Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's what I'm saying. Why am I put into this. You guys: as in me. Plus it's ya'll. You canadian!

Because you came in to the discussion to say that you agreed with Pheno and added nothing else of substance. Hence me saying you all added nothing of substance to the discussion.

So you believe that CO2 and water should get equal rights so CO2 is exonerated cause water isn't regulated?

[Wild Cobra]

Oh pretty please show us your napkin math on the combined feedback and forcings they describe from that 2000 citation. It's so fun when you think you have outwitted scientists.

Oh and btw what kind of chipsets do you guys use for your controllers at work?

Maybe you should do the math yourself, if you are capable.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Maybe you should do the math yourself, if you are capable.

do we have to do this again? I'm more than comfortable with taking the peer review process over the fronting of an idiot. If that is all you have then so be it.

[Wild Cobra]

do we have to do this again? I'm more than comfortable with taking the peer review process over the fronting of an idiot. If that is all you have then so be it.

Yes I know. You like your brainwashing.

You don't read the studies, you read what the pundits tell you the studies say...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol as opposed to your method of just making shit up.

It's the National Academy of Science and not Rush Limbaugh


Many complex processes shape our climate Based just on the physics of the amount of energy that CO2 absorbs and emits, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration from pre-industrial levels (up to about 560 ppm) would, by itself, cause a global average temperature increase of about 1 °C (1.8 °F). In the overall climate system, however, things are more complex; warming leads to further effects (feedbacks) that either amplify or diminish the initial warming. The most important feedbacks involve various forms of water. A warmer atmosphere generally contains more water vapour. Water vapour is a potent greenhouse gas, thus causing more warming; its short lifetime in the atmosphere keeps its increase largely in
step with warming. Thus, water vapour is treated as an amplifier, and not a driver, of climate change. Higher temperatures in the polar regions melt sea ice and reduce seasonal snow cover, exposing a darker ocean and land surface that can absorb more heat, causing further warming. Another important but uncertain feedback concerns changes in clouds. Warming
and increases in water vapour together may cause cloud cover to increase or decrease which can either amplify or dampen temperature change depending on the changes in the horizontal extent, altitude, and properties of clouds. The latest assessment of the science indicates that the overall net global effect of cloud changes is likely to be to amplify warming.

Silly me, I forget that the Academies had put together this handy anti-denial kit.

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf

[Wild Cobra]

:lol as opposed to your method of just making shit up.

It's the National Academy of Science and not Rush Limbaugh

Do you have a fetish for Limbaugh?

Why are you bringing him up?



Silly me, I forget that the Academies had put together this handy anti-denial kit.

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf

Funny how they don't mention any of the 60 year lags like Hansen acknowledges.

They use more current correlation and causation, rather than any mention of solar peaking in 1958, and 60 years of equalization lag...

When a group will actually acknowledge these other real factors, I will start listening to them. Until that time, I will stick with researcher papers instead of blogs and institute statements to find my information.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-s-great-green-wall-helps-pull-co2-out-of-atmosphere/

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00656.1

[DarrinS]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-s-great-green-wall-helps-pull-co2-out-of-atmosphere/

Plants eat plant food? Who knew?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Plants eat plant food? Who knew?

The discussion was about China's role given the already established principle. I'm guessing you didn't read it. Reading technical work seems a struggle for you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00656.1

If aerosol forcing goes down but the temperature anomaly remains the same what do you think that means regarding other forcings?

[boutons_deux]

High Anxiety That Mountain Peaks are Warming Faster

Temperatures could be climbing on mountains—with new research suggesting that the highest altitudes may be warming (http://www.eurekalert.org/emb_releases/2015-04/uoma-hmw042215.php) at a rate greater than expected.

Members of the Mountain Research Initiative (http://mri.scnatweb.ch/en/) collective report in Nature Climate Change (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n5/full/nclimate2563.html) that they found evidence that mountain peak regions were warming faster than the surrounding plateaus and lowlands.

The study—by Nick Pepin, leader of the Environmental Processes and Change Research Group (http://www.port.ac.uk/department-of-geography/research/environmental-processes-and-change-/) at Portsmouth University in the UK, and colleagues from the US, Switzerland, Canada, Ecuador, Pakistan, China, Italy, Austria and Kazakhstan—comes with more than the usual set of health warnings.

The authors concede that the evidence is “extremely sparse”. But just as the Arctic region—the high latitudes of the northern hemisphere—is warming faster than anywhere else in the world, so the high altitude could also be at risk.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/high_anxiety_that_mountain_peaks_are_warming_faste r_20150429?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+Truthdig+Truthdig%253A+Dril ling+Beneath+the+Headlines

[DarrinS]

High Anxiety That Mountain Peaks are Warming Faster

The authors concede that the evidence is “extremely sparse”.




That's never been a problem for climate science. :lol

[RandomGuy]

What's your value?


http://i.imgur.com/ZdATN4f.jpg

:rolleyes

[boutons_deux]

I’m going to climate denial school: My first week inside the science of anti-science


http://media.salon.com/2015/04/Screen-Shot-2015-04-29-at-2.31.42-PM-620x412.png


Tuesday, for me and some ten thousand classmates (http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/04/28/more-10000-enroll-free-university-course-debunk-climate-science-denial), was the first day of climate denial school.

Or, should I say, anti-climate denial school. We’d all signed up for Denial101x (https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x), a new, six-week MOOC (that’s “massive open online course,” for all you education luddites) aimed at making sense of this whole phenomenon — and at giving us the tools to fight deniers, so that we can all get on with fighting climate change itself.

Our professor is John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland and the founder of Skeptical Science (http://www.skepticalscience.com/), which over the past two years has been an invaluable resources for me, a newbie debunker of deniers.

Of course, there’s always more to learn. As a student, Cook told me via email, I can expect to leave the course with “a better understanding what’s happening to our climate, able to identify the techniques used to distort the science and be able to debunk misinformation.” That’s a great thing for a climate blogger, as well as — and this is really the point — for any concerned citizen of the world who wants to understand the truth about climate science for themselves.

The course doesn’t waste time wringing its hands over whether or not to call deniers “deniers” — a true skeptic, Cook explains in his welcome video, “doesn’t come to a conclusion until they’ve considered the evidence,” while “someone who denies well-established science comes to a conclusion first, and then discounts any evidence that conflicts with their beliefs.” But it is interested in why climate deniers believe the things they do. That’s because in order to effectively debunk climate denier myths, Cook told me, it’s important first to understand the psychology behind them — and to understand how and why they’re so good at casting doubt on the scientific consensus.

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/29/im_going_to_climate_denial_school_my_first_week_in side_the_science_of_anti_science/

[spursncowboys]

:rolleyes
Nice! That's kind of what I thought your value was too. :bobo

[DarrinS]

[FONT=arial][SIZE=3]I’m going to climate denial school: My first week inside the science of anti-science


http://media.salon.com/2015/04/Screen-Shot-2015-04-29-at-2.31.42-PM-620x412.png



this faggot

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao
:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

this faggot

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao
:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

All Pop Tart could come up with is whining that he censored him. He did get banned over at Skeptical Science but as we saw here he has antisocial traits.

What criticism do you have?

Your go to site WUWT is tied to GWPC and other oilco think tanks. That is your go to source over the years. Do you have any examples of a conflict of interest like the Harvard researcher hailed as a leading skeptic who misrepresented being paid by oilcos?

The flowchart in the pic is apt for you. You have clearly come to your conclusion that oilcos interests must be met and have moved from position to position as outlined in my sig. You are another that misrepresents his allegiances.

[RandomGuy]

http://actionwidgets.org/en/e/co2-m/600-keeling.png

on and on...

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/vostok.co2.gif

[RandomGuy]

this faggot

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao
:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

Feel free to flesh out some valid criticisms of the points he makes.

This entire thread is about the flawed logic and bad evidence used by so many people who want to argue about the science and deny that anything is wrong or that humans are causing widespread climate change.

When you use flawed logic, you don't help your case of denying that AGW is taking place.

Man up and go a bit beyond the high school insults and smileys.

[Wild Cobra]

http://actionwidgets.org/en/e/co2-m/600-keeling.png

on and on...

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/vostok.co2.gif
So?

[RandomGuy]

politics aside, the University of Victoria’s Robert Gifford explains, our brains just didn’t evolve to grapple with long-term, global threats like climate change. And so a number of psychological barriers, or what he calls “dragons of inactions,” prevent us from responding in a way that’s commensurate to the problem: we tend to discount events that seem far away, for instance, and we tend to be overly optimistic about the risks of climate change while at the same time deeply pessimistic about our individual ability to make a difference. And then, there’s the whole matter of the “consensus gap“: the difference between the 97 percent scientific consensus, and where the public believes it is — somewhere around 50 to 60 percent. How great people believe the consensus is has a big influence on their other beliefs, like whether the support the need for climate action. And according to Gifford’s own experiments, the more Americans support “free, unregulated markets,” the larger the consensus gap.

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/29/im_going_to_climate_denial_school_my_first_week_in side_the_science_of_anti_science/

[Wild Cobra]

politics aside, the University of Victoria’s Robert Gifford explains, our brains just didn’t evolve to grapple with long-term, global threats like climate change. And so a number of psychological barriers, or what he calls “dragons of inactions,” prevent us from responding in a way that’s commensurate to the problem: we tend to discount events that seem far away, for instance, and we tend to be overly optimistic about the risks of climate change while at the same time deeply pessimistic about our individual ability to make a difference. And then, there’s the whole matter of the “consensus gap“: the difference between the 97 percent scientific consensus, and where the public believes it is — somewhere around 50 to 60 percent. How great people believe the consensus is has a big influence on their other beliefs, like whether the support the need for climate action. And according to Gifford’s own experiments, the more Americans support “free, unregulated markets,” the larger the consensus gap.

The 97% scientific consensus is only that 97% of the scientists agree humans have an impact. An unspecified amount of impact. Anyone saying it means 97% of the scientists say we are the largest contributor, is lying.

Come on...

We've been over the facts before.

[RandomGuy]

The 97% scientific consensus is only that 97% of the scientists agree humans have an impact. An unspecified amount of impact. Anyone saying it means 97% of the scientists say we are the largest contributor, is lying.

Come on...

We've been over the facts before.


Faced with unfortunate facts or inconvenient truths? Tired of closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears, and screaming "LA LA LA LA LA LA?" Well, simply read RealClearScience's handy guide for denying scientific consensus. It's 100% proven to work against a variety of well-substantiated topics, such as:

Drinking Water Fluoridation
Global Climate Change
Child Vaccinations
Evolution
The Link Between HIV and AIDS
I'm sure you've got a long day of crafting aluminum foil hats ahead of you, so let's get going!

Tip #1: Claim a conspiracy. Feel like the whole world is against you? Well that's because it is! Scientists, politicians, journalists: they're all in collusion! Take climate change, for example. It's obvious why all those scientists "agree." They've been paid off by Big Solar and Big Wind, and are probably throwing lavish parties, complete with dancers that jump out of giant cakes shaped like beakers.

Tip #2: Use fake experts. The other side has their experts, so you need to get some, too. Finding somebody with respected credentials will be difficult, so to make up for it, just dress whoever you select in a white lab coat. If you can recruit a celebrity, do it! The public already trusts them. (Note: The more attractive the celebrity, the greater is his or her credibility.) To the anti-vaxxers out there, I recommend Jenny McCarthy.

Tip #3: Cherry-pick scientific data. Every once in a while, a scientific study will be published that supports your claims. When this happens, latch on and don't let go (despite it's obvious errors)! After all, the key to convincing others is simply to repeat your message more often than your opponents repeat theirs. If you're opposed to genetic modification, allow me to recommend a 2012 study by Gilles-Éric Séralini which found that genetically modified corn causes cancer in lab rats. Never mind that it's been universally denounced and recentlyretracted. The public doesn't need to know that.

Tip #4: Create unrealistic expectations of the evidence. Science is inherently uncertain; even scientists admit that! What can they ever really prove? Nothing! Climate change deniers, take Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee's advice and "point to the absence of accurate temperature records from before the invention of the thermometer."

Tip #5: Employ logical fallacies. Straw men, red herrings, false analogies: all of these are your friends. Misrepresent the opposition! Change the subject! And here's a foolproof false analogy for evolution deniers: "As the universe and a watch are both extremely complex, the universe must have been created by the equivalent of a watchmaker." Deep, isn't it?

Okay! You're ready to go! But first beware: there's a guaranteed side effect of utilizing this guide. You'll look like a total dunderhead.

But hey, it sure beats sticking your head in the ground!

Source: Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee. "Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?" European Journal of Public Health, (2009) Vol. 19, No. 1, 2–4



http://bigthink.com/experts-corner/5-easy-tips-for-denying-scientific-consensus
Article at big think.

http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/eurpub/19/1/2.full.pdf Paper in the European Journal of Public Health.

Let's see how many of these things you used in the 200+ pages here.

[RandomGuy]

1. Claim a conspiracy.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637&page=21&p=4819909&viewfull=1#post4819909


As for the peer review process, it lacks integrity in the field of climatology. the peer review process is being limited to those who already agree, rather than having an open process.
Peer review in climatology is a joke.

[Wild Cobra]

Random.

You believe what the pundits tell you to. I have read numerous papers, and think for myself.

the 97% is a lie. Period. It is demonstratively false. I have demonstrated it.

Tired of closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears, and screaming "LA LA LA LA LA LA?

That is you, when it comes from anything contrary to your faith of AGW, and written in the IPCC dogma.

[boutons_deux]

Weather Forecasters Used To Be Among The Country’s Staunchest Climate Deniers. Why That’s Changing Fast. (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/07/3653307/where-have-all-the-climate-denying-weather-forecasters-gone/)

Keah Schuenemann, a meteorology professor at the Metropolitan State University of Denver, has never met an atmospheric or climate scientist who doesn’t agree that most of the planet’s warming over the last century is a result of human activity. Weather forecasters though, whom she deals with regularly, are a different story. Schuenemann, who has a PhD in atmospheric and oceanic science from the University of Colorado, Boulder, said she’s been exposed to a “whole slew of forecasters who don’t understand climate science.”

This experience has even influenced her approach to teaching.

“My students can vouch for the fact that I boycott some meteorology software created by some very vocal weather folks who use their weather platform as a means of influencing people with no climate background into thinking the ‘cool kids’ don’t accept the IPCC conclusions,” she told ThinkProgress.

While this type of anti-science affront really bothers Schuenemann, overall she believes meteorology academic programs “are slowly integrating more climate literacy in their curricula.”

Training to be a weather forecaster is completely different than studying to be a climate scientist. For years this divergence in knowledge has left weathercasters with a bad rap (http://forecastthefacts.org/weathercaster_watch/) when it comes to incorporating climate change into their coverage. While fault for this has been placed on political and religious ideologies as well as audience interests, a prevailing element has been a lack of adequate climate knowledge.

However with more forecasters taking an interest (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04/23/video-new-survey-shows-tv-weathercasters-increa/203392) in educational materials like the National Climate Assessment and enrolling in programs like Climate Matters, a Climate Central program affiliated with NASA and NOAA that helps forecasters perform local climate analyses, there is a sea change underway in how weather forecasters report the climate.

For most of us, there’s weather and there’s climate.

The weather is something we check multiple times a day through a variety of means: TV, phone, computer, walking outside. It dictates our immediate plans and holds sway over our mood. We praise the forecasters when they bring us news of blue skies and warm temperatures, and curse them when they are wrong.

Then there’s climate: it’s changing but we don’t think about it every day. Maybe we drive less or stop eating meat to do our part in slowing greenhouse gas emissions. Maybe in the dog days of summer we lament the way humanity is destroying the earth, or how capitalism has led us awry. Maybe we invest in solar panels, both for environmental and economic reasons.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/07/3653307/where-have-all-the-climate-denying-weather-forecasters-gone/

[boutons_deux]

Sea level is rising fast — and it seems to be speeding up

several studies (http://imbie.org/imbie-2012/results/) have shown that the flow of ice and water into the oceans from Greenland and West Antarctica has increased since 1993.

previous estimates of the rate of rise from satellite data that didn’t incorporate the careful comparison with coastal sea-level measurements, as we have done in our recent study, showed a slower rate of rise over the past decade relative to the one before. Our revised record is clearly different and suggests that the rate of rise has increased, consistent with other observations of the increased contributions of water and ice from Greenland and West Antarctica.

Strikingly, our estimate of the increase in the rate of rise is consistent with theprojections of future sea level (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf) published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Currently, these projections forecast a rise of up to 98 cm by 2100 if greenhouse gas emissions are allowed to continue unabated (and even more if parts of the Antarctic ice sheet (https://theconversation.com/shrinking-of-antarctic-ice-shelves-is-accelerating-39273) collapse).

Increasing rates of sea-level rise will place increasing stress on the coastal margin. Extreme sea level events will become more frequent. Inundation and erosion will affect our infrastructure, affect ecosystems and, in some regions, displace populations.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/sea-level-is-rising-fast-and-it-seems-to-be-speeding-up/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[boutons_deux]

Massive Antarctic Ice Shelf Faces Imminent Risk of Collapse

An Antarctic ice shelf that is twice the size of Hawaii is at “imminent risk” of collapse and needs to be monitored carefully, a new study finds.

The ice shelf—Larsen C—is located in roughly the same geography as the Larsen A and B ice shelves, which disintegrated in 1995 and 2002, respectively. Larsen C covers 19,300 square miles and is the largest shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula. If it melts, it could significantly raise global sea levels, said Paul Holland, the lead author of the study and a scientist with the British Antarctic Survey.

“If [Larsen C] collapses, this will cause several centimeters of sea-level rise, potentially within a few decades,”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/massive-antarctic-ice-shelf-faces-imminent-risk-of-collapse/

Go, Shell, Burn That Carbon!

[SupremeGuy]

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/62128260.jpg

[boutons_deux]

operative phrase: IT WILL HAPPEN

[boutons_deux]

No VRWC/BigCarbon "pause" here, AND plenty of hard AGW EVIDENCE for all y'all igorant shit kickers to deny.

Greenland’s Glaciers are Accelerating So Fast, They Have Stretch Marks

The evidence is overwhelming (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/08/14/the_new_worst_case_scenario_for_ice_loss_in_antarc tica.html):

Earth’s polar regions are losing ice at a stunning rate (http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/seaice.shtml).

There’s so much ice being lost from Antarctica, for example, that scientists can detect local changes in gravity (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/09/29/antarctic_ice_melt_causes_small_shift_in_gravity.h tml).http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/05/13/crevasses_on_greenland_glaciers_are_evidence_of_th e_increasing_rate_of_ice.html

[cantthinkofanything]

No VRWC/BigCarbon "pause" here, AND plenty of hard AGW EVIDENCE for all y'all igorant shit kickers to deny.

Greenland’s Glaciers are Accelerating So Fast, They Have Stretch Marks

The evidence is overwhelming (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/08/14/the_new_worst_case_scenario_for_ice_loss_in_antarc tica.html):

Earth’s polar regions are losing ice at a stunning rate (http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/seaice.shtml).

There’s so much ice being lost from Antarctica, for example, that scientists can detect local changes in gravity (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/09/29/antarctic_ice_melt_causes_small_shift_in_gravity.h tml).http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/05/13/crevasses_on_greenland_glaciers_are_evidence_of_th e_increasing_rate_of_ice.html




The Earth just doin' what the Earth do.

[boutons_deux]

Antarctica's Larsen B ice shelf a few years from disintegration

The last intact section of one of Antarctica's mammoth ice shelves is weakening fast and will likely disintegrate completely in the next few years, contributing further to rising sea levels, according to a NASA study released on Thursday (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X1500151X).

The research focused on a remnant of the so-called Larsen B Ice Shelf, which has existed for at least 10,000 years but partially collapsed in 2002. What is left covers about 1,600 square km (625 square miles), about half the size of Rhode Island.

Antarctica has dozens of ice shelves - massive, glacier-fed floating platforms of ice that hang over the sea at the edge of the continent's coast line. The largest is roughly the size of France.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/antarctica-s-larsen-b-ice-shelf-a-few-years-from-disintegration-1.3075634

[boutons_deux]

The Earth just doin' what the Earth do.


yep, as driven by AGW

[TheSanityAnnex]

Will anything we are doing here in the States have enough of an impact to offset China, Russia, and India?

[boutons_deux]

Will anything we are doing here in the States have enough of an impact to offset China, Russia, and India?

China, eg, has greatly reduced its coal burning, like -8% over the past year. look it up. China is also moving fantastically to wind and solar energy.

India is also talking about solar in dramatic terms, since much of India is electrified.

Will it be enough? Probably not.

TPP/TTIP will allow BigCorp to sue taxpayers for $Bs if govt regulation on pollution hurt BigCorp profits.

[boutons_deux]

while tar sands negates all their efforts

Canada Announces Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions Target Of 30 Percent By 2030 (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/15/3659589/canada-emissions-pledge/)

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/15/3659589/canada-emissions-pledge/

[boutons_deux]

The awful truth about climate change no one wants to admit


There has always been an odd tenor to discussions among climate scientists, policy wonks, and politicians, a passive-aggressive quality, and I think it can be traced to the fact that everyone involved has to dance around the obvious truth, at risk of losing their status and influence.

The obvious truth about global warming is this: barring miracles, humanity is in for some awful shit.

