Reply With Quote
Still have no idea what you're driving at...
... and they will have to dig up every square inch of it... then re-bury the waste...
Then hope whatever they disturb doesn't get into any water supplies.
Stupid, and energy intensive.
Still have no idea what you're driving at...
Your ignorance.
Here is an interesting example of feedback effects:
Arctic Sea Ice Is at Near Record Lows, NASA Says
http://news.yahoo.com/arctic-sea-ice...213324068.html
"As you warm [the water] up, you're changing the contrast with the lower la udes," Meier said. "And that contrast helps set up things like the jet stream and storm tracks and general weather patterns." As the Arctic warms, weather patterns in lower la udes will also be affected, he noted.
For instance, cold air usually stays in the Arctic because of polar vortex winds, which make a circular, counterclockwise trip around the North Pole. But as sea-ice extent diminishes, the Arctic warms, high pressures build and the polar vortex weakens, allowing cold air to flow southward and cause fiercely cold winters, according to Weather Underground.
Meanwhile GOP deniers lie about the science again.
GOP Congressman Falsely Claims Study ‘Confirms The Halt In Global Warming’
This is the consequence of the anti-science at ude of the GOP.his is not the first time Smith, a Republican from Texas, has made false statements about climate science and the so-called “Karl study,” named after Thomas R. Karl, director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information and the Science paper’s lead author.
As we’ve written before, Smith claimed in October 2015 that “climate data has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades” and that NOAA scientists “altered the data” to get the results they presented in the Science study.
Motivated to quell what he considers the NOAA and Obama administration’s “extreme climate change agenda,” Smith used the House science committee’s subpoena power on Oct. 13 to obtain internal communications at NOAA regarding the Karl study. NOAA has provided the committee with some do ents and emails, though Smith continues to request more information.
In the battle’s latest episode, NOAA Administrator Kathryn Sullivan testified before the House science committee on March 16 on NOAA’s 2017 budget. Again, Smith brought up the Karl study, claiming it was “prematurely published” and used “controversial new methods,” among other things.
They are conducting a witch hunt to support their conspiracy theory. Sad thing is that they have subpoena power to do so.
... hilariously dishonetst for a life-long believer in "Christ The Scientist".
Old, white, Christian sect, inherited wealth, in a safe district, with no consequences for being an anti-science, pro-business, anti-consumer asshole.
weirdly shaped, just accidentally 84% white
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%...ional_district
Climate Change Alert: Life Is About To Get Much Worse
These results are far more pessimistic than anything the IPCC has put out for three reasons. First, the IPCC operates by consensus, meaning that the most conservative estimates are used. Second, IPCC data and models are in “uncharted territory,” so it is not easy to decide if natural systems are going to re or reinforce man-made trends.
Finally, the law of averages means that hundreds of co-authors will tend to agree on a business as usual, linear path of change, rather than the new normal, exponential path that Hansen et al. predict.
What makes me so worried about Hansen et al.’s dire prediction is a separate paper that I was reading in advance of my upcoming class.
Martin Weitzman has been heavily involved in CC economics for several decades, and his 2011 paper “Fat-Tailed Uncertainty in the Economics of Catastrophic Climate Change” [pdf] explains how we (economists) have underestimated risk on 4-5 dimensions, meaning that our models are inaccurate.
As an example, Weitzman explains how an average 10 degree increase in temperatures — a change that would mean “the earth was ice free, while palm trees and alligators lived near the North Pole” — shows up in models as a 0.1 percent drop in long run GDP growth (from 2.0 to 1.9%).
Weitzman points out that such models are incompatible with results where “half of today’s human population would be living in places where, at least once a year, there would be periods when death from heat stress would ensue after about six hours of exposure… i.e., temperatures that would represent an extreme threat to human civilization and global ecology as we now know it.”
The upshot is that economic cost-benefit models may be radically understating the cost of climate change (in exactly the same way as they failed to predict the financial crisis), which means that most discussions are far too conservative about the need to act quickly to reduce GHG emissions.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/...uch-worse.html
lol, nakedcapitalism
It's all in the interpretation of the article. The actual temperature records used show less of a warming trend than the error margins. The only value that shows clear warming is the CMIP5.
