
    Only partly. The assumption was that, despite our best efforts, there would be enough computer systems that either would not or could not be fixed as to cause chaos world wide. The media was awash with scare stores and alarming predictions but in the event, virtually nothing happened.

  53. #2753
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    9,881
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pig View Post
    Anyone remember the millennium bug? We were all doomed, civilization was going to end and we'd all die. Except we weren't, it didn't and we're still here.

    The lab-coats selling that theory were fairly convincing too.

    That seems like a completely different deal than the current climate science situation. Also as mentioned crisis was averted at least in part due to human intervention.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  54. #2754
    mtbr member
    Reputation: blockphi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,560
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    That seems like a completely different deal than the current climate science situation. Also as mentioned crisis was averted at least in part due to human intervention.
    I'd go so far as to say that it wasn't even in part. It was wholly due to mitigation efforts taken. Pig is right - the media was awash in dire predictions. And as I noted in my earlier response to his non sequituer argumentative point - there was no way to know for certain that all the mitigations would work until after the event - thus there was a concerted effort to present the worse case scenarios.

    Did some outlets capitalize on that? Oh hells yeah. That doesn't change the base fact that action was being taken to mitigate regardless of what the general public saw or was privy to.

    The fact that the deniers still use this old saw as an argument against action on climate change is just asinine.

    And to Axe's point - yeah, if the politicians were serious about preventing potential issues they'd do things like push for nuke power - but when a good majority of the politicians cow-tow to their ghost in the sky vocal supporters it's not surprising that it is difficult or impossible to do anything based on any kind of scientific learning and data.

  55. #2755

  56. #2756
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    1,779
    Quote Originally Posted by blockphi View Post
    If all we have to worry about in the environment is climate change then we are doing well. There is nothing unnatural about it on the face of it. Have humans accelerated it, perhaps. Although, what does that mean in the grand scheme of things if it was going to change eventually regardless of intervention. Will it displace a number of peoples, yes. Again that's something that is natural and has happened before. Will it cause some species to become extinct, yes. Yet again a natural occurrence. As a result of that extinction new species will flourish and entirely new ones will be added in the spaces left unfilled.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  57. #2757
    mtbr member
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    937
    This thread is still alive without Boris?

    BTW the latest climate change is more profound than anything else since the ice age. And I really don't think we want to go to that extreme. This is not natural it's man-made. It's not going fun to bike outside 20 years from now when it's 100 degrees outside because of the heat-trapping CO2.
    Hypercritical is good. Hypocritical is bad. Nice people can still be bad people.

  58. #2758
    Contains no juice.
    Reputation: Finch Platte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    14,927
    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    This thread is still alive without Boris?

    BTW the latest climate change is more profound than anything else since the ice age. And I really don't think we want to go to that extreme. This is not natural it's man-made. It's not going fun to bike outside 20 years from now when it's 100 degrees outside because of the heat-trapping CO2.
    This thread is alive because there ain't no Boris.

    Why 20 years from now? It's 100 degrees now in NorkAl. No need to wait 20 years. It's happening now, baby.

  59. #2759
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    1,779
    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    This thread is still alive without Boris?

    BTW the latest climate change is more profound than anything else since the ice age. And I really don't think we want to go to that extreme. This is not natural it's man-made. It's not going fun to bike outside 20 years from now when it's 100 degrees outside because of the heat-trapping CO2.
    So what unnatural events pushed us into the ice age? What unnatural elements caused the abnormally, in today's world, high temperatures of the Paleocene and Eocene eras? To think that humans and humans alone cause the planet's climate to change is the pinnacle of human hubris.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  60. #2760
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,390
    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    This thread is still alive without Boris?

    BTW the latest climate change is more profound than anything else since the ice age. And I really don't think we want to go to that extreme. This is not natural it's man-made. It's not going fun to bike outside 20 years from now when it's 100 degrees outside because of the heat-trapping CO2.
    No, it is not more profound. And 10k years is a blip on geological time scale. And nobody cares what it is if the proposed remedies are wrong.

  61. #2761
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    28
    I recall watching the Today show and the weather man Willard Scott said leaf flushing is controlled solely by light exposure. So maybe used to be a lot cloudy 30 years ago??

  62. #2762
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BCTJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,120
    I went to the Planetarium the other day and they said that Venus is so hot because the atmosphere is too thick to allow the heat to escape. I was thinking - I hope that doesn't happen here.

  63. #2763
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,452
    Hope the science of the weather on Venus isn’t as politically charged as is here on earth. We are still not fully sure of what drives our climate. Think we know it all, until we find out we were wrong. We do know what our history shows us, more and more. And that history shows we should enjoy what we have while we have it. Especially since the planet is in glacial period 10 fold over interglacial as we currently prospering in. Prospering as far as climate goes anyway
    Round and round we go

Page 28 of 28 FirstFirst ... 182425262728

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 37
    Last Post: 01-27-2015, 08:31 PM
  2. Dealing with climate change
    By 3pinfinn in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 01-14-2013, 09:46 AM
  3. Fox gloves. Which is best for our climate
    By ltk1144 in forum Arizona
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-15-2012, 10:23 PM
  4. Closest Warm(er) climate from WI
    By pattongb in forum XC Racing and Training
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-04-2011, 06:15 PM
  5. Should I run a lighter oil since I live in a cold climate?
    By Lets Try Science in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-27-2011, 10:54 PM

Members who have read this thread: 230

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

mtbr.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.