Here is a plotting of dozens of climate modeling scenarios out to 2100, from the IPCC:
https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/o-3o3ZJ-bbzLXQLaIKrXE25-g0g=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3698752/ar5-scenarios.png(Global Carbon Project (http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/))

So what so what so what's the scenario?

The black line is carbon emissions to date. The red line is the status quo — a projection of where emissions will go if no new substantial policy is passed to restrain greenhouse gas emissions.

We recently passed 400 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere; the status quo will take us up to 1,000 ppm, raising global average temperature (from a pre-industrial baseline) between 3.2 and 5.4 degrees Celsius. That will mean, according to a 2012 World Bank report (http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/11/18/Climate-change-report-warns-dramatically-warmer-world-this-century), "extreme heat-waves, declining global food stocks, loss of ecosystems and biodiversity, and life-threatening sea level rise," the effects of which will be "tilted against many of the world's poorest regions," stalling or reversing decades of development work. "A 4°C warmer world can, and must be, avoided," said the World Bank president.

But that's where we're headed. It will take enormous effort just to avoid that fate. Holding temperature down under 2°C would require an utterly unprecedented level of global mobilization and coordination, sustained over decades. There's no sign of that happening, or reason to think it's plausible anytime soon. And so, awful shit it is

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/15/8612113/truth-climate-change

[boutons_deux]

It Only Took Four Months For China To Achieve A Jaw-Dropping Reduction In Carbon Emissions (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/15/3659355/china-coal-use-drops/)


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/15/3659355/china-coal-use-drops/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Cli mate+Progress%29

[TheSanityAnnex]

The awful truth about climate change no one wants to admit


There has always been an odd tenor to discussions among climate scientists, policy wonks, and politicians, a passive-aggressive quality, and I think it can be traced to the fact that everyone involved has to dance around the obvious truth, at risk of losing their status and influence.

The obvious truth about global warming is this: barring miracles, humanity is in for some awful shit.

Here is a plotting of dozens of climate modeling scenarios out to 2100, from the IPCC:
https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/o-3o3ZJ-bbzLXQLaIKrXE25-g0g=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3698752/ar5-scenarios.png(Global Carbon Project (http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/))

So what so what so what's the scenario?

The black line is carbon emissions to date. The red line is the status quo — a projection of where emissions will go if no new substantial policy is passed to restrain greenhouse gas emissions.

We recently passed 400 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere; the status quo will take us up to 1,000 ppm, raising global average temperature (from a pre-industrial baseline) between 3.2 and 5.4 degrees Celsius. That will mean, according to a 2012 World Bank report (http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/11/18/Climate-change-report-warns-dramatically-warmer-world-this-century), "extreme heat-waves, declining global food stocks, loss of ecosystems and biodiversity, and life-threatening sea level rise," the effects of which will be "tilted against many of the world's poorest regions," stalling or reversing decades of development work. "A 4°C warmer world can, and must be, avoided," said the World Bank president.

But that's where we're headed. It will take enormous effort just to avoid that fate. Holding temperature down under 2°C would require an utterly unprecedented level of global mobilization and coordination, sustained over decades. There's no sign of that happening, or reason to think it's plausible anytime soon. And so, awful shit it is

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/15/8612113/truth-climate-change




Mother Earth knows she is overpopulated and is correcting it as we speak. The Earth will cool once again when she is back to a manageable population.

[boutons_deux]

Mother Earth knows she is overpopulated and is correcting it as we speak. The Earth will cool once again when she is back to a manageable population.

you of course exclude yourself from the 100Ms or Bs who must die for "manageability"

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/31/the-unlikely-group-of-republicans-who-are-preparing-florida-for-climate-change/

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/billionaire-promises-to-sink-gop-climate-change-deniers-in-florida-7564189

GOP better be careful. You can only piss on people's legs for so long and there is an election on the horizon.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/31/the-unlikely-group-of-republicans-who-are-preparing-florida-for-climate-change/

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/billionaire-promises-to-sink-gop-climate-change-deniers-in-florida-7564189

GOP better be careful. You can only piss on people's legs for so long and there is an election on the horizon.

All the Repugs owning expensive coastal, riparian homes insured by taxpayers liability?

Where are the super-efficient, for-profit insurers that can insure them "cheaper and better" than taxpayers' hated govt?

[boutons_deux]

Exposure of U.S. population to extreme heat could quadruple by mid-century

“Both population change and climate change matter,” said NCAR scientist Brian O’Neill, one of the study’s co-authors. “If you want to know how heat waves will affect health in the future, you have to consider both.”

Extreme heat kills more people in the United States than any other weather-related event, and scientists generally expect the number of deadly heat waves to increase as the climate warms. The new study, published May 18 in the journal Nature Climate Change, finds that the overall exposure of Americans to these future heat waves would be vastly underestimated if the role of population changes were ignored.

The total number of people exposed to extreme heat is expected to increase the most in cities across the country’s southern reaches, including Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, Houston, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, Tampa, and San Antonio.

Read more at http://scienceblog.com/78446/exposure-population-extreme-heat-quadruple-midcentury/#3MFhDwz24o7e2qwQ.99

[Wild Cobra]

Exposure of U.S. population to extreme heat could quadruple by mid-century

“Both population change and climate change matter,” said NCAR scientist Brian O’Neill, one of the study’s co-authors. “If you want to know how heat waves will affect health in the future, you have to consider both.”

Extreme heat kills more people in the United States than any other weather-related event, and scientists generally expect the number of deadly heat waves to increase as the climate warms. The new study, published May 18 in the journal Nature Climate Change, finds that the overall exposure of Americans to these future heat waves would be vastly underestimated if the role of population changes were ignored.

The total number of people exposed to extreme heat is expected to increase the most in cities across the country’s southern reaches, including Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, Houston, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, Tampa, and San Antonio.

Read more at http://scienceblog.com/78446/exposure-population-extreme-heat-quadruple-midcentury/#3MFhDwz24o7e2qwQ.99



Hmmm....

Another blog, and we are suppose to accept blogs?

Did you verify the accuracy of what a pundit says?

OK...

The nature Climate Change article isn't listed by name, DOI number, link, etc... What does the author have to hide I wonder?

there are six 5/18/15 articles:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2631.html

http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nclimate2641

http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nclimate2646

http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nclimate2647

http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nclimate2648

http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nclimate2656

It is obviously, by title, the first one. they use the number of days over 35 C (95 F) as a threshold. It's all theoretical. They project population increases, and temperature changes, and assess rick by the changes in over the 35 C threshold. they admit a hole in the study as hoe not separating rural and urban.



Limitations to the study include a key caveat to the third
conclusion: in our analysis we have not distinguished urban and
rural temperature change, which can differ substantially owing
to the urban heat island effect.


Most of you can only read the abstract. I went and saved the whole PDF version as I have a subscription.

The blog changes the meaning somewhat. it says a four to sixfold increase by 2050. The study says "after" mid century.

Details are important, and bloggers and other pundits seem to think they have license to change what credible works really say. You see it all the time, some pundit skewing what a study really says.

I see the idea as real. Population increases will force increasing city densities. The urban heat island effect will increase. Even if we enter into a period of cooling over this century, it will likely not counter the heat increases as population densities increase.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/images/nclimate2631-f3.jpg

[boutons_deux]

Shell Oil Caught Planning for Deadly 4 to 6 Degree Rise in Global Temperature (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/17/1385496/-Shell-Oil-Caught-Planning-for-Deadly-4-to-6-Degree-Rise-in-Global-Temperature)


Royal Dutch Shell has been accused of pursuing a strategy that would lead to potentially catastrophic climate change after an internal document acknowledged a global temperature rise of 4C, twice the level considered safe for the planet.

A paper used for guiding future business planning at the Anglo-Dutch multinational assumes that carbon dioxide emissions will fail to limit temperature increases to 2C, the internationally agreed threshold to prevent widespread flooding, famine and desertification.

Instead, the New Lens Scenarios document refers to a forecast by the independent International Energy Agency (IEA) that points to a temperature rise of up to 4C in the short term, rising later to 6C.
...

The Shell document says: “Both our (oceans and mountains) scenarios and the IEA New Policies scenario (and our base case energy demand and outlook) do not limit emissions to be consistent with the back-calculated 450 parts per million (Co2 in the atmosphere) 2 degrees C.”

It adds: “We also do not see governments taking steps now that are consistent with 2 degrees C scenario.”


http://www.theguardian.com/ (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/17/shell-accused-of-strategy-risking-catastrophic-climate-change?CMP=share_btn_tw)...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/17/1385496/-Shell-Oil-Caught-Planning-for-Deadly-4-to-6-Degree-Rise-in-Global-Temperature?detail=email

As Shell bullies its way into Seattle dock and plans to drill for "tough oil" in the Arctic. "Easy Oil" is well past its peak.

[Wild Cobra]

So?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hmmm....

Another blog, and we are suppose to accept blogs?

Did you verify the accuracy of what a pundit says?

OK...

The nature Climate Change article isn't listed by name, DOI number, link, etc... What does the author have to hide I wonder?

there are six 5/18/15 articles:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2631.html

http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nclimate2641

http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nclimate2646

http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nclimate2647

http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nclimate2648

http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nclimate2656

It is obviously, by title, the first one. they use the number of days over 35 C (95 F) as a threshold. It's all theoretical. They project population increases, and temperature changes, and assess rick by the changes in over the 35 C threshold. they admit a hole in the study as hoe not separating rural and urban.



Most of you can only read the abstract. I went and saved the whole PDF version as I have a subscription.

The blog changes the meaning somewhat. it says a four to sixfold increase by 2050. The study says "after" mid century.

Details are important, and bloggers and other pundits seem to think they have license to change what credible works really say. You see it all the time, some pundit skewing what a study really says.

I see the idea as real. Population increases will force increasing city densities. The urban heat island effect will increase. Even if we enter into a period of cooling over this century, it will likely not counter the heat increases as population densities increase.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/images/nclimate2631-f3.jpg

So?

[boutons_deux]

Antarctic glaciers thinning so fast, it's like a switch was flipped (+video)

A new study has recorded a sudden and rapid thinning of once-stable glaciers along the southern Antarctic Peninsula, demonstrating that significant changes in glacier mass can occur surprisingly quickly as ocean and air temperatures rise.

The findings support what researchers have been seeing in other parts of Antarctica, with scientists warning last year that four key glaciers on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet appear to be on the verge of wholesale retreat with nothing to stop them.

The new study points to a common cause among the glaciers it studied: Warm water is melting away the underside of the glaciers where they meet the sea floor, weakening the ice shelves that slow the glaciers’ slide the ocean. The researchers "observe a relatively strong [common] response across multiple glacier systems that clearly points to changing ocean condition as the main culprit,"

The study is unique, he says, because of how effectively it pinpointed the major driver of the changes. The study, which appears in this week’s issue of the journal Science, also points to the speed with which these changes are occurring.

"It's like a switch was flipped for a pretty extensive region of the peninsula," adds Jonathan Bamber, a glaciologist at the University of Bristol in Britain and a member of the team conducting the study. "That isn't something that you would necessarily expect based on the modeling studies that people have done."

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2015/0521/Antarctic-glaciers-thinning-so-fast-it-s-like-a-switch-was-flipped-video

Models are wrong!

TOO conservative! :lol

[boutons_deux]

A Group Of CEOs Managing $12 Trillion Want A Strong Global Climate Deal (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/28/3663604/ceos-institutional-investors-climate-change-letter/)

A group of more than 120 CEOs and other institutional investors who manage more than $12 trillion in assets sent an open letter (http://www.iigcc.org/files/publication-files/InvestorCEO_letter.pdf) to seven of the world’s wealthiest countries on Tuesday, asking them to make bold commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions during the U.N. climate talks later this year. The reason, the letter said, was because of the uncertainty surrounding how bad climate change would be and how it would affect their businesses.

“As institutional investors responsible for managing the retirement savings and investments of millions of people or managing endowments, we believe climate change is one of the biggest systemic risks we face,” the letter read, urging the countries’ financial ministers to support a long-term global emissions reduction goal that limits warming to a 2° Celsius.

The letter was sent to the Group of Seven (G-7), which is made up of the finance ministers of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan. Among the letter’s signatories were managers of some of the world’s biggest investment and pension funds, including the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the New York State Common Retirement Fund, and the AFL-CIO.

The group of CEOs was organized by five responsible investment groups from around the world, but it is far from the first group representing monetary interests to come out and ask for action on climate change.

Last month, a group of big insurance companies and consumer organizations asked the United States to strengthen (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/04/21/3649244/insurance-climate-change-disaster-relief/) its disaster policies in the face of increasingly extreme weather due to human-caused climate change.

And last week, one of the world’s largest insurance companies pledged to drop (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/22/3662053/axa-insurance-coal-divestment/) its remaining investment in coal assets, saying climate change was already driving an increase in weather-related risks, which threaten business.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/28/3663604/ceos-institutional-investors-climate-change-letter/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/28/3663604/ceos-institutional-investors-climate-change-letter/)

Looks like these people have realized the high probability that their oxen will get gored, too.

"climate change"! BULLSHIT it's Anthropogenic GLOBAL WARMING, in the anthropocene epoch

[Wild Cobra]

A Group Of CEOs Managing $12 Trillion Want A Strong Global Climate Deal (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/28/3663604/ceos-institutional-investors-climate-change-letter/)

A group of more than 120 CEOs and other institutional investors who manage more than $12 trillion in assets

<snip>


120 plus "other" institutional investors...

Of course they do... They all want to profit on carbon trading!

[boutons_deux]

Tillerson says fuck it all, and fuck all y'all, because BigOil will continue trashing the planet for $100Bs in profits, so all y'all resilient people find a way to save your asses and planet.

You Can Do It, BigOil WON'T help

ExxonMobil says mankind has 'enormous capacity to deal with adversity' caused by climate change (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/27/1388294/-ExxonMobil-says-mankind-has-enormous-capacity-to-deal-with-adversity-caused-by-climate-change)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/27/1388294/-ExxonMobil-says-mankind-has-enormous-capacity-to-deal-with-adversity-caused-by-climate-change?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29#

BigCarbon makes or blocks govt policy, not Human-Americans.

[boutons_deux]

Greenhouse gas-caused warming felt in just months

The heat generated by burning a fossil fuel is surpassed within a few months by the warming caused by the release of its carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, a new study says. The release of CO2 into the atmosphere contributes to the trapping of heat that would otherwise be emitted into outer space.

http://images.sciencedaily.com/2015/06/150602130636_1_540x360.jpg

This graph shows the ratio of warming from accumulated atmospheric carbon dioxide to warming from combustion for coal, oil, and gas plants over time

In a modeling study of coal, oil, and natural gas, Zhang and Caldeira compared the warming caused by combustion to the warming caused by the carbon dioxide released by a single instance of burning, such as one lump of coal, and by a power plant that is continuously burning fuel.

They found that the carbon dioxide-caused warming exceeds the amount of heat released by a lump of coal in just 34 days. The same phenomenon is observed in 45 days for an isolated incident of oil combustion, and in 59 days for a single instance of burning natural gas.

"Ultimately, the warming induced by carbon dioxide over the many thousands of years it remains in the atmosphere would exceed the warming from combustion by a factor of 100,000 or more," Caldeira said.

For a power plant that is continuously burning, the warming caused by atmospheric carbon dioxide exceeded the heat released into the atmosphere by combustion in less than half a year--just three months for coal plants. With this kind of steady continuous combustion, it takes 95 days using coal, 124 days using oil, and 161 days using natural gas.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150602130636.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28Latest+Scienc e+News+--+ScienceDaily%29

[unleashbaynes]

I see wild chodebrah is still a dumb faggot.

[Wild Cobra]

Tillerson says fuck it all, and fuck all y'all, because BigOil will continue trashing the planet for $100Bs in profits, so all y'all resilient people find a way to save your asses and planet.

You Can Do It, BigOil WON'T help

ExxonMobil says mankind has 'enormous capacity to deal with adversity' caused by climate change (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/27/1388294/-ExxonMobil-says-mankind-has-enormous-capacity-to-deal-with-adversity-caused-by-climate-change)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/27/1388294/-ExxonMobil-says-mankind-has-enormous-capacity-to-deal-with-adversity-caused-by-climate-change?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29#

BigCarbon makes or blocks govt policy, not Human-Americans.



I though you said they were funding deniers...

[Wild Cobra]

Greenhouse gas-caused warming felt in just months

The heat generated by burning a fossil fuel is surpassed within a few months by the warming caused by the release of its carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, a new study says. The release of CO2 into the atmosphere contributes to the trapping of heat that would otherwise be emitted into outer space.

http://images.sciencedaily.com/2015/06/150602130636_1_540x360.jpg

This graph shows the ratio of warming from accumulated atmospheric carbon dioxide to warming from combustion for coal, oil, and gas plants over time

In a modeling study of coal, oil, and natural gas, Zhang and Caldeira compared the warming caused by combustion to the warming caused by the carbon dioxide released by a single instance of burning, such as one lump of coal, and by a power plant that is continuously burning fuel.

They found that the carbon dioxide-caused warming exceeds the amount of heat released by a lump of coal in just 34 days. The same phenomenon is observed in 45 days for an isolated incident of oil combustion, and in 59 days for a single instance of burning natural gas.

"Ultimately, the warming induced by carbon dioxide over the many thousands of years it remains in the atmosphere would exceed the warming from combustion by a factor of 100,000 or more," Caldeira said.

For a power plant that is continuously burning, the warming caused by atmospheric carbon dioxide exceeded the heat released into the atmosphere by combustion in less than half a year--just three months for coal plants. With this kind of steady continuous combustion, it takes 95 days using coal, 124 days using oil, and 161 days using natural gas.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150602130636.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28Latest+Scienc e+News+--+ScienceDaily%29



Yawn.

Cherry pick only one side, and discount the cooling cause by the same sources.

[boutons_deux]

:lol all y'all AGW deniers BIG PROOF that global PAUSED! poof!

Upon closer look, a global warming hiatus is ruled out, U.S. scientists say

resh look at the way sea temperatures are measured has led government scientists to make a surprising claim: The puzzling apparent hiatus in global surface warming never really happened.

In a study published Thursday in the prestigious journal Science, researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration wrote that Earth's global average surface temperature had climbed 0.2 of a degree Fahrenheit each decade since 1950, without interruption, due to the heat-trapping effects of greenhouse gases.

That conclusion seemingly negated an awkward piece of evidence in the debate over whether human activity is indeed warming the planet.
http://www.trbimg.com/img-5570e617/turbine/la-sci-g-global-warming1-web/750/750x422


Mainstream scientists have struggled to explain to the public how climate change can be getting worse if the warming of the planet's surface slowed at the turn of the century.

Their various theories have chalked it up to dust and ash blasted into the sky by volcanic eruptions, a rare period of calm in the solar cycle, and heat absorption by the Pacific Ocean and other waters.

Meanwhile, climate change skeptics have embraced the hiatus as evidence that climatologists have greatly miscalculated the warming effects of fossil-fuel emissions.

The new findings — which are based on measurements from thousands of land stations, ships and buoys at sea going back to 1880 — drew criticism from people on both sides of the rancorous debate over man-made climate change.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-no-global-warming-hiatus-noaa-20150603-story.html

[boutons_deux]

Australia Faces Stormy Future as Temperatures Soar

http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/CROP-Flashflood_Toowoomba_2.jpg

LONDON—New research into storm patterns warns that flash floods (http://www.eurekalert.org/emb_releases/2015-06/uons-ffr060315.php) are likely to sweep across the Australian landscape with increasing intensity, particularly in urban or residential areas.

Peak rainfall is predicted to soar with rising surface temperatures as the world’s largest island—and also its smallest continent—experiences ever greater extremes of heat.
Civil engineers from the Water Research Centre (http://www.wrc.unsw.edu.au/) at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) report in Nature Geoscience (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2456.html) that they looked at 40,000 storms across the whole of the continent over the last 30 years and identified a pattern that warmer temperatures are linked to disruptive rainfall events.

“Our results were consistent across all the climate zones in Australia, regardless of season or storm type, without exception,” says ProfessorAshish Sharma (https://www.engineering.unsw.edu.au/civil-engineering/staff/ashish-sharma), one of the study’s authors.

Unexpected finding

“This was an unexpected finding, and it supports our hypothesis that increasing temperatures are changing rainfall patterns. It means that most people in Australia can expect to see intensification in the magnitude of flash flooding in smaller catchments, particularly in urban or residential areas.”

The researchers worked from data from the 500 largest storms as measured by total rainfall at 79 locations. They looked not so much at the total volume of rainfall during a storm as at the pattern of intensity of rainfall at 12-minute intervals during each storm’s duration.

“It’s very likely these same trends will be observed around the world”


They projected their findings into a hotter world and calculated that a 5°C rise in temperatures could be accompanied by up to 20% more flood peaks in urban catchment areas. Some cities could experience much worse: for Perth, the rise is projected at 10%, for Sydney 12%, and for Darwin a whopping 45%.

Australia is a landscape of extremes of heat and drought and occasional devastating flood. It is also a land of paradox.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/australia_faces_stormy_future_as_temperatures_soar _20150614?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+Truthdig+Truthdig%253A+Dril ling+Beneath+the+Headlines

[boutons_deux]

Naomi Oreskes, a Lightning Rod in a Changing Climate


http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/06/16/science/16ORESKESCOVER/16ORESKESCOVER-articleLarge.jpg

Dr. Oreskes is fast becoming one of the biggest names in climate science — not as a climatologist, but as a defender who uses the tools of historical scholarship to counter what she sees as ideologically motivated attacks on the field.