Here is the study:
Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown
The paper also references an earlier paper:
Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years
This paper shows how far off the modelling is compared to the measurements:
The grey bars of what their CMIP5 model says it should be. The red area are the measurements. As you can see, the model for 1993 to 2013 says it should have been a 0.14/decade trend. The 1998 to 2013 trend is only about a 0.03/decade trend.
Now in the paper Lamar refers to, it says this:
What ever you wish to call it, calling it a "hiatus" is not out of line, because is is almost a zero trend, and zero is within it's error band. At least it was with HadCRUT3. When they corrected the data again, HadCRUT4 has the error band outside of zero.A point of agreement we have with Lewandowsky et al. concerns the unfortunate way in which the recent changes have been framed in terms of GMST having “'stalled', 'stopped', 'paused', or entered a 'hiatus'”. Just exactly how such changes should be referred to is open to debate. Possible choices include 'reduced rate of warming', 'decadal fluctuation' or 'temporary slowdown' — all try to convey the primary mechanism involved, which in the recent example is likely to be internal decadal variability.
I wish they would stop "correcting' the data...
One Fact About Climate Change That’s Worth Repeating
he overwhelming majority of climate scientists — over 97 percent — understand that humans are the primary cause of climate change. This is one of the central facts about human-caused climate change that any climate communicator needs to keep repeating, for several reasons.
First, it’s true, as Politifact detailed on Monday. The scientific literature is clear on this.
Second, the ongoing disinformation campaign funded by the fossil fuel industry (together with false balance by the media) has left the public with the impression that there is considerable scientific debate on a subject where there isn’t.
When people are informed about the reality of the overwhelming consensus they naturally are more inclined to want to take action, as social science research has shown.
Let’s briefly explore the various ways to express the consensus, since some are more accurate than others. On March 24, U.S. Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) wrote on his website, “Over 97 percent of the scientific community … believe that humans are contributing to climate change.”
PolitifactMostlyTruePolitifact Virginia rated this “Mostly True” on Monday. Politifact correctly notes that “The studies Beyer and others cite do not reflect the scientific community at large.” So they conclude “Beyer’s statement is credible but needs elaboration. We rate it Mostly True.”
It’s true that when you cite this statistic it is best to use “climate scientists” and not “scientists.” You can also use “peer-reviewed climate research” or “climate experts.”
As an aside, if you or child has a serious pancreas problem, I don’t think you’re going to be terribly interested what your cardiologist thinks, let alone your dentist. Similarly, it’s what climate scientists understand and what they can demonstrate in the peer-reviewed literature that we should care about.
Skeptical Science reviews the literature here. As environmental scientist Dana Nuccitelli explained in 2014, “Three distinct studies using four different methods have independently shown that the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is 97 ± 1%. The result is the same whether we ask the experts’ opinions, look at their public reports and statements, or examine their peer-reviewed science.”
Both Beyer and Politifact get a little sidetracked by looking at the out-of-date statement on NASA’s website: “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.”
The NASA statement is based on the 2007 (!) assessment of the scientific literature by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, where, as NASA notes, the IPCC defines “very likely” as meaning “greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.”
The thing is, by 2013, the IPCC’s summary of the science — which are notoriously conservative in part because they require line-by-line approval by every major country in the world — concluded. “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”
The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as 95 to 100 percent certainty. That is comparable to the confidence the medical and public health community have that cigarettes are dangerous to your health.
It’s worth noting that the IPCC immediately states:
The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.
That is, the best estimate by scientists is that humans are responsible for all of the warming we have suffered since 1950. Again, every major government in the world signed off on this finding — and yet the public, as well as media and opinion makers, are equally uninformed about this fact.
And so the second half of Beyer’s statement — the 97 percent “believe that humans are contributing to climate change” — is just way too weak, a point Politifact entirely glosses over. Indeed, it would be difficult to find any legitimate scientist — let alone one that had published on some aspect of climate change — who believed humans are not “contributing” to climate change.
The scientific literature — and the assessment of the literature unanimously embraced by the world’s governments — make clear that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists — over 97 percent — understand that humans are the primary cause of climate change.