Formally, she is a historian of science. Informally, this diminutive woman has become a boxer, throwing herself into a messy public arena that many career-minded climate scientists try to avoid.

She helps raise money to defend researchers targeted for criticism by climate change (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) denialists. She has become a heroine to activist college students, supporting their demand (http://gofossilfree.org/) that universities (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/01/science/syracuse-to-drop-fossil-fuel-stocks-from-endowment.html) and other institutions (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/us/heirs-to-an-oil-fortune-join-the-divestment-drive.html) divest from fossil fuels. Climatologists, though often reluctant themselves to get into fights, have showered her with praise for being willing to do it.

“Her courage and persistence in communicating climate science to the wider public have made her a living legend among her colleagues,” two climate researchers, Benjamin D. Santer and John Abraham, wrote in a prize-nomination letter in 2011.

Dr. Oreskes’s approach has been to dig deeply into the history of climate change denial, documenting its links to other episodes in which critics challenged a developing scientific consensus.

Her core discovery, made with a co-author, Erik M. Conway (http://www.erikmconway.com/), was twofold. They reported that dubious tactics had been used over decades to cast doubt on scientific findings relating to subjects like acid rain, the ozone shield, tobacco smoke and climate change. And most surprisingly, in each case, the tactics were employed by the same group of people.

The central players were serious scientists who had major career triumphs during the Cold War, but in subsequent years apparently came to equate environmentalism with socialism, and government regulation with tyranny.

In a 2010 book (http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/), Dr. Oreskes and Dr. Conway called these men “Merchants of Doubt,” and this spring the book became a documentary film (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/movies/review-merchants-of-doubt-separating-science-from-spin.html), by Robert Kenner. At the heart of both works is a description of methods that were honed by the tobacco industry in the 1960s and have since been employed to cast doubt on just about any science being cited to support new government regulations.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/science/naomi-oreskes-a-lightning-rod-in-a-changing-climate.html

[boutons_deux]

“If we don’t act now, we’re all going to pay”: 5 arguments for climate action that even conservatives can’t ignore

Name: Eli Lehrer

Why conservatives might listen: The former vice president of the climate denying Heartland Institute, Lehrer left to co-found the R Street Institute (http://www.rstreet.org/), and is currently its president.
Like Heartland, R Street espouses free markets and limited government; unlike Heartland, it does not oppose the sound science of climate change.

The Message: “…The insurance companies — the market players who are affected by climate change — all incorporate climate change, in one form or another, into the models they use and into the rates they charge. This is the free market’s validation that climate change is real and a problem.”



Name: Christine Todd Whitman

Why conservatives might listen: A Republican, she served as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under President George W. Bush.

The Message: “You can’t say that environmental regulation automatically causes the economy to stop. It doesn’t. It’s a wrong way to frame the issue, because they each need the other. You cannot have a thriving economy if people don’t have clean air to breathe or clean water to drink or good quality of life.”

Name: Bob Inglis

Why conservatives might listen: A former U.S. Representative for South Carolina, he remains a member of the Republican Party and advocates for free-market, conservative solutions to climate change.

The Message: “My fellow conservatives, we sort of break out in hives at the mention of the word ‘carbon’ and go into anaphylactic shock when we hear the word ‘tax.’ The idea is to put a tax so we charge to put emissions into the trash dump in the sky. You fix economics, and the environment will take care of itself. But if I’m ‘Inglis Industries’ and if you let me get away with dumping in the trash dump in the sky without accountability, I’ll do it all day long.”


Name: David Titley

Why conservatives might listen: He’s a retired rear admiral, meteorologist and Navy oceanographer, making him an expert on both climate science and national security issues.

The message: “[Climate change is] a change to the physical environment, or in Department of Defense speak I would call it the physical battle space. And we need to understand that, adapt to it, and to the degree we can, get ahead of it. Because literally the nation’s defense is at stake…It really is in our interest — it’s in everyone’s interests — to be ready.”

Name: Henry “Hank” Paulson

Why conservatives might listen: The former chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, he served as Treasury Secretary under George W. Bush.

The Message: “It’s a huge economic risk…it’s going to be much more expensive if we wait. As a matter of fact, I think the risk to our economy has the potential to add a lot more debt, slow economic growth, destroy jobs — if we don’t act now, we’re all going to pay.”

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/15/if_we_dont_act_now_were_all_going_to_pay_5_argumen ts_for_climate_action_that_even_conservatives_cant _ignore/

These people are insignificant, because they don't own Repug politicians the way BigCarbon does.

[boutons_deux]

New NASA data show how the world is running out of water

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/06/Aquifers600.jpg&w=1484

The world’s largest underground aquifers – a source of fresh water for hundreds of millions of people — are being depleted at alarming rates, according to new NASA satellite data (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015WR017349/abstract) that provides the most detailed picture yet of vital water reserves hidden under the Earth’s surface.

Twenty-one of the world’s 37 largest aquifers — in locations from India and China to the United States and France — have passed their sustainability tipping points, meaning more water was removed than replaced during the decade-long study period, researchers announced Tuesday. Thirteen aquifers declined at rates that put them into the most troubled category. The researchers said this indicated a long-term problem that’s likely to worsen as reliance on aquifers grows.

Scientists had long suspected that humans were taxing the world’s underground water supply, but the NASA data was the first detailed assessment to demonstrate that major aquifers were indeed struggling to keep pace with demands from agriculture, growing populations, and industries such as mining.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/16/new-nasa-studies-show-how-the-world-is-running-out-of-water/?ncid=newsltushpmg00000003

Easy to understand why the Repugs want NASA to quit spending time and research on earth and climate science.

[Wild Cobra]

Is NASA finally figuring this out?

Wow... They are behind the times!

[boutons_deux]

Bloomberg says FOR SURE, it's AGW from GHG

What's Really Warming The World?

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

[boutons_deux]

insurance companies know they' ll be paying $Bs in climate damage. Expect rates to go up.

Big Insurance Companies Are Warning The U.S. To Prepare For Climate Change


http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/AP217601193260-1024x681.jpg

A coalition of big insurance companies, consumer groups, and environmental advocates are urging the United States to overhaul its disaster policies in the face of increasingly extreme weather due to human-caused climate change.

According to a report (http://www.smartersafer.org/wp-content/uploads/Bracing-for-the-Storm.pdf) released Tuesday by the SmarterSafer coalition, the U.S. needs to increase how much it spends on pre-disaster mitigation efforts and infrastructure protection. That way, it asserts, the U.S. can stop wasting so much money on cleaning up after a disaster happens.

“Our current natural disaster policy framework focuses heavily on responding to disasters, rather than putting protective measures in place to reduce our vulnerability and limit a disaster’s impact,” the report reads. “This needlessly exposes Americans to greater risks to life and property and results in much higher costs to the federal government.”

The SmarterSafer coalition is made up of more than 30 different groups, including some of the biggest insurance companies in the world: Allianz, Liberty Mutual, SwissRe, and USAA, to name a few. Adequately dealing with the risks of climate change is inherently important to the insurance industry, as failure to prepare can lead to increased costs for insurance companies when storms wipe out basements and take out walls.

Making sure the government is prepared is important for private insurers too. Because if governments don’t fortify their infrastructure, the damage can fall onto the companies. A good example is Farmers Insurance Co., which sued local governments (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/19/3439048/insurance-climate-class-action-flood/) in the Chicago area last year for failing to prepare for climate change (the lawsuits have since been dropped (http://www.triplepundit.com/2014/06/farmers-insurance-drops-climate-change-lawsuits-chicago-area-cities/)). That lack of preparedness, the lawsuits said, caused sewers to burst into people’s homes and property values to decline — damage that Farmers had to pay for.
http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Didaster-Costs-300x170.jpg (http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Didaster-Costs.jpg)Disaster costs have been increasing as the economy has grown and infrastructure has become more expensive.




According to SmarterSafer’s report, states that are hit by disasters like extreme floods and fires rely too easily on monetary assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) after said disaster occurs. Under FEMA’s Stafford Act, states can easily apply for disaster assistance. When that assistance is granted, the federal government is accountable for at least 75 percent of the costs.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/04/21/3649244/insurance-climate-change-disaster-relief/


With Fix for Flood Insurance Program Deficit Delayed, Now What?


There’s no easy fix for the National Flood Insurance Program, now drowning in a $24 billion sea of red ink.
But experts and advocates say Congress does have some options that could make the troubled program financially stable, more affordable and more effective at motivating change in communities built too close to the water


Lawmakers this month tweaked the troubled program (http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2014/03/13/323273.htm) for the second time in two years (http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2014/01/17/317519.htm) after acknowledging that a previous overhaul in 2012 had socked too many policyholders with rate hikes they couldn’t afford. The legislation (http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2014/03/24/324217.htm), however, only put off the day of reckoning.
At least 1.1 million policyholders are still likely to see insurance premiums rise substantially in the next few years as the government whittles down rate subsidies for people in the riskiest flood zones. The Associated Press found hundreds of river towns, port cities and coastal communities where future rate hikes might make it tough for people to keep their homes and businesses.
Yet, if premiums stay as low as they are now, those same communities could cost taxpayers billions of dollars when they do eventually flood, thanks to decades of low premiums that have given homeowners few incentives to flood-proof their properties.
Congress acknowledged the problem, but offered no solutions, in the stopgap measure signed by the president Friday.

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2014/03/26/324439.htm

[boutons_deux]

Exxon Knew of Climate Change in 1981, Email Says — But It Funded Deniers for 27 More Years

ExxonMobil, the world’s biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change – seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm’s own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial.

The email from Exxon’s in-house climate expert provides evidence the company was aware of the connection between fossil fuels and climate change, and the potential for carbon-cutting regulations that could hurt its bottom line, over a generation ago – factoring that knowledge into its decision about an enormous gas field in south-east Asia. The field, off the coast of Indonesia, would have been the single largest source of global warming pollution at the time.

“Exxon first got interested in climate change in 1981 because it was seeking to develop the Natuna gas field off Indonesia,” Lenny Bernstein, a 30-year industry veteran and Exxon’s former in-house climate expert, wrote in the email. “This is an immense reserve of natural gas, but it is 70% CO2,” or carbon dioxide, the main driver of climate change.

In the email Bernstein, a chemical engineer and climate expert who spent 30 years at Exxon and Mobil and was a lead author on two of the United Nations’ blockbuster IPCC climate science reports, said climate change first emerged on the company’s radar in 1981, when the company was considering the development of south-east Asia’s biggest gas field, off Indonesia.That was seven years ahead of other oil companies and the public, according to Bernstein’s account.

Climate change (http://www.theguardian.com/science/scienceofclimatechange) was largely confined to the realm of science until 1988, when the climate scientist James Hansen told Congress that global warming was caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due to the burning of fossil fuels.

By that time, it was clear that developing the Natuna site would set off a huge amount of climate change pollution – effectively a “carbon bomb”, according to Bernstein.
“When I first learned about the project in 1989, the projections were that if Natuna were developed and its CO2 vented to the atmosphere, it would be the largest point source of CO2 in the world and account for about 1% of projected global CO2 emissions. I’m sure that it would still be the largest point source of CO2, but since CO2 emissions have grown faster than projected in 1989, it would probably account for a smaller fraction of global CO2 emissions,” Bernstein wrote.

The email was written in response to an inquiry on business ethics from the Institute for Applied and Professional Ethics at Ohio University.

“What it shows is that Exxon knew years earlier than James Hansen’s testimony to Congress that climate change was a reality; that it accepted the reality, instead of denying the reality as they have done publicly, and to such an extent that it took it into account in their decision making, in making their economic calculation,” the director of the institute, Alyssa Bernstein (no relation), told the Guardian.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/exxon-knew-climate-change-1981-email-says-it-funded-deniers-27-more-years

all y'all ignorant, rightwingnut AGW deniers have been lied to, DUPED by BigCarbon/VWRC conspiracy to keep BigCarbon profits rolling in to investors while putting the planet in high probability of disaster.

[boutons_deux]

There are 2,100 new coal plants being planned worldwide — enough to cook the planet
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/9/8922901/coal-renaissance-numbers

[boutons_deux]

New study finds heat is being stored beneath the ocean surface

Now a new analysis by three ocean scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory not only confirms that the extra heat has been going into the ocean, but it shows where. According to research by Veronica Nieves, Josh Willis, and Bill Patzert, the waters of the Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean warmed significantly from 2003 to 2012.

But the warming did not occur at the surface; it showed up below 10 meters (32 feet) in depth, and mostly between 100 to 300 meters (300 to 1,000 feet) below the sea surface. They published their results on July 9, 2015, in the journal Science.

"Overall, the ocean is still absorbing extra heat," said Willis, an oceanographer at JPL. "But the top couple of layers of the ocean exchange heat easily and can keep it away from the surface for ten years or so because of natural cycles. In the long run, the planet is still warming."

http://phys.org/news/2015-07-beneath-ocean-surface.html

[DarrinS]

There are 2,100 new coal plants being planned worldwide — enough to cook the planet
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/9/8922901/coal-renaissance-numbers





Enough to cook the planet. I really need to start reading vox.

[boutons_deux]

Enough to cook the planet. I really need to start reading vox.

the first time you start reading ANYTHING

[boutons_deux]

Oceans slowed global temperature rise, until nowOceans slowed global temperature rise, until now

Heat trapped below the surface will begin moving up kicking off a warming cycle

A new study of ocean temperature measurements shows that in recent years, extra heat from greenhouse gases has been trapped in the subsurface waters of the Pacific and Indian oceans, thus accounting for the slowdown in the global surface temperature increase observed during the past decade, researchers say.

A specific layer of the Indian and Pacific oceans between 300 and 1,000 feet below the surface has been accumulating more heat than previously recognized, according to climate researchers from UCLA and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. They also found the movement of warm water has affected surface temperatures. The results were published July 9 in the journal Science.

During the 20th century, as greenhouse gas concentrations increased and trapped more heat on Earth, global surface temperatures also increased. However, starting in the early 2000s though greenhouse gases continued to trap extra heat, the global average surface temperature stopped climbing for about a decade and even cooled a bit.
In the study, researchers analyzed direct ocean temperature measurements, including observations from a global network of about 3,500 ocean temperature probes known as the Argo array. These measurements show temperatures below the surface have been increasing.

The Pacific Ocean is the primary source of the subsurface warm water found in the study, though some of that water now has been pushed to the Indian Ocean. Since 2003, unusually strong trade winds and other climatic features have been piling up warm water in the upper 1,000 feet of the western Pacific, pinning it against Asia and Australia.
"The western Pacific got so warm that some of the warm water is leaking into the Indian Ocean through the Indonesian archipelago," said Veronica Nieves, lead author of the study and a UCLA researcher with the UCLA Joint Institute for Regional Earth System Science and Engineering, a scientific collaboration between UCLA and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

The movement of the warm Pacific water westward pulled heat away from the surface waters of the central and eastern Pacific, which resulted in unusually cool surface temperatures during the last decade. Because the air temperature over the ocean is closely related to the ocean temperature, this provides a plausible explanation for the global cooling trend in surface temperature, Nieves said.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150716160652.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28Latest+Scienc e+News+--+ScienceDaily%29

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

The best cherry picker in Spurstalk strikes again...

[TheSanityAnnex]

Oceans slowed global temperature rise, until nowOceans slowed global temperature rise, until now

Heat trapped below the surface will begin moving up kicking off a warming cycle

A new study of ocean temperature measurements shows that in recent years, extra heat from greenhouse gases has been trapped in the subsurface waters of the Pacific and Indian oceans, thus accounting for the slowdown in the global surface temperature increase observed during the past decade, researchers say.

A specific layer of the Indian and Pacific oceans between 300 and 1,000 feet below the surface has been accumulating more heat than previously recognized, according to climate researchers from UCLA and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. They also found the movement of warm water has affected surface temperatures. The results were published July 9 in the journal Science.

During the 20th century, as greenhouse gas concentrations increased and trapped more heat on Earth, global surface temperatures also increased. However, starting in the early 2000s though greenhouse gases continued to trap extra heat, the global average surface temperature stopped climbing for about a decade and even cooled a bit.
In the study, researchers analyzed direct ocean temperature measurements, including observations from a global network of about 3,500 ocean temperature probes known as the Argo array. These measurements show temperatures below the surface have been increasing.

The Pacific Ocean is the primary source of the subsurface warm water found in the study, though some of that water now has been pushed to the Indian Ocean. Since 2003, unusually strong trade winds and other climatic features have been piling up warm water in the upper 1,000 feet of the western Pacific, pinning it against Asia and Australia.
"The western Pacific got so warm that some of the warm water is leaking into the Indian Ocean through the Indonesian archipelago," said Veronica Nieves, lead author of the study and a UCLA researcher with the UCLA Joint Institute for Regional Earth System Science and Engineering, a scientific collaboration between UCLA and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

The movement of the warm Pacific water westward pulled heat away from the surface waters of the central and eastern Pacific, which resulted in unusually cool surface temperatures during the last decade. Because the air temperature over the ocean is closely related to the ocean temperature, this provides a plausible explanation for the global cooling trend in surface temperature, Nieves said.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150716160652.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28Latest+Scienc e+News+--+ScienceDaily%29



This is wonderful news as the fishing will be even better this year than last. And last year was epic. Love me some global warming.

[boutons_deux]

Some U.S. coastal cities at higher risk of flooding than thought

Occasional combinations of storm surge and heavy rainfall place some major U.S. coastal cities at a higher risk of flooding than previously thought, a new study suggests.

Scientists often estimate the risk of coastal flooding due to storm surge (waters blown on shore by strong winds) separately than that caused by heavy precipitation (runoff from nearby higher elevations that piles up in low areas before it can flow into the sea).

But high winds and heavy rain often happen together, say the authors of the first-of-its-kind study, which looked at long-term tidal and precipitation data for the 17 U.S. port cities that have populations exceeding 1 million and then removed the effects of rising sea level.

For New York City (which suffered the same flooding during Superstorm Sandy in late October 2012 as the coast in nearby New Jersey, shown), floods due to either a storm surge of 1.15 meters (enough to overtop Manhattan’s seawall) or a 1-day rainfall of 12 centimeters (4.7 inches) occurred, statistically, once every 245 years, the researchers found.

But when both high storm surges and heavy rainfall are considered together, floods occur on average once every 105 years (http://nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/nclimate2736), the researchers report online today in Nature Climate Change.

Similar trends were noted for several other locations the team studied. Not only that, the researchers say, in five of the 17 port cities the link between storm surge and heavy precipitation has grown stronger in recent decades.

It’s possible that climate change has strengthened the correlation between storm surge and heavy rainfall, but further analyses will be needed to make that case, the team notes.http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2015/07/some-u-s-coastal-cities-higher-risk-flooding-thought

BigCarbon's external costs are born by taxpayers.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Now that the financial lobby is seeing how it costs them there is pushback. It's become a losing GOP issue in FL and the Carolinas. The flooding in TX and OK hasn't helped the obfuscation campaign either. At this point it's a delaying action with them fighting all the fracking regulation as well.

[boutons_deux]

13 Giant Companies Just Made Big Climate Pledges


http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/12companies-1024x538.jpg

Thirteen giant companies joined the Obama administration’s Act on Climate initiative Monday, announcing at least $140 billion in new low-carbon investment and more than 1,600 megawatts (MW) of new renewable energy, the White House said (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/07/27/fact-sheet-white-house-launches-american-business-act-climate-pledge).

The pledge from Coca-Cola, Walmart, Apple, Google, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, and other big-name companies comes in advance of the United Nations climate talks in Paris at the end of the year, and is meant to demonstrate industry support for strong carbon reduction goals.

“We recognize that delaying action on climate change will be costly in economic and human terms, while accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy will produce multiple benefits with regard to sustainable economic growth, public health, resilience to natural disasters, and the health of the global environment,” states the pledge (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/07/27/fact-sheet-white-house-launches-american-business-act-climate-pledge), set to be announced at the White House with Secretary of State John Kerry.

Monday’s announcement is the first of two planned industry pledges, the White House said in a statement. A second round of companies is expected to make pledges in the fall.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/27/3684625/act-on-climate-pledges-announced/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Cli mate+Progress%29

[boutons_deux]

Left Unchecked, Climate Change in Texas Will Cost Businesses Billions

Without action to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the ravages of climate change could cost Texas tens of billions in the coming decades, according to a new report by the Risky Business Project (http://riskybusiness.org/), an initiative co-founded by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The report, released today, focuses on the economic risks of climate change for 11 southeastern states and Texas (http://riskybusiness.org/index.php?p=reports/southeast-report/executive-summary), estimating losses from climate-related extreme weather events, increases in heat-related deaths, rising energy costs and other troubling effects.

“Texas is particularly vulnerable to these impacts because it’s a state where the economy is based on a lot of physical infrastructure,” said Kate Gordon, the author of the report. “Texas has a lot of really valuable energy and manufacturing infrastructure — and that is the kind of infrastructure that is very, very vulnerable to climate change because it can flood, it’s more expensive to cool [during extreme heat],” and it’s expensive to replace if damaged or lost, she said.

http://www.texasobserver.org/climate-change-in-texas-will-cost-businesses-billions/

[Wild Cobra]

Oceans slowed global temperature rise, until nowOceans slowed global temperature rise, until now

Heat trapped below the surface will begin moving up kicking off a warming cycle

A new study of ocean temperature measurements shows that in recent years, extra heat from greenhouse gases has been trapped in the subsurface waters of the Pacific and Indian oceans, thus accounting for the slowdown in the global surface temperature increase observed during the past decade, researchers say.

A specific layer of the Indian and Pacific oceans between 300 and 1,000 feet below the surface has been accumulating more heat than previously recognized, according to climate researchers from UCLA and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. They also found the movement of warm water has affected surface temperatures. The results were published July 9 in the journal Science.

During the 20th century, as greenhouse gas concentrations increased and trapped more heat on Earth, global surface temperatures also increased. However, starting in the early 2000s though greenhouse gases continued to trap extra heat, the global average surface temperature stopped climbing for about a decade and even cooled a bit.
In the study, researchers analyzed direct ocean temperature measurements, including observations from a global network of about 3,500 ocean temperature probes known as the Argo array. These measurements show temperatures below the surface have been increasing.

The Pacific Ocean is the primary source of the subsurface warm water found in the study, though some of that water now has been pushed to the Indian Ocean. Since 2003, unusually strong trade winds and other climatic features have been piling up warm water in the upper 1,000 feet of the western Pacific, pinning it against Asia and Australia.
"The western Pacific got so warm that some of the warm water is leaking into the Indian Ocean through the Indonesian archipelago," said Veronica Nieves, lead author of the study and a UCLA researcher with the UCLA Joint Institute for Regional Earth System Science and Engineering, a scientific collaboration between UCLA and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

The movement of the warm Pacific water westward pulled heat away from the surface waters of the central and eastern Pacific, which resulted in unusually cool surface temperatures during the last decade. Because the air temperature over the ocean is closely related to the ocean temperature, this provides a plausible explanation for the global cooling trend in surface temperature, Nieves said.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150716160652.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28Latest+Scienc e+News+--+ScienceDaily%29




Yes..

They keep rationalizing excuses.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes..

They keep rationalizing excuses.

I remember when you tried to attribute the warming to the deep oceanc currents as opposed to CO2. My response was to point out how they already accounted for them. You have no credibility sophist.

[Wild Cobra]

I remember when you tried to attribute the warming to the deep oceanc currents as opposed to CO2. My response was to point out how they already accounted for them. You have no credibility sophist.

Liar.

Are you intentionally misinterpreting what I said, or do you really not understand the English language?

Tine and again, you misrepresent things that I say.

I showed how the ocean "could be" the reason we see solar delay, and never said it was.

My God, you are a worthless stupid idiot.

Funny ow, how you have alarmists turning to the oceans saying they are the reason for cooling the warming trend and causing the hiatus.

I will laugh in my old age at how stupid the progeny of warmers will see their forefathers.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Liar.

Are you intentionally misinterpreting what I said, or do you really not understand the English language?

Tine and again, you misrepresent things that I say.

I showed how the ocean "could be" the reason we see solar delay, and never said it was.

My God, you are a worthless stupid idiot.

Funny ow, how you have alarmists turning to the oceans saying they are the reason for cooling the warming trend and causing the hiatus.

I will laugh in my old age at how stupid the progeny of warmers will see their forefathers.

:lol I can only laugh when you think prefacing your harebrained ideas "if" or "could be" makes them any less harebrained or yours.

You thought it could be deep water currents when presented with evidence of warming. Now that scientists are saying they have empirical proof of the mechanism in the reverse you call foul? this shouldn't be hard but then again it always this way with you.

[boutons_deux]

Education increases belief in climate change — everywhere except in the U.S.

In China, people are more likely to understand the risks of climate change if they live in the city instead of the countryside. Almost everyone in Japan knows about climate change. In Egypt, Bangladesh, Nigeria and India, over 65 percent of people do. In Burundi, Benin, and Liberia, almost nobody has heard of it.

All of this is according to a study published this week in Nature: Climate Change. In the study, a group of researchers took a close look at data collected in 2007 and 2008 by the Gallup World Poll.
Research on public perceptions of climate change is a new field, and until this point has been dominated by studies in Australia, the United States and Europe (https://schoolofsustainability.asu.edu/docs/symposia/symp2014/Kruke-etal-2014.pdf). One standout finding is that, on this topic at least, there’s strong evidence to back American exceptionalism.

Specifically: In the U.S. — unlike everywhere else — being better educated doesn’t guarantee that you are more likely to believe that climate change is a real thing that is actually happening. Instead, education seems to polarize in the United States: More education is correlated with greater concern about climate change among liberals and Democrats, and less concern from conservatives and Republicans. It seems that being better educated just means you have more ammo for defending the belief that your existing partisan identification bequeaths to you.

So while in most of the world, education is the strongest predictor of a belief that climate change is real, in the U.S., it’s something called “civic engagement” — which Gallup defines as having donated money, volunteered time, or helped a stranger in the last week. People with high levels of civic engagement are almost always aware of climate change, while those with the lowest levels have no clue it’s even happening.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/education-increases-belief-in-climate-change-everywhere-except-in-the-u-s/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed

[DarrinS]

Specifically: In the U.S. — unlike everywhere else — being better educated doesn’t guarantee that you are more likely to believe that CATASTROPHIC climate change is a real thing that is actually happening.



fify

[boutons_deux]

fify

It will be catastrophically EXPENSIVE to save low-coastal cities, so rising sea levels from AGW will be CATASTROPHIC.

http://www.rtcc.org/2014/09/01/greenland-and-antarctic-melting-at-unprecedented-rate/

And you duped AGW BigCarbon shills will be proven stupid, ignorant.

[boutons_deux]

http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/

[boutons_deux]

Global glacier melt reaches record levels


LONDON—The world’s glaciers are melting fast—probably faster than at any time in recorded history, according to new research.

Measurements show several hundred glaciers are losing between half and one metre of thickness every year—at least twice the average loss for the 20th century—and remote monitoring shows this rate of melting is far more widespread.

The World Glacier Monitoring Service (http://wgms.ch/) (WGMS), based at the University of Zurich (http://www.mediadesk.uzh.ch/articles/2015/gletscher-verlieren-mehr-eis-als-je-zuvor_en.html), Switzerland, has compiled worldwide data on glacier changes for more than 120 years.


Long-term retreat

The study also shows that the long-term retreat of glacier tongues is a global phenomenon. Intermittent re-advance periods at regional and decadal scales are normally restricted to a smaller sample of glaciers and have not come close to achieving the Little Ice Age (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/sep/29/little-ice-age) maximum positions reached between the 16th and 19th centuries.

Glacier tongues in Norway, for example, have retreated by some kilometres from their maximum extents in the 19th century. The intermittent re-advances of the 1990s were restricted to glaciers in coastal areas, and to a few hundred metres.

The study shows that the intense ice loss of the last two decades has resulted in what it calls “a strong imbalance of glaciers in many regions of the world”. And Dr Zemp warns: “These glaciers will suffer further ice loss, even if climate remains stable.”

He told Climate News Network: “Due to the strong ice loss over the past few decades, many glaciers are too big under current climatic conditions. They simply have not had enough time to react to the climatic changes of the past.

“So they will have to retreat further until they are in balance with climatic conditions again. In the European Alps, many glaciers would lose about 50% of their present surface area without further climate change.”

http://www.climatenewsnetwork.net/global-glacier-melt-reaches-record-levels/

[Wild Cobra]

Global glacier melt reaches record levels


LONDON—The world’s glaciers are melting fast—probably faster than at any time in recorded history, according to new research.

Measurements show several hundred glaciers are losing between half and one metre of thickness every year—at least twice the average loss for the 20th century—and remote monitoring shows this rate of melting is far more widespread.

The World Glacier Monitoring Service (http://wgms.ch/) (WGMS), based at the University of Zurich (http://www.mediadesk.uzh.ch/articles/2015/gletscher-verlieren-mehr-eis-als-je-zuvor_en.html), Switzerland, has compiled worldwide data on glacier changes for more than 120 years.


Long-term retreat

The study also shows that the long-term retreat of glacier tongues is a global phenomenon. Intermittent re-advance periods at regional and decadal scales are normally restricted to a smaller sample of glaciers and have not come close to achieving the Little Ice Age (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/sep/29/little-ice-age) maximum positions reached between the 16th and 19th centuries.

Glacier tongues in Norway, for example, have retreated by some kilometres from their maximum extents in the 19th century. The intermittent re-advances of the 1990s were restricted to glaciers in coastal areas, and to a few hundred metres.

The study shows that the intense ice loss of the last two decades has resulted in what it calls “a strong imbalance of glaciers in many regions of the world”. And Dr Zemp warns: “These glaciers will suffer further ice loss, even if climate remains stable.”

He told Climate News Network: “Due to the strong ice loss over the past few decades, many glaciers are too big under current climatic conditions. They simply have not had enough time to react to the climatic changes of the past.

“So they will have to retreat further until they are in balance with climatic conditions again. In the European Alps, many glaciers would lose about 50% of their present surface area without further climate change.”

http://www.climatenewsnetwork.net/global-glacier-melt-reaches-record-levels/





Yawn...

[boutons_deux]

Shell leaving conservative ALEC over climate change views
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2015/08/07/shell-leaving-conservative-alec-over-climate-change-views/#34195101=0

[boutons_deux]

Corrected sunspot history suggests climate change not due to natural solar trends

The Maunder Minimum, between 1645 and 1715, when sunspots were scarce and the winters harsh, strongly suggests a link between solar activity and climate change. Until now there was a general consensus that solar activity has been trending upwards over the past 300 years (since the end of the Maunder Minimum), peaking in the late 20th century -- called the Modern Grand Maximum by some [1].

This trend has led some to conclude that the Sun has played a significant role in modern climate change. However, a discrepancy between two parallel series of sunspot number counts has been a contentious issue among scientists for some time.

The two methods of counting the sunspot number -- the Wolf Sunspot Number and the Group Sunspot Number [2] -- indicated significantly different levels of solar activity before about 1885 and also around 1945. With these discrepancies now eliminated, there is no longer any substantial difference between the two historical records.

The new correction of the sunspot number, called the Sunspot Number Version 2.0, led by Frédéric Clette (Director of the World Data Centre [WDC]-SILSO), Ed Cliver (National Solar Observatory) and Leif Svalgaard (Stanford University, California, USA), nullifies the claim that there has been a Modern Grand Maximum.

The results, presented at the IAU XXIX General Assembly (http://astronomy2015.org/) in Honolulu, Hawai`i, today, make it difficult to explain the observed changes in the climate that started in the 18th century and extended through the industrial revolution to the 20th century as being significantly influenced by natural solar trends.

The sunspot number is the only direct record of the evolution of the solar cycle over multiple centuries and is the longest scientific experiment still ongoing.

The apparent upward trend of solar activity between the 18th century and the late 20th century has now been identified as a major calibration error in the Group Sunspot Number. Now that this error has been corrected, solar activity appears to have remained relatively stable since the 1700s [3].

The newly corrected sunspot numbers now provide a homogenous record of solar activity dating back some 400 years.

Existing climate evolution models will need to be reevaluated given this entirely new picture of the long-term evolution of solar activity.

This work will stimulate new studies both in solar physics (solar cycle modelling and predictions) and climatology, and can be used to unlock tens of millennia of solar records encoded in cosmogenic nuclides found in ice cores and tree rings. This could reveal more clearly the role the Sun plays in climate change over much longer timescales.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-08/iau-csh080715.php

[Cry Havoc]

Yawn...

Don't let your ignorance get in the way of not listening to facts that you don't like to hear. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

Don't let your ignorance get in the way of not listening to facts that you don't like to hear. :lol

Nothing to do with ignorance. Just tired of Bouton's same shit different day horse pucky. This latest on solar is bogus too. Sunspots are affected my the sun's magnetic cycle, which also affects TSI. However, sunspots are not responsible for TSI. This news release does nothing to show TSI was stable for 300 years like it says "suggests." In fact, there is a disclaimer attached to the paper:



AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

[boutons_deux]

WC's blind ideology is the basis of his willful ignorance.

What's really warming the planet?

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

[Wild Cobra]

WC's blind ideology is the basis of his willful ignorance.

What's really warming the planet?


http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/You can go fuck yourself.

Of all the forums I participate on, you are probably the worse pundit of all. You blindly post shit after shit after shit.

How do you live with yourself so full of shit anyway?

You are the ignorant one. You understand so little of what you post. You read it in some blog or news posting, and say "Hey, I like that" and post the most libtarded shit I ever see. Just because of your blind, arrogant, ignorant, egotistic confirmation bias.

[Wild Cobra]

What's really warming the planet?


The sun!

It is the source of all heat on our planet except for radioactive and tidal forces.

Greenhouse gasses modulate the solar heat.

So does clouds, ice, soot, surface composition, etc. etc. etc....

[boutons_deux]

1,800 years of global ocean cooling halted by global warming

Prior to the advent of human-caused global warming in the 19th century, the surface layer of Earth's oceans had undergone 1,800 years of a steady cooling trend, according to a new study. During the latter half of this cooling period, the trend was most likely driven by large and frequent volcanic eruptions.

The study also indicates that the coolest temperatures occurred during the Little Ice Age—a period that spanned the 16th through 18th centuries and was known for cooler average temperatures over land.
The concurrence of cooling events on both land and sea suggests that a global cooling phenomenon was erased by subsequent human-caused global warming.

"Today, the Earth is warming about 20 times faster than it cooled during the past 1,800 years," said Michael Evans, second author of the study and an associate professor in the University of Maryland's Department of Geology and Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center (ESSIC). "This study truly highlights the profound effects we are having on our climate today."

Compared to the atmosphere, the oceans can absorb much more heat and trap it for longer periods of time. Thus the ocean can buffer short-term changes in global temperature. But when events such as volcanic eruptions (http://phys.org/tags/volcanic+eruptions/) cluster together in a relatively short period of time, the temperature changes can become prolonged.

"Volcanic eruptions have a short-term cooling effect on the atmosphere, but our results showed that when volcanic eruptions occurred more frequently, there was long-term ocean cooling," said lead author Helen McGregor, an Australian Research Council (ARC) Future Fellow at the University of Wollongong in Australia. "With this research, we now have new insight into the century-scale global sea-surface temperature variations that came before man-made greenhouse gas forcing."

The scientists are the first to combine 57 previously published marine surface temperature reconstructions that cover all of the world's oceans, from near-polar to tropical regions. The team compiled the data within 200-year brackets to observe long-term trends, and then compared the findings to land-based reconstructions, which revealed similar cooling trends.

"No matter how we divided the data set, the cooling trend stands out as a robust signal," McGregor said.

http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2015/frequentvolc.png

http://phys.org/news/2015-08-years-global-ocean-cooling-halted.html

[boutons_deux]

Climate Change Deniers Present Graphic Description Of What Earth Must Look Like For Them To Believe

WASHINGTON—Evoking cataclysmic scenes of extreme weather and widespread drought and famine, the nation’s climate change deniers held a press conference Wednesday to describe exactly what the Earth must look like before they will begin to believe in human-induced global warming.

The group of skeptics, who said that the consensus among 97 percent of the scientific community and the documented environmental transformations already underway are simply not proof enough, laid out the precise sequence and magnitude of horrific events—including natural disasters, proliferation of infectious diseases, and resource wars—they would have to witness firsthand before they are swayed.

“For us to accept that the average surface temperature of the Earth has risen to critical levels due to mankind’s production of greenhouse gases, we’ll need to see some actual, visible evidence, including a global death toll of no less than 500 million people within a single calendar year,” said spokesperson William Davis, 46, of Jackson, NJ, who added that at least 70 percent of all islands on the planet would also have to become submerged under rising seas before he and his cohort would reconsider their beliefs. “To start, we’re going to have to see supercell tornadoes of category F4 or higher ripping through Oklahoma at least three times a day, leveling entire communities and causing hundreds of fatalities—and just to be perfectly clear, we’re talking year-round, not just during the spring tornado season.”

“I don’t think it’s too much to ask to see a super hurricane destroying the Southeast U.S. and another one at the same time decimating the Pacific Northwest before I make up my mind about this.”


“The reality is that we’re still experiencing cold, snowy winters, and the entire global population is not currently embarking on cross-continental migrations in search of arable land,” Davis continued. “Until that changes, we cannot be expected to believe climate change is occurring.”

Davis went on to say that certain events, such as massive, uncontrollable wildfires across the U.S—not just restricted to the American West, but in areas including Florida and New England—would render climate change deniers open to reevaluating the decades’ worth of data that show the planet is warming at a catastrophic rate. Additionally, Davis said that for the community to begin believing a single word of any scientific journal article corroborating climate change, every one of Earth’s glaciers would have to retreat at a rate exceeding 20 miles per year, and each of the skeptics, individually, would have to go a decade without seeing naturally occurring ice anywhere.

Furthermore, climate change deniers maintained that if the total number of plant and animal species on the planet remained higher than 200 in aggregate, they would not be dissuaded from their belief that Earth is simply experiencing one of its natural warming cycles that would eventually resolve itself on its own.

“I don’t think it’s too much to ask to see a super hurricane destroying the Southeast U.S. and another one at the same time decimating the Pacific Northwest before I make up my mind about this,” said global warming skeptic Michelle Wilkinson of Medina, MN, adding that she would be willing to recognize the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change if repeated and unpredictable storm surge flooding rendered every major East Coast city, including Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C., wholly uninhabitable. “The fact of the matter is that if I walk outside at any time of day at any point in the year and it’s below 90 degrees, then there simply isn’t enough proof that we need to be cutting carbon emissions.”

After clarifying that the desertification of major population centers, and the global refugee crisis that would result, would be necessary but not sufficient evidence of climate change, the skeptics reportedly unveiled a vivid artist’s rendering of the vast expanse of parched, lifeless earth and dead trees that each of them must see through the windows of their homes before reversing their opposition to public schools teaching children about global warming.

“We keep hearing all this mumbo-jumbo about the sixth mass extinction we’re in the midst of,” said Mitch McConnell, a U.S. senator from Kentucky, at the conclusion of the press conference. “Well, if that’s the case, then tell me this: Why aren’t the streets littered with human bodies right now, with the ragged bands of the still-living siphoning the moisture from the corpses of the dead?”

“We’re not unreasonable; we just need the evidence to be convincing before we make a decision,” McConnell added.

http://www.theonion.com/article/climate-change-deniers-present-graphic-description-51129

[Wild Cobra]

Compared to the atmosphere, the oceans can absorb much more heat and trap it for longer periods of time. Thus the ocean can buffer short-term changes in global temperature.


Interesting article, and I have commented before on what happens when you mix proxy and direct reading.

Did you not comprehend?

I wonder just how good that XXX is. They didn't source the paper their info came from.

I like this graph:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/images/ngeo2510-f2.jpg

Paper:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2510.html

Lots of "fudge factor" available:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/images/ngeo2510-f3.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

This is good...



Here we demonstrate that speakers at the press conference for the publication of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (Working Group 1; ref. 1) attempted to make the documented level of certainty of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) more meaningful to the public. Speakers attempted to communicate this through reference to short-term temperature increases. However, when journalists enquired about the similarly short ‘pause’2 in global temperature increase, the speakers dismissed the relevance of such timescales, thus becoming incoherent as to ‘what counts’ as scientific evidence for AGW. We call this the ‘IPCC’s certainty trap’. This incoherence led to confusion within the press conference and subsequent condemnation in the media3. The speakers were well intentioned in their attempts to communicate the public implications of the report, but these attempts threatened to erode their scientific credibility. In this instance, the certainty trap was the result of the speakers’ failure to acknowledge the tensions between scientific and public meanings. Avoiding the certainty trap in the future will require a nuanced accommodation of uncertainties and a recognition that rightful demands for scientific credibility need to be balanced with public and political dialogue about the things we value and the actions we take to protect those things4, 5, 6.


That's just the abstract. I only skimmed the paper so far.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n8/full/nclimate2672.html

[boutons_deux]

AGW is a FACT, GFY

[Wild Cobra]

AGW is a FACT, GFY
No Shit Sherlock.

However, AGW isn't most of the warming. If it was, we wouldn't have a hiatus going on for 17 years now.

[boutons_deux]

BigCarbon pays politicians, scientists to LIE about, to DENY AGW, sucker, dupe you rightwingnuts into believing their LIES.

Giant Coal Company Bankruptcy Reveals Secret Ties to Climate Denial, GOP Dark Money Groups (https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/08/25/coal-giant-bankruptcy-reveals-secret-ties-republican-dark-money-groups/)

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/08/25/coal-giant-bankruptcy-reveals-secret-ties-republican-dark-money-groups/

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Nice to see WC is back to denial stupidity.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

boutox tries to spam it away.

[DarrinS]

Nice to see WC is back to denial stupidity.

What part is he denying?

[Wild Cobra]

Found an interesting paper with an interesting graph:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/Solar%20forcing%20from%20NatureGeoscience_zpsnrkxd vpf.png

paper:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n4/full/ngeo2094.html

Please notice in the graph how the temperature follows the solar activity rather well most the time, and the temperature swings three degrees. For some reason, it dropped around 1750, by around three degrees as well. What if this warming we see mow is just making up for some other cause that created an unusual cooling?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Found an interesting paper with an interesting graph:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/Solar%20forcing%20from%20NatureGeoscience_zpsnrkxd vpf.png

paper:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n4/full/ngeo2094.html

Please notice in the graph how the temperature follows the solar activity rather well most the time, and the temperature swings three degrees. For some reason, it dropped around 1750, by around three degrees as well. What if this warming we see mow is just making up for some other cause that created an unusual cooling?