If you want to be more specific, you can say “… understand that humans are the primary cause of global warming since 1950.” To keep it short but still accurate, you could say “over 97 percent of climate scientists understand that humans are causing climate change.”
I think “understand” is much better than “believe” since we are talking about a scientific fact here. Another good phrase is “have concluded.” The world’s largest general scientific society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, put it this way in their blunt, must-read “What We Know” report: “Climate scientists agree: climate change is happening here and now. Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening.”
Finally, how confident are climate scientists of this conclusion?
“The science linking human activities to climate change is analogous to the science linking smoking to lung and cardiovascular diseases,” explains the AAAS. “Physicians, cardiovascular scientists, public health experts and others all agree smoking causes cancer. And this consensus among the health community has convinced most Americans that the health risks from smoking are real. A similar consensus now exists among climate scientists, a consensus that maintains climate change is happening, and human activity is the cause.”
We are as certain that humans are responsible for recent climate change as we are that cigarettes are dangerous to your health.
How's this for you, RG?
It's not really what the skeptic argument is about.
And of course as shill for oilco funded think tanks like Heartland you get to tell us what the 'skeptics' argument is.How's this for you, RG?
It's not really what the skeptic argument is about.
Here is the journal Nature on your source
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ATURE-20110728Does the following sound familiar? “They distort science, ignore reality and will not tolerate opinions or facts that conflict with their beliefs.” “Cynical manipulators or simple pawns, their purpose is only to keep funds flowing to a corrupt few who profit from the status quo.” Those are the kinds of words scientists use, often correctly, to describe the sceptics, many of whom would have the financial interests of today continue their dominance tomorrow. Yet this is also how sceptics characterize climate scientists, whose careers and reputations they claim are intertwined with protecting the science of anthropogenic global warming.
To address this conflict might be seen as lending respectability to the spurious claims made by sceptics against respected scientists and robust science. So, let's be clear: Nature is not endorsing the Heartland Ins ute as a serious voice on climate science. Instead, the News Feature is intended to offer researchers outside climate science a window into the motives and tactics of those who have set themselves up as such a voice. (Those inside climate science, of course, are all too aware of these already.)
Despite criticizing climate scientists for being overconfident about their data, models and theories, the Heartland Ins ute proclaims a con uous confidence in single studies and grand interpretations. A 2009 report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, which the ins ute supports, is well sourced and based on scientific papers. Yet it makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading, and do not highlight the uncertainties. Many climate sceptics seem to review scientific data and studies not as scientists but as attorneys, magnifying doubts and treating incomplete explanations as falsehoods rather than signs of progress towards the truth. As the News Feature points out, although the sceptics feel that they have already won the political battle in the United States, their attacks on science will continue.
Scientists can only carry on with their work, addressing legitimate questions as they arise and challenging misinformation. Many climate scientists have already tried to engage with their critics, as they did at the Heartland event. The difference, of course, is motive. Scientists work to fill the gaps in human knowledge and to build a theory that can explain observations of the world. Climate sceptics revel in such gaps, sometimes long after they have been filled.
They go on:
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/1107...l/475440a.htmlAfter attending the University of Chicago, he co-founded the Heartland Ins ute in 1984 at the age of 26. Heartland's annual report says that corporations provided 34% of its US$6.1-million budget in 2010, with the rest coming from individuals and conservative foundations — some of which have industry ties of their own.
In the past, Heartland has often been criticized for collecting money from tobacco and energy companies, but Bast says Heartland is advocating its own ideology, which generally opposes regulation. He is among the last public defenders of smoking and has argued that concerns about second-hand smoke are as bogus as those surrounding greenhouse gases.
Bast's assault on climate research takes two forms: challenging the credibility of the science, and disputing the claim that there is a scientific consensus on climate change. He does not necessarily deny that humans are having an influence on the climate, but he does question the forecasts of catastrophic impacts and the rationale for curbing carbon emissions.