Dumbfuck, the paper is about the north atlantic. You fumbling around with oversimplified energy budgets is always amusing though.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What part is he denying?

You mean like the part where he is trying to say that heat from 150 years ago is what is causing the increase also between parroting your 17 year hiatus. And again.


Previous analyses of global temperature trends during the first decade of the 21st century seemed to indicate that warming had stalled. This allowed critics of the idea of global warming to claim that concern about climate change was misplaced. Karl et al. now show that temperatures did not plateau as thought and that the supposed warming “hiatus” is just an artifact of earlier analyses. Warming has continued at a pace similar to that of the last half of the 20th century, and the slowdown was just an illusion.


Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here, we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than those reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.

https://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469.abstract

That was published in Science after being held for a long time for peer review. Your oilco overlords have very active watchdog groups on the process.

Welcome to now though.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/431px_width/public/no-slow-down-in-global-warming-web.jpg?itok=rz89Q49L

[boutons_deux]

'Contrarian' climate studies are the product of identifiable errors (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/31/1416945/-Open-thread-for-night-owls-Contrarian-climate-studies-are-the-product-of-identifiable-errors)

A group of researchers set themselves to the task of determining why, although nearly all scientific studies confirm that climate change is indeed happening and that human activity is the prime driver of that change, there continue to be studies purporting to demonstrate the opposite (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/08/26/3695477/climate-scientists-cant-recreate-bad-science/).


Published last week in the journal Theoretical and Applied Climatology (http://www.springer.com/earth+sciences+and+geography/atmospheric+sciences/journal/704), the study examined 38 recent examples of contrarian climate research — published research that takes a position on anthropogenic climate change but doesn’t attribute it to human activity — and tried to replicate the results of those studies.

The studies weren’t selected randomly — according to lead author Rasmus Benestad, the studies selected were highly visible contrarian studies that had all arrived at a different conclusion than consensus climate studies.

Unfortunately, the reviewers found the contrarian results weren't the result of more accurate science or new considerations that more mainstream researchers hadn't thought to consider, but were the result of easily identifiable errors:


The most common mistake shared by the contrarian studies was cherry picking, in which studies ignored data or contextual information that did not support the study’s ultimate conclusions.

In a piece for the Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/25/heres-what-happens-when-you-try-to-replicate-climate-contrarian-papers), study co-author Dana Nuccitelli cited one particular contrarian study that supported the idea that moon and solar cycles affect the Earth’s climate.

When the group tried to replicate that study’s findings for the paper, they found that the study’s model only worked for the particular 4,000-year cycle that the study looked at.“However, for the 6,000 years’ worth of earlier data they threw out, their model couldn’t reproduce the temperature changes,” Nuccitelli wrote.

“The authors argued that their model could be used to forecast future climate changes, but there’s no reason to trust a model forecast if it can’t accurately reproduce the past.”


Rather than ill intent, the reviewers suggest that the errors may be the result of more innocent factors.


Many authors of the contrarian studies were relatively new to climate science, and therefore may have been unaware of important context or data.

Many of the papers were also published in journals with audiences that don’t necessarily seek out climate science, and therefore peer review might have been lacking.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/31/1416945/-Open-thread-for-night-owls-Contrarian-climate-studies-are-the-product-of-identifiable-errors?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29#

[Wild Cobra]

'Contrarian' climate studies are the product of identifiable errors (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/31/1416945/-Open-thread-for-night-owls-Contrarian-climate-studies-are-the-product-of-identifiable-errors)

A group of researchers set themselves to the task of determining why, although nearly all scientific studies confirm that climate change is indeed happening and that human activity is the prime driver of that change, there continue to be studies purporting to demonstrate the opposite (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/08/26/3695477/climate-scientists-cant-recreate-bad-science/).


Published last week in the journal Theoretical and Applied Climatology (http://www.springer.com/earth+sciences+and+geography/atmospheric+sciences/journal/704), the study examined 38 recent examples of contrarian climate research — published research that takes a position on anthropogenic climate change but doesn’t attribute it to human activity — and tried to replicate the results of those studies.

The studies weren’t selected randomly — according to lead author Rasmus Benestad, the studies selected were highly visible contrarian studies that had all arrived at a different conclusion than consensus climate studies.

Unfortunately, the reviewers found the contrarian results weren't the result of more accurate science or new considerations that more mainstream researchers hadn't thought to consider, but were the result of easily identifiable errors:


The most common mistake shared by the contrarian studies was cherry picking, in which studies ignored data or contextual information that did not support the study’s ultimate conclusions.

In a piece for the Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/25/heres-what-happens-when-you-try-to-replicate-climate-contrarian-papers), study co-author Dana Nuccitelli cited one particular contrarian study that supported the idea that moon and solar cycles affect the Earth’s climate.

When the group tried to replicate that study’s findings for the paper, they found that the study’s model only worked for the particular 4,000-year cycle that the study looked at.“However, for the 6,000 years’ worth of earlier data they threw out, their model couldn’t reproduce the temperature changes,” Nuccitelli wrote.

“The authors argued that their model could be used to forecast future climate changes, but there’s no reason to trust a model forecast if it can’t accurately reproduce the past.”


Rather than ill intent, the reviewers suggest that the errors may be the result of more innocent factors.


Many authors of the contrarian studies were relatively new to climate science, and therefore may have been unaware of important context or data.

Many of the papers were also published in journals with audiences that don’t necessarily seek out climate science, and therefore peer review might have been lacking.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/31/1416945/-Open-thread-for-night-owls-Contrarian-climate-studies-are-the-product-of-identifiable-errors?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29#



When an article like this you post reference Climate Progress, The guardian, and itself, without linking the paper...

B-Shit...

You sure believe the charlatans, don't you!

Anyway, I found the paper:

http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00704-015-1597-5.pdf

Funny how they really don't show evidence. It appears they base their paper on the others failing to agree, and that's all.

[Winehole23]

The globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for August 2015 was the warmest August on record, 1.58°F (0.88°C) warmer than the 20th century average, and surpassing the previous record set in 2014 by 0.16°F (0.09°C). August 2015 tied with January 2007 as the third warmest monthly highest departure from average for any month since record keeping began in 1880. The combined global average land and ocean surface temperature for January–August was also record warm.http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201508

[Winehole23]

http://img.huffingtonpost.com//asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/55fb219d1c000024000826ab.png NOAA

[boutons_deux]

Exxon knew about climate change decades ago, spent $30M to discredit it

The results of an eight-month investigation by InsideClimate News, published Wednesday, show that Exxon scientist warned company executives decades ago (http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming) about human-caused global warming.

But despite its own 40-year-old research that showed that burning fossil fuels released carbon dioxide that was warming the planet to harmful levels, Exxon – the United States' largest oil company – has spent $30 million to discredit climate science (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding) to protect its carbon-based business.

In 1977, senior Exxon scientist James F. Black told company executives, "In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," according to InsideClimate.

"Present thinking," Dr. Black then estimated in 1978, "holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical."

Despite the warnings, the oil giant, which brought in $127 billion in gross profit (http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/xom/financials?query=income-statement) in 2014, cut back its carbon dioxide research in the late 1980s when – like today – a glut of oil depressed its price, hurting the company's business. In the ensuing decades, Exxon instead focused on casting doubt on global warming warnings and lobbying against international action to control greenhouse gas emissions.

It spent $1 million on climate denial (http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/exxon-lying-climate-change-much-longer-thought/) groups in 2014 alone, reports environmental advocacy group Greenpeace.

A few decades ago, things were different. Exxon was at the forefront of climate research. The company’s research and engineering division comprised a team of accomplished scientists and mathematicians who worked with university scientists and the US Department of Energy to develop sophisticated climate models. They spent three years and at least $1 million measuring the levels of CO2 in the air and ocean aboard the company’s Esso
Atlantic tanker (http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming), the InsideClimate report explains.

Exxon scientists published their research in peer-reviewed science journals.

By 1982, company scientists reported to management that despite the need for more research, controlling global warming “would require major reductions in fossil fuel combustion.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2015/0917/Exxon-knew-about-climate-change-decades-ago-spent-30M-to-discredit-it

You rightwingnut AGW-deniers have been lied to, DUPED, you ignorant fucks, by BigOil's multi-decade propaganda campaign to maintain BigOil's profits.

[boutons_deux]

10 Largest Companies ‘Obstructing’ Climate Policy


http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/worstcorps.jpg

http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/17/obstruct-climate-policy/

[boutons_deux]

Melting Antarctica Could Drown Coasts Much Sooner Than You Thought


Seas could rise (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-will-global-warming-raise-sea-levels/) as fast as three centimeters a year if fossil fuel consumption continues at its present rate. Such increases would amount to ten times the current rise of roughly three millimeters annually. But Antarctica's vast ice sheets may substantially melt and accelerate the rise of seawaters should the burning of fossil fuel continue unabated (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/limits-on-greenhouse-gas-emissions/), according to new computer simulations of climate change’s future impact.

Scientists had previously thought that East Antarctica's massive ice sheets were relatively safe, requiring thousands of years to pass before warming global temperatures (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/12-graphics-that-contain-everything-you-need-to-know-about-climate-change/) would begin to melt them. But the new simulations, published in (http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/8/e1500589)Science Advances (http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/8/e1500589) on September 11, suggest Antarctica's ice is much more vulnerable—and thus sea level rise could be a lot worse (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sea-caves-reveal-rapid-rise-in-ancient-ocean-levels/).

"Humanity can indeed melt all of Antarctica's ice, if we were to burn all of the fossil fuels," says Ricarda Winkelmann, a physicist by training who now works on computer models at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (https://www.pik-potsdam.de/).

"What we do today by emitting greenhouse gases within just a few decades triggers changes that will be felt by many, many generations to come."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/antarctic-melt-figure.jpg

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/melting-antarctica-could-drown-coasts-much-sooner-than-you-thought/?WT.mc_id=SA_BS_20150918

[boutons_deux]

The Point of No Return: Climate Change Nightmares Are Already Here

http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/2015/article/the-point-of-no-return-climate-change-nightmares-are-already-here-20150805/204619/medium_rect/1438288428/720x405-R1241_NAT_NoReturn_Q.jpg

Historians may look to 2015 as the year when shit really started hitting the fan. Some snapshots: In just the past few months, record-setting heat waves in Pakistan and India each killed more than 1,000 people. In Washington state's Olympic National Park, the rainforest caught fire for the first time in living memory. London reached 98 degrees Fahrenheit during the hottest July day ever recorded in the U.K.; The Guardian briefly had to pause its live blog of the heat wave because its computer servers overheated. In California, suffering from its worst drought in a millennium, a 50-acre brush fire swelled seventyfold in a matter of hours, jumping across the I-15 freeway during rush-hour traffic. Then, a few days later, the region was pounded by intense, virtually unheard-of summer rains. Puerto Rico is under its strictest water rationing in history as a monster El Niño forms in the tropical Pacific Ocean, shifting weather patterns worldwide.

On July 20th, James Hansen, the former NASA climatologist who brought climate change to the public's attention in the summer of 1988, issued a bombshell (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/20/sea_level_study_james_hansen_issues_dire_climate_w arning.html): He and a team of climate scientists had identified a newly important feedback mechanism off the coast of Antarctica that suggests mean sea levels could rise 10 times faster than previously predicted: 10 feet by 2065. The authors included this chilling warning:

If emissions aren't cut, "We conclude that multi-meter sea-level rise would become practically unavoidable.

Social disruption and economic consequences of such large sea-level rise could be devastating. It is not difficult to imagine that conflicts arising from forced migrations and economic collapse might make the planet ungovernable, threatening the fabric of civilization."


Eric Rignot, a climate scientist at NASA and the University of California-Irvine and a co-author on Hansen's study, said their new research doesn't necessarily change the worst-case scenario on sea-level rise, it just makes it much more pressing to think about and discuss, especially among world leaders. In particular, says Rignot, the new research shows a two-degree Celsius rise in global temperature — the previously agreed upon "safe" level of climate change — "would be a catastrophe for sea-level rise."

Hansen's new study also shows how complicated and unpredictable climate change can be. Even as global ocean temperatures rise to their highest levels in recorded history, some parts of the ocean, near where ice is melting exceptionally fast, are actually cooling, slowing ocean circulation currents and sending weather patterns into a frenzy.

Sure enough, a persistently cold patch of ocean is starting to show up just south of Greenland, exactly where previous experimental predictions of a sudden surge of freshwater from melting ice expected it to be. Michael Mann, another prominent climate scientist, recently said of the unexpectedly sudden Atlantic slowdown (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/03/23/greenland_icemelt_study_suggests_the_day_after_tom orrow_has_some_basis_in.html),

"This is yet another example of where observations suggest that climate model predictions may be too conservative when it comes to the pace at which certain aspects of climate change are proceeding."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-point-of-no-return-climate-change-nightmares-are-already-here-20150805

[boutons_deux]

Get used to it. You're going to see a lot more of this headline in your lifetime: Hottest year ever (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/17/1422280/-Get-used-to-it-You-re-going-to-see-a-lot-more-of-this-headline-in-your-lifetime-Hottest-year-ever)




http://images.dailykos.com/images/164991/large/NOAA9-15YTD-1024x639_(1).jpg?1442518563

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/17/1422280/-Get-used-to-it-You-re-going-to-see-a-lot-more-of-this-headline-in-your-lifetime-Hottest-year-ever?detail=email

[boutons_deux]

Many Conservative Republicans Believe Climate Change Is a Real Threat

A majority of Republicans — including 54 percent of self-described conservative Republicans — believe the world’s climate is changing and that mankind plays some role in the change,

the new survey found that 73 percent of all voters and 56 percent of Republicans do believe the climate is changing.

Fewer than a third of Republicans think the climate is changing because of purely natural cycles, and only 9 percent think the climate is not changing at all, the survey found. It also found that 72 percent of Republicans support accelerating the development of renewable energy sources.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/us/politics/survey-of-republican-voters-shows-a-majority-believe-in-climate-change.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

Amazing, some Repugs actually believe something that is scientifically proven.

[Wild Cobra]

Many Conservative Republicans Believe Climate Change Is a Real Threat

A majority of Republicans — including 54 percent of self-described conservative Republicans — believe the world’s climate is changing and that mankind plays some role in the change,

the new survey found that 73 percent of all voters and 56 percent of Republicans do believe the climate is changing.

Fewer than a third of Republicans think the climate is changing because of purely natural cycles, and only 9 percent think the climate is not changing at all, the survey found. It also found that 72 percent of Republicans support accelerating the development of renewable energy sources.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/us/politics/survey-of-republican-voters-shows-a-majority-believe-in-climate-change.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

Amazing, some Repugs actually believe something that is scientifically proven.



Nothing new.

[boutons_deux]

Whores for BigCarbon news

Wash. Post Details Anti-Environment Agenda Of Oil-Funded National Black Chamber Of Commerce


The Washington Post is helping pull back the curtain on the National Black Chamber of Commerce's (NBCC) oil industry-funded campaign against environmental safeguards.

In a September 28 article (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/in-smog-battle-industry-gets-help-from-unlikely-source-black-business-group/2015/09/28/8c1c7e34-63c8-11e5-9757-e49273f05f65_story.html), The Post explained that the NBCC is engaged in a "subtle effort ... to reduce support for [environmental] regulations among blacks, Latinos and even the elderly -- groups not usually regarded as natural allies for corporations fighting air-pollution laws." The Post noted that the NBCC has been heavily funded (http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/07/31/media-disclosure-guide-here-are-the-industry-fu/204708#nbcc) by Exxon Mobil, and that the list of sponsors (http://fcir.org/2015/08/13/national-black-chamber-of-commerce-solar-energy-critic-rakes-in-cash-from-polluters/) for NBCC's 2015 national conference "included a number of major fossil-fuel interests, including Koch Industries, owned by oil magnates and conservative activists Charles and David Koch," adding: "Such donations make up as much as 80 percent of the group's revenue in some years, tax records show, and the NBCC has channeled its money into causes that favor fossil-fuel interests."

While the Post article focused on NBCC's work to undermine Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plan to reduce harmful ozone pollution, the NBCC has also produced a discredited study (http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/06/26/national-black-chamber-of-commerce-joins-oil-in/204153) about the EPA's climate change plan, which establishes the first-ever federal limits on carbon pollution from power plants. NBCC President Harry Alford has used the NBCC study to attack the EPA climate plan in congressional testimony (http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/4204e97b-87b8-4629-ab45-ac55d475fd36/spw-062315.pdf)and a series of deceptive op-eds (http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/06/26/national-black-chamber-of-commerce-joins-oil-in/204153).

From The Washington Post:

Since early summer, Alford has delivered the same pitch in multiple cities, blasting a plan to impose limits on ozone, a pollutant that contributes to urban smog and aggravates breathing disorders, particularly among the elderly and very young.

Alford's message -- that the proposed regulations would hurt the economy and stifle job growth -- is nearly identical to the one being broadcast widely by the rules' opponents from business and industry. The National Association of Manufacturers has poured millions of dollars into a television ad campaign criticizing the proposal, which the Environmental Protection Agency is expected to adopt in final form Wednesday.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/09/29/wash-post-details-anti-environment-agenda-of-oi/205845

[boutons_deux]

summary: BigCarbon is Too Big To Divest From

Top Banker: Climate Change Threatens Global Financial Crash

LONDON—A warning that climate change might make the world’s stock markets and banks unstable and lead to a financial crash has come from Mark Carney, chairman of the G20 countries’ Financial Stability Board (http://www.financialstabilityboard.org/).

Carney, who is also Governor of the Bank of England (http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/speeches/2015/844.aspx), particularly warns about the effects on the market if panic selling occurs and there is a plunge in value of shares in fossil fuel companies and industries that produce a lot of carbon dioxide.

These companies, some of the world’s largest, control one-third of stock market assets. If investors realise these stocks are overvalued and try to sell them all at once, it will cause chaos, Carney said.

The stark warning is a “remarkable intervention” from one of the world’s most conservative and influential bankers, who says he will be advising the world’s richest nations at the G20 summit in November to put policies in place to prevent climate change causing future severe turmoil in the markets.

Unpaid loans

He warned that banks might become unstable because the billions of dollars in loans they have made to fossil fuel companies might not be repaid.

Carney suggests that there will be a switch of investments from carbon-intensive industries to renewables. He says investments in fossil fuel companies might be seen as overvalued because, to avoid dangerous climate change, between one-fifth and one-third of all fossil fuels will need to be left in the ground.

Carney’s warning is in stark contrast to the policies of George Osborne, the UK’s chancellor of the exchequer, who appointed him to his role as Bank of England governor in 2012.

Osborne has this year been demolishing the UK’s on-shore wind and solar subsidy programme, while providing tax breaks to North Sea oil companies (http://uk.businessinsider.com/budget-2015-north-sea-oil-tax-breaks-2015-3) to find more reserves and giving the go-ahead for fracking gas over large areas of England.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/top_banker_climate_change_threatens_global_financi al_crash_20151002?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+Truthdig+Truthdig%253A+Dril ling+Beneath+the+Headlines

USA, Australia, UK: conservatives fucking up renewable energy while subsidizing BigCarbon.

[boutons_deux]

BigOil, and their whore scientists and politicians, have been lying to you ignorant, stupid, DUPED rightwingnuts FOR DECADES

What Exxon knew about the Earth's melting Arctic

Back in 1990, as the debate over climate change was heating up, a dissident shareholder petitioned the board of Exxon, one of the world’s largest oil companies, imploring it to develop a plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from its production plants and facilities.

The board’s response: Exxon had studied the science of global warming and concluded it was too murky to warrant action. The company’s “examination of the issue supports the conclusions that the facts today and the projection of future effects are very unclear.”

Yet in the far northern regions of Canada’s Arctic frontier, researchers and engineers at Exxon and Imperial Oil were quietly incorporating climate change projections into the company’s planning and closely studying how to adapt the company’s Arctic operations to a warming planet.

Ken Croasdale, senior ice researcher for Exxon’s Canadian subsidiary, was leading a Calgary-based team of researchers and engineers that was trying to determine how global warming could affect Exxon’s Arctic operations and its bottom line.

Certainly any major development with a life span of say 30-40 years will need to assess the impacts of potential global warming,” Croasdale told an engineering conference in 1991. “This is particularly true of Arctic and offshore projects in Canada, where warming will clearly affect sea ice, icebergs, permafrost and sea levels.”

Between 1986 and 1992, Croasdale’s team looked at both the positive and negative effects that a warming Arctic would have on oil operations, reporting its findings to Exxon headquarters in Houston and New Jersey.

The good news for Exxon, he told an audience of academics and government researchers in 1992, was that “potential global warming can only help lower exploration and development costs” in the Beaufort Sea.

But, he added, it also posed hazards, including higher sea levels and bigger waves, which could damage the company’s existing and future coastal and offshore infrastructure, including drilling platforms, artificial islands, processing plants and pump stations. And a thawing earth could be troublesome for those facilities as well as pipelines.

As Croasdale’s team was closely studying the impact of climate change on the company’s operations, Exxon and its worldwide affiliates were crafting a public policy position that sought to downplay the certainty of global warming.

The gulf between Exxon’s internal and external approach to climate change from the 1980s through the early 2000s was evident in a review of hundreds of internal documents, decades of peer-reviewed published material and dozens of interviews conducted by Columbia University’s Energy & Environmental Reporting Project and the Los Angeles Times.

Documents were obtained from the Imperial Oil collection at Calgary’s Glenbow Museum and the ExxonMobil Historical Collection at the University of Texas at Austin’s Briscoe Center for American History.
...


Today, as Exxon’s scientists predicted 25 years ago, Canada’s Northwest Territories has experienced some of the most dramatic effects of global warming. While the rest of the planet has seen an average increase of roughly 1.5 degrees in the last 100 years, the northern reaches of the province have warmed by 5.4 degrees and temperatures in central regions have increased by 3.6 degrees.

Since 2012, Exxon Mobil and Imperial have held the rights to more than 1 million acres in the Beaufort Sea, for which they bid $1.7 billion in a joint venture with BP. Although the companies have not begun drilling, they requested a lease extension until 2028 from the Canadian government a few months ago. Exxon Mobil declined to comment on its plans there.

Croasdale, who still consults for Exxon, said the company could be “taking a gamble” the ice will break up soon, finally bringing about the day he predicted so long ago — when the costs would become low enough to make Arctic exploration economical.



http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/

[boutons_deux]

Two degree Celsius warming locks in sea level rise for thousands of years

A jump in global average temperatures of 1.5°C to 2°C will see the collapse of Antarctic ice shelves and lead to hundreds and even thousands of years of sea level rise

Using state-of-the-art computer modelling, Dr Golledge and his colleagues including researchers from UNSW simulated the ice-sheet's response to a warming climate under a range of greenhouse gas emission scenarios. They found in all but one scenario (that of significantly reduced emissions beyond 2020) large parts of the Antarctic ice-sheet were lost, resulting in a substantial rise in global sea-level.

"The long reaction time of the Antarctic ice-sheet -- which can take thousands of years to fully manifest its response to changes in environmental conditions -- coupled with the fact that CO₂ lingers in the atmosphere for a very long time means that the warming we generate now will affect the ice sheet in ways that will be incredibly hard to undo," Dr Golledge said.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151018213808.htm

[Wild Cobra]

Two degree Celsius warming locks in sea level rise for thousands of years

A jump in global average temperatures of 1.5°C to 2°C will see the collapse of Antarctic ice shelves and lead to hundreds and even thousands of years of sea level rise

Using state-of-the-art computer modelling, Dr Golledge and his colleagues including researchers from UNSW simulated the ice-sheet's response to a warming climate under a range of greenhouse gas emission scenarios. They found in all but one scenario (that of significantly reduced emissions beyond 2020) large parts of the Antarctic ice-sheet were lost, resulting in a substantial rise in global sea-level.

"The long reaction time of the Antarctic ice-sheet -- which can take thousands of years to fully manifest its response to changes in environmental conditions -- coupled with the fact that CO₂ lingers in the atmosphere for a very long time means that the warming we generate now will affect the ice sheet in ways that will be incredibly hard to undo," Dr Golledge said.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151018213808.htm



LOL...

Pundits spinning away.

I would ask you to read the letter in nature, but it's paywalled. I don't think this graphic is:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7573/images/nature15706-f1.jpg

Go here please:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/environment-and-climate-issues/236936-antarctic-ice-shelf-collapse-and-unstoppable-sea-level-rise-very-likely-without-tou-post1065149880.html#post1065149880

I don't feel like repeating what I wrote in a different forum.

[boutons_deux]

Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Hit High, Likely to Become 'Permanent Reality' (http://gizmodo.com/greenhouse-gas-concentrations-hit-high-likely-to-becom-1741402863)

A new bulletin from the World Meteorological Organization reports that the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have reached another new record high in 2014 that could become a ‘permanent reality.’

The bulletin (http://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/ghg-bulletin_11_en.pdf) explains that the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 has reached 397.7 parts per million (ppm) in 2014—close to the (largely symbolic) 400ppm milestone that climate scientists often talk about. In the Northern hemisphere, levels rose above the 400ppm level during Spring 2014.

http://gizmodo.com/greenhouse-gas-concentrations-hit-high-likely-to-becom-1741402863

BigCarbon, VRWC will fuck us all to hell, to maintain their profits.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, the greenhouse gas concentration will likely settle to between 500 to 600 ppm. We will enjoy bountiful crops because plants consume CO2, and the more their is, the faster they can grow.

[boutons_deux]

Yes, the greenhouse gas concentration will likely settle to between 500 to 600 ppm. We will enjoy bountiful crops because plants consume CO2, and the more their is, the faster they can grow.

Droughts, and excessive ground water pumping, caused by global warming will reduce crops, no matter how much CO2 the crops would like to suck up.

As Rick Blaine said to Ilsa Lund: "We'll always have CO2" and "Here's lookin' at you, slapped bitch"

but we won't always have enough water.

[Wild Cobra]

Droughts, and excessive ground water pumping, caused by global warming will reduce crops, no matter how much CO2 the crops would like to suck up.

As Rick Blaine said to Ilsa Lund: "We'll always have CO2" and "Here's lookin' at you, slapped bitch"

but we won't always have enough water.
Droughts are cyclical, and not caused by CO2, but rather land use changes, affecting the transpiration of water from the ground into the atmosphere.

Haven't you learned anything other than what the preachers of climatology tell you?

L. Ron Hubbard would be proud!

[boutons_deux]

House Anti-Science Committee Attempts to Suppress Climate Change Studies

The House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology wants to know what government scientists say about climate change. Not what they say in public, of course - you don't need a subpoena to read the many reports (https://www.climate.gov/) the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has published on the pressing problem of global warming.

No, the congressional body tasked with overseeing the nation's scientists thinks that climate change is some kind of elaborate prank NOAA is playing on the nation, and that surely their internal e-mails look something like this:

From: Candace Climate, PhD

To: Gary Greenhouse, MSc

Re: Moo Ha Ha


I can't believe those fools bought your methane report! I mean, cow farts changing the weather? That Al Gore will believe anything! ROTFL, man. ROTFL.

To uncover this tomfoolery, the committee has subpoenaed NOAA (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/10/23/congressional-skeptic-on-global-warming-demands-records-from-u-s-climate-scientists/?postshare=1741445691560607), asking for all e-mails and other records from US scientists involved in a recent study (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469.abstract) showing that the so-called "pause" in global warming is a myth.

The episode is obviously an embarrassment to Congress, and many journalists have pointed out as much.

Phil Plait of Slate calls it a "fishing expedition (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/10/26/global_warming_lamar_smith_wants_to_tie_noaa_in_kn ots.html)" by politicians who don't understand "even the most basic ideas about global warming."

Over at Vox, David Roberts calls the investigation "an effort to suppress inconvenient scientific results (http://www.vox.com/2015/10/26/9616370/science-committee-worse-benghazi-committee) and score partisan political points."

This is all true, but it's worth stepping back a bit to recognize that this is pretty standard stuff from the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, which seems to draw people with extreme anti-science agendas.

Earlier this year, it proposed a budget that would gut NASA's earth science funding (http://www.onearth.org/earthwire/climate-deniers-defund-nasa-climate-research) by up to $500 million. Go back further and you'll see that the group regularly tries to intimidate scientists who say things the members don't like.

Congress may as well change the name to the Committee on Bullying Scientists. (With the number of times the name has already changed (https://science.house.gov/about/history), it's only a matter of time before this one gets its turn.)

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/33576-house-anti-science-committee-attempts-to-suppress-climate-change-studies

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

Truthout.

You love your agenda blogs...

LOL...

Now if grants went equally to scientists doing studies on both sides of this issue, I would be less concerned. However, since more than 99% of money granted go to scientists on the AGW agenda side, I say cut off the funds, since it's not even close to equal.

[boutons_deux]

Record Levels of CO2 Herald the Future of Climate Change

The Earth's climate has changed. After nearly two centuries of fossil fuel-burning, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have reached 400 parts per million (http://www.scientificamerican.com/report/400-ppm-and-climate-change/), especially boosted by the seemingly ever-accelerating amount of combustion in the last few decades according to the World Meteorological Organization (https://www.wmo.int/media/content/greenhouse-gas-concentrations-hit-yet-another-record). Atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 0.04 percent may not seem like much but it is enough to have already raised average global temperatures by a full degree Celsius, according to theU.K.'s Met Office (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/release/archive/2015/one-degree), with more warming on the way as the greenhouse gas lingers invisibly in the atmosphere, trapping heat, or mixing into the ocean, rendering its waters more acidic.

In fact, the world has not seen CO2 concentrations this high (http://www.scientificamerican.com/report/400-ppm-and-climate-change/) in at least hundreds of thousands of years. Roughly 35 billion metric tons of CO2 are spewed into the atmosphere annually—and rising. The waters of the global ocean have become 30 percent more acidic in the last few decades and the world has not been this warm in thousands of years. This year is likely to be the hottest one since record keeping began, thanks to an El Nino weather pattern that’s taking place in addition to global warming. The top 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1998, which was the year of the last major El Nino.

Worse, farming, forest-clearing and other activities have contributed to emissions of other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, the latter more commonly known as laughing gas, which is no laughing matter in the atmosphere (http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/laughing-gas-no-laughing-matter-in-09-08-27/).

http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/wmo-graphs.jpg


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/record-levels-of-co2-herald-the-future-of-climate-change/?WT.mc_id=SA_EVO_20151116

[boutons_deux]

The Secrets in Greenland’s Ice Sheet

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/magazine/the-secrets-in-greenlands-ice-sheets.html

a long artlcle, too long you ignorant AGW deniers

the scientific disagreement in the article about the Greenland/Antarctic melts: "bad" vs "very bad"

[pgardn]

Droughts are cyclical, and not caused by CO2, but rather land use changes, affecting the transpiration of water from the ground into the atmosphere.

Haven't you learned anything other than what the preachers of climatology tell you?

L. Ron Hubbard would be proud!

Transpiration is a term reserved for plants releasing water.
So you are into saving the forests of the world?

[Wild Cobra]

Transpiration is a term reserved for plants releasing water.
So you are into saving the forests of the world?
And how many fewer plants do you have where it's covered by concrete, asphalt, and buildings?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL...

Pundits spinning away.

I would ask you to read the letter in nature, but it's paywalled. I don't think this graphic is:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7573/images/nature15706-f1.jpg

Go here please:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/environment-and-climate-issues/236936-antarctic-ice-shelf-collapse-and-unstoppable-sea-level-rise-very-likely-without-tou-post1065149880.html#post1065149880

I don't feel like repeating what I wrote in a different forum.

It's been shoved in your face several times how your overhead shots do not capture the depth of the ice sheet. The papers detailing this from the survey teams have also been shown to you. That you say stupid shit makes you a moron but this puts in you the Darrin class of sophist piece of shit.

Good job, dipshit!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I also think its hilarious that you guys think the increased sea ice comes from anything other than those glaciers thinning and moving out to see as the melt spreads. MOAR SEA ICE MUST MEAN ITZ MOAR KOLDR!

[pgardn]

And how many fewer plants do you have where it's covered by concrete, asphalt, and buildings?

This was not my question.

[Wild Cobra]

This was not my question.
Save the forests from what? Managed care-taking of sustainable wood harvests?

I'm only pointing out once again that we have altered the way water responds in regional areas due to our construction. If forests are cut and replaced, it not a problem in my opinion. Not like covering 98% of urban areas with asphalt, concrete, and buildings. We dramatically alter the micro-climate. We have some pretty large urban areas. People seldom think of all the other ways both man and nature influence change, and want to blame CO2 for everything.

[boutons_deux]

Study looks at the role of corporate funding in climate change discussion

A computer analysis of 20 years of data found that corporate funding influenced both the content and specific language used to encourage public skepticism of climate change.

Writing in the Nov. 23 online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Yale University sociologist Justin Farrell said the analysis offers a new level of understanding about the role of corporate money in polarizing a public discussion. Farrell is an assistant professor of sociology at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

Farrell's analysis is based on two data sets (http://phys.org/tags/data+sets/). The first is a social network of 4,556 individuals with ties to 164 organizations that have been skeptical of climate change. The second data set is a compendium of every text those organizations produced about climate change from 1993 to 2013. The latter includes 40,785 texts such as policy statements, press releases, website articles, conference transcripts, published papers, and blog articles.

A good deal of research already exists about how polarization affects individual attitudes and behavior relating to climate change, Farrell explained. Yet there is little data about the underlying organizational factors at play.

"We've never had this level of data," Farrell said. "The text analysis is entirely computational, and it shows an ecosystem of influence."

The study mentions several themes that became more dominant among climate change "contrarians" that received corporate funding. One was the idea that climate change (http://phys.org/tags/climate+change/) is cyclical in nature; another prevalent theme was the positive benefits of carbon dioxide.

"They were writing things that were different from the contrarian organizations that did not receive corporate funding," Farrell said. "Over time, it brought them into a more cohesive social movement and aligned their messages."

The study employed a recently developed approach to topic modeling—a computer-assisted content analysis process —that factors in metadata such as the year a text was written and its link to corporate funding. The process enables reliable content analysis (http://phys.org/tags/analysis/) on massive collections of text, with topics emerging from the data (http://phys.org/tags/data/) as algorithms learn the hidden patterns within a database.

http://phys.org/news/2015-11-role-corporate-funding-climate-discussion.html

AGW deniers are dupes of corporate paymasters and their whores.

[Wild Cobra]

Study looks at the role of corporate funding in climate change discussion

A computer analysis of 20 years of data found that corporate funding influenced both the content and specific language used to encourage public skepticism of climate change.

Writing in the Nov. 23 online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Yale University sociologist Justin Farrell said the analysis offers a new level of understanding about the role of corporate money in polarizing a public discussion. Farrell is an assistant professor of sociology at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

Farrell's analysis is based on two data sets (http://phys.org/tags/data+sets/). The first is a social network of 4,556 individuals with ties to 164 organizations that have been skeptical of climate change. The second data set is a compendium of every text those organizations produced about climate change from 1993 to 2013. The latter includes 40,785 texts such as policy statements, press releases, website articles, conference transcripts, published papers, and blog articles.

A good deal of research already exists about how polarization affects individual attitudes and behavior relating to climate change, Farrell explained. Yet there is little data about the underlying organizational factors at play.

"We've never had this level of data," Farrell said. "The text analysis is entirely computational, and it shows an ecosystem of influence."

The study mentions several themes that became more dominant among climate change "contrarians" that received corporate funding. One was the idea that climate change (http://phys.org/tags/climate+change/) is cyclical in nature; another prevalent theme was the positive benefits of carbon dioxide.

"They were writing things that were different from the contrarian organizations that did not receive corporate funding," Farrell said. "Over time, it brought them into a more cohesive social movement and aligned their messages."

The study employed a recently developed approach to topic modeling—a computer-assisted content analysis process —that factors in metadata such as the year a text was written and its link to corporate funding. The process enables reliable content analysis (http://phys.org/tags/analysis/) on massive collections of text, with topics emerging from the data (http://phys.org/tags/data/) as algorithms learn the hidden patterns within a database.

http://phys.org/news/2015-11-role-corporate-funding-climate-discussion.html

AGW deniers are dupes of corporate paymasters and their whores.




A one sided review without testing the funding the alarmists give.

Sounds like the results were determined before the study started.

[boutons_deux]

The GOP is the world’s only major climate-denialist party. But why?


https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/QntTHxHbmcsQocmuZX3zPF6Th-o=/0x73:1000x740/755x504/filters:format(webp)/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/47786829/man-in-denial.0.jpg


Of all the major conservative parties in the democratic world, the Republican Party stands alone in its denial of the legitimacy of climate science. Indeed, the Republican Party stands alone in its conviction that no national or international response to climate change is needed. To the extent that the party is divided on the issue, the gap separates candidates who openly dismiss climate science as a hoax, and those who, shying away from the political risks of blatant ignorance, instead couch their stance in the alleged impossibility of international action.



That's about right. But it's worth digging a little deeper into just why and how much the GOP is an outlier on this issue. We can glean some insights from a large-scale survey of global opinion on climate change (http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/11/05/global-concern-about-climate-change-broad-support-for-limiting-emissions/) released last month by the Pew Research Center.

Partisan differences over the urgency of climate change are not unique to the US

There's no doubt that the climate issue is split along partisan lines in the US.

http://www.vox.com/2015/12/2/9836566/republican-climate-denial-why

why? Repugs are cheap whores, turning any trick their BigCorp johns

[Wild Cobra]

Study looks at the role of corporate funding in climate change discussion

A computer analysis of 20 years of data found that corporate funding influenced both the content and specific language used to encourage public skepticism of climate change.

Writing in the Nov. 23 online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Yale University sociologist Justin Farrell said the analysis offers a new level of understanding about the role of corporate money in polarizing a public discussion. Farrell is an assistant professor of sociology at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

Farrell's analysis is based on two data sets (http://phys.org/tags/data+sets/). The first is a social network of 4,556 individuals with ties to 164 organizations that have been skeptical of climate change. The second data set is a compendium of every text those organizations produced about climate change from 1993 to 2013. The latter includes 40,785 texts such as policy statements, press releases, website articles, conference transcripts, published papers, and blog articles.

A good deal of research already exists about how polarization affects individual attitudes and behavior relating to climate change, Farrell explained. Yet there is little data about the underlying organizational factors at play.

"We've never had this level of data," Farrell said. "The text analysis is entirely computational, and it shows an ecosystem of influence."

The study mentions several themes that became more dominant among climate change "contrarians" that received corporate funding. One was the idea that climate change (http://phys.org/tags/climate+change/) is cyclical in nature; another prevalent theme was the positive benefits of carbon dioxide.

"They were writing things that were different from the contrarian organizations that did not receive corporate funding," Farrell said. "Over time, it brought them into a more cohesive social movement and aligned their messages."

The study employed a recently developed approach to topic modeling—a computer-assisted content analysis process —that factors in metadata such as the year a text was written and its link to corporate funding. The process enables reliable content analysis (http://phys.org/tags/analysis/) on massive collections of text, with topics emerging from the data (http://phys.org/tags/data/) as algorithms learn the hidden patterns within a database.

http://phys.org/news/2015-11-role-corporate-funding-climate-discussion.html

AGW deniers are dupes of corporate paymasters and their whores.




I found yesterday, maybe the day before, His work is also published in Nature Climate change. He did a fine job, but did so with blinders on. To be a true study, he should have looked at the influence of the money going to the warmers as as well, but he didn't.

The verdict was planned.

Plus, which came first? the chicken or the egg? There was no attempt to find out if donations drove the research, or if the research drove the donations.

You liberal pansies are so easily duped.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I found yesterday, maybe the day before, His work is also published in Nature Climate change. He did a fine job, but did so with blinders on. To be a true study, he should have looked at the influence of the money going to the warmers as as well, but he didn't.

The verdict was planned.

Plus, which came first? the chicken or the egg? There was no attempt to find out if donations drove the research, or if the research drove the donations.

You liberal pansies are so easily duped.

Here you go again with this stupidity. We know that there is a trillion dollar corporate industry with a propaganda campaign that has been detailed in greater and greater detail as time goes by. There is no such analog on the other side. Grant money is overseen by the NSF and similar institutions as well as congress which is packed with people well documented to be paid well by the same industry we just mentioned.

Easily duped? You're an idiot. just because some other place picked up the work does not mean the peer review process included at Physics becomes invalidated. There are problems with that system sure but it again has to do with corporate interference from known sources like petro companies not your mystical climate moneybags.

[MannyIsGod]

2015 was the hottest year ever. It wasn't even close. We broke the record by a gigantic margin on all the surface data sets that is far outside the margin of error for each.

-El Nino was as strong as the one in 1998, but with the backdrop of AGW, temps were MUCH higher than they were in 1998. That's the whole point about AGW. Next large El Nino will once again smash the record.

-2016 has a reasonable chance of breaking the record for the 3rd consecutive year. The first part of the year will be very warm as El Nino continues, but it will break down at some point this year. If we transition into a La Nina then the odds of another record go down, but it might not matter if we are able to maintain record warmth early. If we fail to get into actual La Nina territory then we will break the record and it will likely be by a rather large margin once again.

-Darrin loved talking about how the models were under peforming. Well, I tried over and over to explain to him that it was just natural variability. With 2015 in the books, it can no longer be claimed the models are off. That being said, it still doesn't mean much. They could go cool again in a few years if we get more La Ninas than El Ninos. But they could very well run hot if the opposite happens. Which is why the long term trend is what matters.

Not sure how much longer the deniers can keep at it. Reality is starting to be quite obvious. But then again, these are the people that think EVERYTHING is a conspiracy so w/e.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/science/earth/2015-hottest-year-global-warming.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1


Enjoy keeping those heads buried in that sand.

[Wild Cobra]

I wonder what percentage they assigned 2016 with?

It doesn't matter if it's the hottest year or not. The question still remains, how much is natural vs. how much is AGW.

[DarrinS]

All it takes is an El Niño to renew your faith and bring you back from your hiatus. Welcome back, Manny.

[RandomGuy]

A one sided review without testing the funding the alarmists give.