Heartland plans to spend $1.8 million on its climate programme this year. Of that, $413,000 will go to supporting the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a small group of sceptics who have set themselves up as a counterweight to the IPCC. Made up of Bast and a few dozen colleagues, the NIPCC mines the scientific literature for nuggets of contrary evidence and doubt — often the kind of uncertainties that scientists readily acknowledge in their publications. The NIPCC also ignores mountains of evidence about the adverse effects of global warming and instead strings together a confident story that makes rising carbon dioxide concentrations seem entirely beneficial.
appeal to authority
somebody will get triggered
No kidding.How's this for you, RG?
It's not really what the skeptic argument is about.
RG, the problem is that yes. 97% agree man kind causes a significant amount of warming, but you used that with "over 97 percent — understand that humans are the primary cause of climate change." That is a lie. The 97% consensus is "significant," not "primary."
Please stop lying.
Greenland ice sheet is melting freakishly early
Greenland's massive ice sheet this week started melting freakishly early thanks to a weather system that brought unseasonably warm temperatures and rain, scientists say.
While this record early melt is mostly from natural weather on top of overall global warming, scientists say they are concerned about what it means when the melt season kicks in this summer. This however could be temporary.
On Monday and Tuesday, about 12 percent of the ice sheet surface area—656,000 square miles or 1.7 million square kilometers—showed signs of melting ice, according to Peter Langen, a climate scientist at the Danish Meteorological Ins ute. It smashed record for early melting by more than three weeks.
That's normal for late May not mid-April, Langen said.
Normally, no ice should be melting in Greenland at this time of year. Before now, the earliest Greenland had more than 10 percent surface area melting was on May 5, back in 1990. Even in 2012, when 97 percent of Greenland experienced melt, it didn't have such an early and extensive melt.
http://phys.org/news/2016-04-scienti...reakishly.html
Will, you please keep Chicken Little out of science?
50 Years Ago Big Oil Bragged About Being Able To Melt Glaciers, While They Knew About Climate Change
“From 1957 onward, there is no doubt that Humble Oil, which is now Exxon, was clearly on notice” about rising CO2 in the atmosphere and the prospect that it was likely to cause global warming, he said.
The first thing that quote made me think of is a story I wrote years ago about a ridiculously ironic ad that Humble oil published in a 1962 edition of Life Magazine found on Google Books (for larger version, click here). The headline:
“EACH DAY HUMBLE SUPPLIES ENOUGH ENERGY TO MELT 7 MILLION TONS OF GLACIER!”:
“This giant glacier has remained unmelted for centuries,” the ad begins without a trace of irony. “Yet, the petroleum energy Humble supplies — if converted into heat — could melt it at the rate of 80 tons each second! To meet the nation’s growing needs for energy, Humble has supplied science to nature’s resources to become America’s Leading Energy Company….”
At the time, I noted the scientific reality that “More than 2 trillion tons of land ice in Greenland, Antarctica, and Alaska have melted since 2003, according to new NASA satellite data that show the latest signs of what scientists say is global warming.”
But what we now know is that by 1962, the phrase “Humble has supplied science to nature’s resources” also included supplying some of the early science on global warming and its impacts.
CIEL do ents that back in 1946, the leading oil companies created a “Smoke and Fumes Committee” to back scientific research into air pollution issues and use their findings to shape the public debate about the environment.
CIEL explains, “The express goal of their collaboration was to use science and public skepticism to prevent environmental regulations they deemed hasty, costly, and unnecessary.” The Committee, which perhaps should have been named “Smoke and Mirrors,” was later folded into the American Petroleum Ins ute (API).
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...melt-glaciers/
You AGW deniers are duped, are silly fools.
So...
You pick two editorials rather than peer reviewed papers.
Bravo!
This is stupid even for you. You have nothing to contradict.
Why bother countering opinion? It's not like it was peer reviewed.
"Why bother countering opinion?"
...sez the opinionated, cretinous AGW denier.
I just like razzing nincompoops."Why bother countering opinion?"
...
You dissemble into nonsense here rather than address facts. The founding of Heartland, its management, work, etc is not a question of science nor peer review nor is it opinion. It's not quite the smoking gun William Soon being paid over $1m by Exxon and misrepresenting his peer reviewed work is but it's telling the same story.
This is spot on:
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