Sounds like the results were determined before the study started.

Ah. Your conspiracy theory about the scary scientists and their public funding.

Do companies that produce burnable hydrocarbons have a direct interest in denying that the use of their products is harmful, even if that is not true?

[RandomGuy]

I found yesterday, maybe the day before, His work is also published in Nature Climate change. He did a fine job, but did so with blinders on. To be a true study, he should have looked at the influence of the money going to the warmers as as well, but he didn't.

The verdict was planned.

Plus, which came first? the chicken or the egg? There was no attempt to find out if donations drove the research, or if the research drove the donations.

You liberal pansies are so easily duped.

The study was on whether corporate funding of skepticism had an effect on the language of that skepticism. Why would you include studies of funding for "warmers"?

That is akin to saying "for this cancer study to be a true study of how cancer causes death, it would have had to have studied heart disease causes death too".

Seriously? This is the kind of stupid shit you say because you are too lazy to read.

[RandomGuy]

I wonder what percentage they assigned 2016 with?

It doesn't matter if it's the hottest year or not. The question still remains, how much is natural vs. how much is AGW.

Find a natural explanation for it then.

That much warming should have a readily found explanation. Get cracking geenyus.

[DarrinS]

Find a natural explanation for it then.

That much warming should have a readily found explanation. Get cracking geenyus.


You mock, but it's actually a VERY important question. Maybe Manny knows how much to attribute to El Nino and how much to attribute to SUV's and cow farts?

[RandomGuy]

You mock, but it's actually a VERY important question. Maybe Manny knows how much to attribute to El Nino and how much to attribute to SUV's and cow farts?

My question was serious, and important as well.

Warming has specific causes.

If you want to reject a theory, but can't show how the alternative(s) is (are) a better fit, you are practicing pseudo-science.

[RandomGuy]

https://assets.show.earth/widget-co2/kc-monthly-0600.png

FWIW.

[RandomGuy]

December 2015 smashed all-time global average temperature records for all months since 1880 by deviating from the 20th Century average by 1.11°C. This is the first time the deviation exceeded 1°C and it is the largest margin ever for breaking a prior record. [NOAA global analysis for December 2015 accessed January 20, 2016].
https://www.co2.earth/


"This year marks an important first but that doesn't necessarily mean every year from now on will be a degree or more above pre-industrial levels, as natural variability will still play a role in determining the temperature in any given year. As the world continues to warm in the coming decades, however, we will see more and more years passing the 1 degree marker - eventually it will become the norm."

~ Peter Stott
Head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution (MET Office)

[RandomGuy]

We know that atmospheric CO2 has ranged between 172 and 300 part per million (ppm) for the past 1 million years. The earth cycled through cold glacial and warm inter-glacial periods without atmospheric CO2 exceeding 300 ppm. The first time in human history that atmospheric CO2 exceeded 300 ppm was about the time the Titanic sank in the North Atlantic Ocean. Now, the crossover to concentrations that stay above 400 ppm CO2 is nearly complete.

https://www.co2.earth/co2-past-present-future-article

[RandomGuy]

You mock, but it's actually a VERY important question. Maybe Manny knows how much to attribute to El Nino and how much to attribute to SUV's and cow farts?

You have asked "if global warming is real, why is it plateauing?"

Industrial-era global ocean heat uptake doubles in recent decades
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2915.html


Formal detection and attribution studies have used observations and climate models to identify an anthropogenic warming signature in the upper (0–700 m) ocean1, 2, 3, 4. Recently, as a result of the so-called surface warming hiatus, there has been considerable interest in global ocean heat content (OHC) changes in the deeper ocean, including natural and anthropogenically forced changes identified in observational5, 6, 7, modelling8, 9 and data re-analysis10, 11 studies. Here, we examine OHC changes in the context of the Earth’s global energy budget since early in the industrial era (circa 1865–2015) for a range of depths. We rely on OHC change estimates from a diverse collection of measurement systems including data from the nineteenth-century Challenger expedition12, a multi-decadal record of ship-based in situ mostly upper-ocean measurements, the more recent near-global Argo floats profiling to intermediate (2,000 m) depths13, and full-depth repeated transoceanic sections5. We show that the multi-model mean constructed from the current generation of historically forced climate models is consistent with the OHC changes from this diverse collection of observational systems. Our model-based analysis suggests that nearly half of the industrial-era increases in global OHC have occurred in recent decades, with over a third of the accumulated heat occurring below 700 m and steadily rising.

[DarrinS]

My question was serious, and important as well.

Warming has specific causes.

If you want to reject a theory, but can't show how the alternative(s) is (are) a better fit, you are practicing pseudo-science.


I don't want to reject any theory. Global warming is a real thing, I just don't know how much is natural vs. anthropogenic. It is interesting that two of the major spikes in global temperature were accompanied by El Nino events.

[Wild Cobra]

Here is a write-up on it from nature, on the 2015 being the hottest:

2015 declared the hottest year on record (http://www.nature.com/news/2015-declared-the-hottest-year-on-record-1.19216)

[Wild Cobra]

I don't want to reject any theory. Global warming is a real thing, I just don't know how much is natural vs. anthropogenic. It is interesting that two of the major spikes in global temperature were accompanied by El Nino events.

And the pause is in conjunction with the sun calming.

[boutons_deux]

two of the major spikes in global temperature were accompanied by El Nino events.

:lol

NOAA/Livermore National Laboratory --"Global Ocean Warming has Doubled in Recent Decades" (http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2016/01/noaalivermore-national-laboratory-global-ocean-warming-has-doubled-in-recent-decades.html)

"In recent decades the ocean has continued to warm substantially, and with time the warming signal is reaching deeper into the ocean," said LLNL scientist Peter Gleckler, lead author of a paper published in the journal Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/index.html) Climate Change.

Lawrence Livermore scientists, working with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and university colleagues, have found that half of the global ocean heat content increase since 1865 has occurred over the past two decades.

Changes in ocean heat storage are important because the ocean absorbs more than 90 percent of the Earth's excess heat increase that is associated with global warming.

The observed ocean and atmosphere warming is a result of continuing greenhouse gas emissions.

Quantifying how much heat is accumulating in the Earth system is critical to improving the understanding of climate change already under way and to better assess how much more to expect in decades and centuries to come. It is vital to improving projections of how much and how fast the Earth will warm and seas rise in the future.

Increases in upper ocean temperatures since the 1970s are well documented and associated with greenhouse gas emissions.

By including measurements from a 19th century oceanographic expedition and recent changes in the deeper ocean, the study indicates that half of the accumulated heat during the industrial era has occurred in recent decades, with about a third residing in the deeper oceans.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2016/01/noaalivermore-national-laboratory-global-ocean-warming-has-doubled-in-recent-decades.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheDailyGalaxyNewsFromPlanetE arthBeyond+%28The+Daily+Galaxy+--Great+Discoveries+Channel%3A+Sci%2C+Space%2C+Tech. %29

Yes!

That's the answer!

El Nino, generating its own heating from nothing, causes global warming!

Finally, we have the culprit!

[boutons_deux]

Deep Ocean Waters Are Trapping Vast Stores of Heat

A new generation of scientific instruments has begun scouring ocean depths for temperature data, and the evidence being pinged back via satellite warns that the consequences of fossil fuel burning and deforestation are accumulating far below the planet’s surface.

More than 90 percent of the heat trapped by greenhouse gas pollution since the 1970s has wound up in the oceans, and research published Monday revealed that a little more than a third of that seafaring heat has worked its way down to depths greater than 2,300 feet (700 meters).

Plunged to ocean depths by winds and currents, that trapped heat has eluded surface temperature measurements, fueling claims of a “hiatus” or “pause” in global warming from 1998 to 2013. But by expanding cool water, the deep-sea heat’s impacts have been indirectly visible in coastal regions by pushing up sea levels, contributing to worsening high-tide flooding (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/coastal-flooding-us-cities-18148).

“The heat’s going in at the surface, so it’s getting down pretty deep,” said Glen Gawarkiewicz (https://www.whoi.edu/profile.do?id=ggawarkiewicz), a Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution scientist who was not involved with the study. “With 35 percent of the heat uptake going below 700 meters, it really points out the importance of continued deep ocean sampling. It was a surprise to me that it was that large of a fraction.”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deep-ocean-waters-are-trapping-vast-stores-of-heat/

[FuzzyLumpkins]

All it takes is an El Niño to renew your faith and bring you back from your hiatus. Welcome back, Manny.

Sophist asshole is as sophist asshole does. You still have me on ignore for showing how you act just like those CA terrorist's lawyers? The parallels were stark.

They wait for a major announcement. You wait for something that sounds good to hit your facebook feed.

Only reason why you don't post more on this account is because it's been so shamed. You used to post on climate daily. Losing sucks doesn't it?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Sophist asshole is as sophist asshole does. You still have me on ignore for showing how you act just like those CA terrorist's lawyers? The parallels were stark.

They wait for a major announcement. You wait for something that sounds good to hit your facebook feed.

Only reason why you don't post more on this account is because it's been so shamed. You used to post on climate daily. Losing sucks doesn't it?

If he has you on ignore why are you talking to him? I know you have me on ignore but you have no impulse control and you read all of mine anyways. Not everyone has your same problems.

[DarrinS]

If he has you on ignore why are you talking to him? I know you have me on ignore but you have no impulse control and you read all of mine anyways. Not everyone has your same problems.

:lol That dude has issues

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Because I understand very well the use of multiple accounts and how it works here. You guys don't seem to understand the concept of my audience is not just you.

It's to meter your spam when you're upset and not give you what you want in general. If you want to do the round and round, you have Chump for that.

It's cute when you start mimicking my derogations. It means they scored. The concept is 'actions speak louder than words.'

[Wild Cobra]

:lol

NOAA/Livermore National Laboratory --"Global Ocean Warming has Doubled in Recent Decades" (http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2016/01/noaalivermore-national-laboratory-global-ocean-warming-has-doubled-in-recent-decades.html)

"In recent decades the ocean has continued to warm substantially, and with time the warming signal is reaching deeper into the ocean," said LLNL scientist Peter Gleckler, lead author of a paper published in the journal Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/index.html) Climate Change.

Lawrence Livermore scientists, working with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and university colleagues, have found that half of the global ocean heat content increase since 1865 has occurred over the past two decades.

Changes in ocean heat storage are important because the ocean absorbs more than 90 percent of the Earth's excess heat increase that is associated with global warming.

The observed ocean and atmosphere warming is a result of continuing greenhouse gas emissions.

Quantifying how much heat is accumulating in the Earth system is critical to improving the understanding of climate change already under way and to better assess how much more to expect in decades and centuries to come. It is vital to improving projections of how much and how fast the Earth will warm and seas rise in the future.

Increases in upper ocean temperatures since the 1970s are well documented and associated with greenhouse gas emissions.

By including measurements from a 19th century oceanographic expedition and recent changes in the deeper ocean, the study indicates that half of the accumulated heat during the industrial era has occurred in recent decades, with about a third residing in the deeper oceans.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2016/01/noaalivermore-national-laboratory-global-ocean-warming-has-doubled-in-recent-decades.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheDailyGalaxyNewsFromPlanetE arthBeyond+%28The+Daily+Galaxy+--Great+Discoveries+Channel%3A+Sci%2C+Space%2C+Tech. %29

Yes!

That's the answer!

El Nino, generating its own heating from nothing, causes global warming!

Finally, we have the culprit!




Well, the link provided only links to Nature, but I found the Letter anyway. Note... It's a letter. Not a peer reviewed paper!

Link: Industrial-era global ocean heat uptake doubles in recent decades (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2915.html)

The blogger from The Daily Galaxy misrepresents the article. The article tries to explain, through modeled results of sparse observations, what has happened. It does not claim it as fact. A few snippets:



We make use of results from state-of-the-art climate models made available as part of the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, CMIP5 (ref. 36). We focus on comparing observations with historically forced (or ‘Historical’) simulations that nominally begin in 1850 and end in 2005.




We use estimated OHC changes between the Challenger expedition and Argo period; multi-instrument OHC estimates for the upper and intermediate ocean (1960–near present), and a deep-layer linear change estimate (1992–2005).


There is a lot of conjecture, and nothing real substantive.

This letter in Nature Geoscience might be more apt to explain the 2015 hottest year:

Link: Amplification of El Niño by cloud longwave coupling to atmospheric circulation (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2630.html)



El Niño is amplified by the positive Bjerknes feedback mechanism (Fig. 1a): (1) Positive SST anomalies in the central or eastern Pacific cause (2) local diabatic heating within precipitating deep convective clouds, leading to (3) a weaker Walker circulation and (4) weakened easterlies in the western Pacific, which in turn (5) lessens the tilt of the thermocline and suppresses upwelling of cold deep ocean waters in the east—ultimately leading to further warming of the SSTs.




Total Niño-3.4 variance (Supplementary Table 1) is dominated by the 3–7-year timescales, and the variance in the control matches the observed 1870–2014 variance (0.57 ± 0.04 versus 0.58 ± 0.09 K2), whereas in the experiment with non-interactive clouds the variance is a factor of three smaller (0.20 ± 0.08 K2).


These are paywalled, but I have a subscription. That's why I didn't quote any of the abstract. You all can see the abstracts. Just not the parts I quoted, or the rest of the letters.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well, the link provided only links to Nature, but I found the Letter anyway. Note... It's a letter. Not a peer reviewed paper!

Link: Industrial-era global ocean heat uptake doubles in recent decades (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2915.html)

The blogger from The Daily Galaxy misrepresents the article. The article tries to explain, through modeled results of sparse observations, what has happened. It does not claim it as fact. A few snippets:



We make use of results from state-of-the-art climate models made available as part of the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, CMIP5 (ref. 36). We focus on comparing observations with historically forced (or ‘Historical’) simulations that nominally begin in 1850 and end in 2005.




We use estimated OHC changes between the Challenger expedition and Argo period; multi-instrument OHC estimates for the upper and intermediate ocean (1960–near present), and a deep-layer linear change estimate (1992–2005).


There is a lot of conjecture, and nothing real substantive.

This letter in Nature Geoscience might be more apt to explain the 2015 hottest year:

Link: Amplification of El Niño by cloud longwave coupling to atmospheric circulation (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2630.html)



El Niño is amplified by the positive Bjerknes feedback mechanism (Fig. 1a): (1) Positive SST anomalies in the central or eastern Pacific cause (2) local diabatic heating within precipitating deep convective clouds, leading to (3) a weaker Walker circulation and (4) weakened easterlies in the western Pacific, which in turn (5) lessens the tilt of the thermocline and suppresses upwelling of cold deep ocean waters in the east—ultimately leading to further warming of the SSTs.




Total Niño-3.4 variance (Supplementary Table 1) is dominated by the 3–7-year timescales, and the variance in the control matches the observed 1870–2014 variance (0.57 ± 0.04 versus 0.58 ± 0.09 K2), whereas in the experiment with non-interactive clouds the variance is a factor of three smaller (0.20 ± 0.08 K2).


These are paywalled, but I have a subscription. That's why I didn't quote any of the abstract. You all can see the abstracts. Just not the parts I quoted, or the rest of the letters.

Now you want the peer review? Either it's valid or it's not chachi. Recall IPCC is peer reviewed? Likely not nor have you considered what your current sophistry means to your general position. I guess that is a big problem when you are incapable of thinking for yourself.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Because I understand very well the use of multiple accounts and how it works here.



:lol I've never once seen call out an alt correctly. Your problem is you think everyone is or has an alt that talks shit to you, when in fact it is actually just different posters who all share the common belief of you being a faggot.

[Wild Cobra]

Now you want the peer review? Either it's valid or it's not chachi. Recall IPCC is peer reviewed? Likely not nor have you considered what your current sophistry means to your general position. I guess that is a big problem when you are incapable of thinking for yourself.

My God you are a tacky troll. Don't you ever have anything useful to say, or do you just like shitting yourself all over the forums?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol I've never once seen call out an alt correctly. Your problem is you think everyone is or has an alt that talks shit to you, when in fact it is actually just different posters who all share the common belief of you being a faggot.

The only one I've 'called out' is angrydude as Yoni and that was because he wasn't trying to hide it. For those that are trying real hard at it, I don't tell you what I think specifically because you will simply use it. It does me no good to share my thoughts with you.

Further how would you whether or not what I am saying is correct anyway? You're not overly bright to begin with and if you're complicit then it just speaks to the above moreso.

I put you on ignore because you like getting into those hour long round and rounds like you do with Chump on the regular. I have no interest in that so I filter you with the ignore feature. As much as you cry about it, it's obviously a hit. You do like to spam.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

My God you are a tacky troll. Don't you ever have anything useful to say, or do you just like shitting yourself all over the forums?

Do you believe in the efficacy of peer review or not? You just going to reflexively cry again?

[Wild Cobra]

Do you believe in the efficacy of peer review or not? You just going to reflexively cry again?

Pal review or peer review?

Aside from that, most papers do no say what the pundits claim, or what the IPCCC cherry picks out of them. Full context often doesn't have the same implications.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Pal review or peer review?

Aside from that, most papers do no say what the pundits claim, or what the IPCCC cherry picks out of them. Full context often doesn't have the same implications.

You are still dodging. IPCC is peer reviewed. You either accept it or don't. Watching you squirm around my point is amusing though. You see it yet, dimwit?

[Wild Cobra]

You are still dodging. IPCC is peer reviewed. You either accept it or don't. Watching you squirm around my point is amusing though. You see it yet, dimwit?

The IPCC is not peer reviewed by any intent of the phrase. It is pal reviewed. Those doing the lead roles are activists of an agenda.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The IPCC is not peer reviewed by any intent of the phrase. It is pal reviewed. Those doing the lead roles are activists of an agenda.

You've already lost that argument around this time last year.

Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry)

Your team was paying people in the review panels not Al Gore. So in other words you like peer review except when it goes against you.

[Wild Cobra]

You've already lost that argument around this time last year.

Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry)

Your team was paying people in the review panels not Al Gore. So in other words you like peer review except when it goes against you.

Logical fallacies are not proof.

The guardian is a joke.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Logical fallacies are not proof.

The guardian is a joke.


But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.

He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.

The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html

Your comment is nothing but ad hominem. Self irony is amusing though.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html

Your comment is nothing but ad hominem. Self irony is amusing though.

Whoop-t-do.

How many billions have funded researches to support the AGW scare.

There are effectively two types of funding. Funding given because they agree with what a researcher is proposing, and funding to move an agenda.

I think yo are a complete fool to assume the latter without proper evidence.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Whoop-t-do.

How many billions have funded researches to support the AGW scare.

There are effectively two types of funding. Funding given because they agree with what a researcher is proposing, and funding to move an agenda.

I think yo are a complete fool to assume the latter without proper evidence.

The NYT was just quoted saying he was taking money from oil companies for what he testified to Congressional committees calling it a 'deliverable.'

You cry about a supposed global conspiracy and exclusion dubbing it 'pal review' whereas I have actual scientists with actual oilco ties interfering in the political process and submitting conflicted work under false pretenses.

[Wild Cobra]

The NYT was just quoted saying he was taking money from oil companies for what he testified to Congressional committees calling it a 'deliverable.'

You cry about a supposed global conspiracy and exclusion dubbing it 'pal review' whereas I have actual scientists with actual oilco ties interfering in the political process and submitting conflicted work under false pretenses.

And you trust the NY Slimes?


LOL...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And you trust the NY Slimes?


LOL...

That is besides the point, dipshit. They are part of AP's verification network and that article is over a year old. Critical thinking skills are hard.

You were peddling that all the national academies were part of your supposed conspiracy before. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

That is besides the point, dipshit. They are part of AP's verification network and that article is over a year old. Critical thinking skills are hard.

You were peddling that all the national academies were part of your supposed conspiracy before. :lol

I simply don't know what to say about your stupidity in just a few sentences. Not going to take my time to elaborate as it's plain as day for everyone to see anyway.

[RandomGuy]

Whoop-t-do.

How many billions have funded researches to support the AGW scare.

Billions?

ROFL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_policy_of_the_United_States

Look at the pie chart.

That is for the US, one of the worlds richest countries.

Your conspiracy theory is fucktarded pseudoscience, if you are going with "they are in it for the money".

[RandomGuy]

Logical fallacies are not proof.

The guardian is a joke.

Logical fallacies do not prove anything except that criticisms are invalid.

If the science is that conclusive then one should not have to resort to obviously flawed arguments.

"I don't need to wear seatbelts, because penguins would be cold.".

Non-sequiturs are not the way to determine the truth of something.

[RandomGuy]

A one sided review without testing the funding the alarmists give.

Sounds like the results were determined before the study started.



Ah. Your conspiracy theory about the scary scientists and their public funding.

Do companies that produce burnable hydrocarbons have a direct interest in denying that the use of their products is harmful, even if that is not true?

Second time:
Do companies that produce burnable hydrocarbons have a direct interest in denying that the use of their products is harmful, even if that is not true?

[RandomGuy]

Total Niño-3.4 variance (Supplementary Table 1) is dominated by the 3–7-year timescales, and the variance in the control matches the observed 1870–2014 variance (0.57 ± 0.04 versus 0.58 ± 0.09 K2), whereas in the experiment with non-interactive clouds the variance is a factor of three smaller (0.20 ± 0.08 K2).


Interesting example of feedback loops.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.skepticalscience.com//pics/2c-2015-12.png

Let's get back to science then. Out fo the realm of conspiracy theory.


While the current El Niño event is also becoming monstrously strong, it’s only now reaching its peak intensity, and there’s an approximately 4-month lag before changes in El Niño are reflected in global surface temperature changes. Thus, the El Niño of 1998 had a greater warming influence than its 2015 counterpart. 2015 was nevertheless more than 0.2°C hotter than 1998, due to human-caused global warming.

As the animated graphic below shows, there’s a consistent warming trend among El Niño years, La Niña years, and neutral years. Over the past 50 years, there’s a 0.16°C per decade trend among each category, and individual years fall close to those trend lines. That underlying human-caused global warming trend is what’s causing annual temperatures to so frequently break records, with 4 new record-hot years in the past decade.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/ENSO_Temps_2015.gif
http://www.skepticalscience.com/


Been a while since we had a good old-fashioned blog-off.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.skepticalscience.com//pics/2016Toon4.jpg

[RandomGuy]

From PENN STATE and the department of overheated, tired, rhetoric in an El Niño year, comes this ZOMG! press release from Michael Mann and company. It’s just modeling sophistry, driven by the usual agenda, because not only is he saying that much of the last century was from AGW, he’s saying all the previous research is wrong by simply making a bet that the climate he thinks is happening aligns with odds calculated on a computer, and natural variation, El Nino, solar variance, aerosols, and a whole host of other climate factors just don’t matter. It’s basically just another headline grabber.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/26/place-your-bets-another-hotted-up-mann-tastic-modeling-claim/


The rebuttal.

Not overly convincing.

"[science.]"
Response: "[nuh-uh]"

Really?

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.skepticalscience.com//pics/2016Toon4.jpg

LOL...

Shows the stupidity of the faithful.

It only takes one example to disprove a theory.

[RandomGuy]

Now for a bit, I will call Exercises in Sophistry, part the first.

Going back to the OP, let's examine how the deniers use bad logic and arguments to get from a base of what should be honest skepticism, and go into active dishonest denial.

So let's start with the essay at this link:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/23/2015-global-temp-or-how-some-scientists-deliberately-mistook-weather-for-climate/

watts is a fairly good standard of "climate change skepticism" and posts a lot of stuff that is quoted here.

Let's give it a good shake out to see if the criticisms are valid.

"2015 Global Temp, Or How Some Scientists Deliberately Mistook Weather For Climate"

Right off the bat, you have what amounts to an ad hominem. "deliberately mistook", implying, without any evidence in the article that what the author takes as a mistake was "deliberate".

Moving on, let's get to the actual meat of the article.


Despite what some scientists have said the large increase over 2014 is far too great and swift to be due to a resurgence of forced global warming. It must be due to short-term natural variability, and you don’t have to look far to find it. 2015 was the year of the El Nino which boosted the year’s temperature. (In the Nasa press conference about the 2015 global temperature see how long it takes the presenters to mention the El Nino)

Basically:

"Some scientists have claimed that the increase from 2014 was due to man-made global warming."

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/ac/ac8e1baae8535062e99d1b02ad1d3c82b124ba3aa455a8ad1c 1d33b166b79be5.jpg

The problem here is that is not what "some scientists" are saying.

The author never really provided a link showing what "some scientists" said. Let's find out what "some scientists" said.

First, the scientists themselves:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513


2015 was really hot.

Keeping digging...

We find some science news.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/2015-smashed-heat-records


That’s well above the previous record of 0.74 degrees above average set in 2014 (SN Online: 1/16/15). The 0.16-degree difference between the two years is the largest margin by which an annual temperature record has ever been broken.

.74 degrees over average set in 2014.


The current El Niño, among the strongest on record, contributed as much as 0.15 degrees to the new record, estimates Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

"as much as .15" of that was due to the El Nino.

I couldn't find any one saying that the ONLY reason for the temperature increases was simply human-caused.

So basically:

"nature + man = record hot"

Misrepresenting someone's assertions and statements is dishonest.

The huge red flag is "some scientists", without a link to see for ourselves what "some scientists" were actually saying. Whether deliberate or accidental the omission should set you to be skeptical of the author. Deliberate means an active intent to lie, accidental means sloppy thinking. Neither of which will get you to good conclusions.

[RandomGuy]

LOL...

Shows the stupidity of the faithful.

It only takes one example to disprove a theory.

No, actually, that is incorrect.

Why can I claim that?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL...

Shows the stupidity of the faithful.

It only takes one example to disprove a theory.

Verification is a key tenant of science. Nullius en verba.

[Winehole23]

tenet

[boutons_deux]

tenet

George

[Winehole23]

“Natural climate variability causes temperatures to wax and wane over a period of several years, rather than varying erratically from one year to the next,” said Prof Michael Mann at Penn State university in the US, who led the new study. “That makes it more challenging to accurately assess the likelihood of temperature records. Given the press interest, it seemed important to do this right, and address the interesting and worthwhile question of how unlikely it is that the recent run of record temperatures might have arisen by chance alone.”http://www.nature.com/articles/srep19831

[boutons_deux]

15 Florida Mayors to Marco Rubio: We’re Going Under, Take Climate Change Seriously

Fifteen South Florida mayors released a letter (http://bit.ly/Rubio_letter) Tuesday that was sent to Sen. Marco Rubio (http://ecowatch.com/?s=Rubio)requesting a meeting with the presidential candidate to talk about the climate change (http://ecowatch.com/climate-change-news/) risk facing the state’s communities. The mayors underscore the economic burden of climate change in South Florida, urging Rubio to “acknowledge the reality and urgency of climate change and to address the crisis it presents our communities.”

“Anyone who thinks that the topic of climate change is a partisan issue is not focused on the reality which we as public officials and citizens are dealing with. This is a crisis that grows day by day,” Miami Mayor Tomas Regalado said, asking Rubio to “help us face and tackle this urgent issue—and the risks associated with it—so we may deal with it head-on.”

http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/noaa_750.jpg


http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/28/florida-mayors-rubio-climate-change/?utm_source=EcoWatch+List&utm_campaign=ca6dd0ab45-Top_News_1_28_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_49c7d43dc9-ca6dd0ab45-85879165

Rubio, etc listen ONLY to donors' $10Ms, not to a bunch of S. FL mayors. How naive.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

tenet

You told me you disliked me because I'm 'a pompous ass' yet this speaks of something else. Most people that do this type of thing do it because they have their own issues. I'm just the lodestone.

[boutons_deux]

Syracuse geophysicist questions stability of Antarctic ice sheet

A professor in Syracuse University's College of Arts and Sciences is joining the growing debate over the fate of the world's largest ice sheet, whose sudden melting is sending shockwaves throughout the geophysics community.

Robert Moucha, assistant professor of Earth sciences, is the co-author of a recent paper in Geology (Geological Society of America, 2015), examining the impact of the deep Earth on ice-sheet stability. Particular emphasis is on the retreat, or melting, of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, one of two massive ice sheets in the South Pole and the largest in the world.

Moucha and his colleagues contend that by studying other periods of global warming—namely, the Mid-Pliocene Warm Period (MPWP), which occurred approximately 3 million years ago, scientists can better understand the potential impact of today's warming trendings.

"While data analysis and ice-sheet modeling indicate that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet melted during the MPWP, concern over the much larger East Antarctic Ice Sheet continues," Moucha says. "The stability of a grounded, marine-based ice sheet depends on the elevation of the bedrock on which it rests."

"We found that regions with sub-glacial topography, such as the Wilkes Basin in East Antarctica, were at a lower elevation during the mid-Pliocene," Moucha says. "This had a profound effect on the retreat of the modeled ice-sheet grounding line [the point at which glaciers begin to float, instead of resting on bedrock], raising the global sea-level by a few more meters than would happen in a scenario involving present-day bedrock elevation."

These findings agree with geochemical analyses of offshore sediment cores, suggesting a more retreated ice sheet in the Wilkes Basin, but, until now, they have been difficult to show in ice-sheet simulations. "This implies that the ice sheet (http://phys.org/tags/ice+sheet/) in the Wilkes Basin may be more stable today than during the MPWP because it rests on more bedrock," Moucha says.

Given the urgency of this kind of work, he anticipates more interdisciplinary collaborations between tectonicists and climatologists: "It's the tip of the proverbial iceberg, and exemplifies how different disciplines in the Earth sciences can come together to unravel the geological record, while providing a glimpse into the future."

http://phys.org/news/2016-01-syracuse-geophysicist-stability-antarctic-ice.html

Au revoir, Florida.

[RandomGuy]

Proctor found that ignorance spreads when firstly, many people do not understand a concept or fact and secondly, when special interest groups – like a commercial firm or a political group – then work hard to create confusion about an issue. In the case of ignorance about tobacco and climate change, a scientifically illiterate society will probably be more susceptible to the tactics used by those wishing to confuse and cloud the truth.
Consider climate change as an example. “The fight is not just over the existence of climate change, it’s over whether God has created the Earth for us to exploit, whether government has the right to regulate industry, whether environmentalists should be empowered, and so on. It’s not just about the facts, it’s about what is imagined to flow from and into such facts,” says Proctor.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160105-the-man-who-studies-the-spread-of-ignorance

Shockingly enough the fossil fuel industry took a page from the cigarette companies.

The internet makes it easy for useful idiots to take the propaganda from there.

[DarrinS]

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160105-the-man-who-studies-the-spread-of-ignorance

Shockingly enough the fossil fuel industry took a page from the cigarette companies.

The internet makes it easy for useful idiots to take the propaganda from there.


Speaking of propaganda, check out this Loose Change style video


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVMsYXzmUYk

[spurraider21]

Speaking of propaganda, check out this Loose Change style video


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVMsYXzmUYk
point being?

there are probably thousands of these sorts of videos on both sides. what does posting one attempt to prove?

[RandomGuy]

point being?

there are probably thousands of these sorts of videos on both sides. what does posting one attempt to prove?

+1

Best to stick to science and good risk management, IMO.

[boutons_deux]

Climate change is already causing dramatic flooding in the coastal U.S.

... neat interactive graph showing natural vs man-made coast flooding.

http://grist.org/science/climate-change-is-already-causing-dramatic-flooding-in-the-coastal-u-s/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feedgrist

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Speaking of propaganda, check out this Loose Change style video


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVMsYXzmUYk

Nice blanket dismissal. This is particularly hypocritical considering how you whine about RG using the term denier where here you are conflating this video with a 9/11 conspiracy documentary.

I would ask you to in your own words explain the comparison but you are too stupid to do so I think. It would be interesting to see you try though.

This is very similar to what you do with me. You don't dispute anything actually in the video. They explain how the voltage of the sensor, the trajectory and location of the satellite, and other factors go into the model. The explanation is done by the head of the RSS, Livermore, and other climate experts. How it was done incorrectly and had to be adjusted upwards. I have rubbed your face in this for a year now too.

You should have the background to discuss it given your claimed degree yet instead we get this shit. Typical.

[boutons_deux]

China to shut down 1,000 coal plants this year

http://grist.org/climate-energy/china-to-shut-down-1000-coal-plants-this-year/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feedgrist

... but, but, but EPA is destroying US coal industry

[boutons_deux]

Earth is warming 50 times faster than when it comes out of an ice age

A major new study includes some scary implications about how rapidly humans are changing the Earth’s climateRecently, The Guardian reported (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/08/sea-level-rise-could-last-twice-as-long-as-human-history)on a significant new study published in Nature Climate Change (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2923.html), finding that even if we meet our carbon reduction targets and stay below the 2°C global warming threshold (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/paris-climate-deal-key-points), sea level rise will eventually inundate many major coastal cities around the world.

20% of the world’s population will eventually have to migrate away from coasts swamped by rising oceans. Cities including New York, London, Rio de Janeiro, Cairo, Calcutta, Jakarta and Shanghai would all be submerged.


The authors looked at past climate change events and model simulations of the future. They found a clear, strong relationship between the total amount of carbon pollution humans emit, and how far global sea levels will rise.

The issue is that ice sheets melt quite slowly, but because carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for a long time, the eventual melting and associated sea level rise are effectively locked in.


http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/earth-is-warming-is-50-times-faster-than-when-it-comes-out-of-an-ice-age/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[Wild Cobra]

Earth is warming 50 times faster than when it comes out of an ice age

A major new study includes some scary implications about how rapidly humans are changing the Earth’s climateRecently, The Guardian reported (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/08/sea-level-rise-could-last-twice-as-long-as-human-history)on a significant new study published in Nature Climate Change (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2923.html), finding that even if we meet our carbon reduction targets and stay below the 2°C global warming threshold (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/paris-climate-deal-key-points), sea level rise will eventually inundate many major coastal cities around the world.

20% of the world’s population will eventually have to migrate away from coasts swamped by rising oceans. Cities including New York, London, Rio de Janeiro, Cairo, Calcutta, Jakarta and Shanghai would all be submerged.


The authors looked at past climate change events and model simulations of the future. They found a clear, strong relationship between the total amount of carbon pollution humans emit, and how far global sea levels will rise.

The issue is that ice sheets melt quite slowly, but because carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for a long time, the eventual melting and associated sea level rise are effectively locked in.


http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/earth-is-warming-is-50-times-faster-than-when-it-comes-out-of-an-ice-age/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

LOL...

You shouldn't use such sites for information.

Here is the study:

Consequences of twenty-first-century policy for multi-millennial climate and sea-level change (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2923.html)

The really like to hype the science. You should read it.

Ah wait...

It is paywalled.

Good thing I have a subscription to that journal, so I can laugh my ass of at idiots like you making unsubstantiated claims!

how about this out of the paper:


To address the possibility that human actions may initiate future global climate change on a geological timescale rather than the scale of a few human generations, we present several different scenarios of global temperature and sea-level change over the next 10,000 years.

The next 10,000 years!

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

They are also assuming RCP 8.5 levels, which actual trends have been far lower, and at the lowest possible assessments rather than the highest at the 8.5...


CO2 levels for RCP8.5 for 2100 (red filled square) and its extension for 2300 (red open square) are shown for comparison (values are CO2-equivalent).

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

[RandomGuy]

Seas rising at fastest rate in 2,800 years
http://news.yahoo.com/video/seas-rising-fastest-rate-2-123936327.html

[RandomGuy]

LOL...

You shouldn't use such sites for information.

Here is the study:

Consequences of twenty-first-century policy for multi-millennial climate and sea-level change (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2923.html)

The really like to hype the science. You should read it.

Ah wait...

It is paywalled.

Good thing I have a subscription to that journal, so I can laugh my ass of at idiots like you making unsubstantiated claims!

how about this out of the paper:



The next 10,000 years!

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

They are also assuming RCP 8.5 levels, which actual trends have been far lower, and at the lowest possible assessments rather than the highest at the 8.5...



LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

You're so cute when you try science-ing.

[Wild Cobra]

Seas rising at fastest rate in 2,800 years
http://news.yahoo.com/video/seas-rising-fastest-rate-2-123936327.html

So....

Sometime before 2,800 years, the rates were faster than today!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So....

Sometime before 2,800 years, the rates were faster than today!

Not 'sometime.' This is particularly amusing in light of your selection of sample rates at the cylce length when you tried to conflate Mann's work with atmospheric CO2 with your stupidity involving the ocean.

Also you clearly never took or understood a calculus class. It's standard to teach min/max zeroes for both trajectory and rate of change. That would be the first and second derivative and solving for zero. It's used to interpret data.

If you weren't so ignorant you would talk at least on that level to determine whether or not what they were saying was significant. They said 'as we came out of the past ice age' for that reason.

Instead you fumble around with simple arithmetic and basic concepts.

[RandomGuy]

So....

Sometime before 2,800 years, the rates were faster than today!

Not supported by data. I would have to say no. ?

Your point being?

[Wild Cobra]

Not supported by data. I would have to say no. ?

Your point being?

Why did they only go back that far, of earlier data didn't support their conclusion.

Wouldn't you want to go back to all the period after we left the ace age, like 12,000 years? It's the only way to make such a point stick, otherwise you invite the true scientists like myself to remain skeptical.

Such conclusions are only good for those already on the kool-Aid. Not for those demanding real scientific conclusions.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why did they only go back that far, of earlier data didn't support their conclusion.

Wouldn't you want to go back to all the period after we left the ace age, like 12,000 years? It's the only way to make such a point stick, otherwise you invite the true scientists like myself to remain skeptical.

Such conclusions are only good for those already on the kool-Aid. Not for those demanding real scientific conclusions.

Instead of asking questions and inserting wishful thinking for your preferred outcome, find the answers and accept the reality. Your ignorance is not the basis of reality.

[Wild Cobra]

Instead of asking questions and inserting wishful thinking for your preferred outcome, find the answers and accept the reality. Your ignorance is not the basis of reality.
LOL...

Your faith is strong.

LOL...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL...

Your faith is strong.

LOL...

I discuss the science. You ask questions and assume the answers will be favorable to you.

You can say whatever you like but everyone knows how you operate.

[Wild Cobra]

I discuss the science. You ask questions and assume the answers will be favorable to you.

You can say whatever you like but everyone knows how you operate.

No you don't. You repeat the gospel of AGW. You wouldn't know science if it bit you in the ass.

[RandomGuy]

I discuss the science. You ask questions and assume the answers will be favorable to you.

You can say whatever you like but everyone knows how you operate.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor

[RandomGuy]

Why did they only go back that far, of earlier data didn't support their conclusion. [sic]

Link?

[RandomGuy]

Beyond record hot, February was 'astronomical' and 'strange'


WASHINGTON (AP) — Earth got so hot last month that federal scientists struggled to find words, describing temperatures as "astronomical," ''staggering" and "strange." They warned that the climate may have moved into a new and hotter neighborhood.

This was not just another of the drumbeat of 10 straight broken monthly global heat records, triggered by a super El Nino and man-made global warming. February 2016 obliterated old marks by such a margin that it was the most above-normal month since meteorologists started keeping track in 1880, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The old record was set just last December and the last three months have been the most above-normal months on record, said NOAA climate scientist Jessica Blunden. And it's not just NOAA. NASA, which uses different statistical techniques, as well as a University of Alabama Huntsville team and the private Remote Sensing System team, which measure using satellites, also said February 2016 had the biggest departure from normal on record.

NOAA said Earth averaged 56.08 degrees (13.38 degrees Celsius) in February, 2.18 degrees (1.21 degrees Celsius) above average, beating the old record for February set in 2015 by nearly six-tenths of a degree (one-third of a degree Celsius). These were figures that had federal scientists grasping for superlatives.

"The departures are what we would consider astronomical," Blunden said. "It's on land. It's in the oceans. It's in the upper atmosphere. It's in the lower atmosphere. The Arctic had record low sea ice."

"Everything everywhere is a record this month, except Antarctica," Blunden said. "It's insane."

In the Arctic, where sea ice reached a record low for February, land temperatures averaged 8 degrees above normal (4.5 degrees Celsius), Blunden said. That's after January, when Arctic land temperatures were 10.4 degrees above normal (5.8 degrees Celsius).

Worldwide, February 2016 was warmer than about 125 of the last 136 Marches.

http://news.yahoo.com/beyond-record-hot-february-astronomical-140020152.html


The truth will out eventually.

The deniers will have a harder, and harder time waving away the evidence, just as the asshats claiming evolution or moon landings were faked do.

[RandomGuy]

Speaking of propaganda, check out this Loose Change style video


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVMsYXzmUYk

http://news.yahoo.com/beyond-record-hot-february-astronomical-140020152.html

Is that propaganda?

[DarrinS]

http://news.yahoo.com/beyond-record-hot-february-astronomical-140020152.html

Is that propaganda?


I would say that's a very alarmist headline.





This was not just another of the drumbeat of 10 straight broken monthly global heat records, triggered by a super El Nino and man-made global warming




So, how much is because of El Nino vs man-made?

I suspect this current "astronomical," ''staggering" and "strange" temperature change is similar to what was experienced during the El Nino event of 97-98.

[RandomGuy]

I would say that's a very alarmist headline.





So, how much is because of El Nino vs man-made?

I suspect this current "astronomical," ''staggering" and "strange" temperature change is similar to what was experienced during the El Nino event of 97-98.

Similar of course. The difference though is yet another high temperature record.

Kinda the point isn't it?

No other atmospheric variable is changing as much other than CO2 concentration, very obviously caused by human actions.

Gets harder and harder to bury your head in the sand to that fact as time goes by, doesn't it?

The risk grid remains unchanged.

zORv8wwiadQ

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I would say that's a very alarmist headline.





So, how much is because of El Nino vs man-made?

I suspect this current "astronomical," ''staggering" and "strange" temperature change is similar to what was experienced during the El Nino event of 97-98.

This is what I love about this account. Are you so stupid that you cannot see how ocean as heat sink explains what you like to term the hiatus?

[RandomGuy]

This is what I love about this account. Are you so stupid that you cannot see how ocean as heat sink explains what you like to term the hiatus?

Seems fairly obvious to me.

Now that ocean is belching up that stored heat as an intense el nino, hence the "pop" in temperatures noted in the "alarmist" article.

[RandomGuy]

Reading through one of the better "skeptic" blogs and found this gem:
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/figure-5-giss-1-month-change.png?w=720


RECORD SURGE”

The headline of the Reuters article reads Record surge in 2016 temperatures adds urgency to climate deal, say scientists. The phrase “record surge” suggests a never-before-seen upward change in global surface temperatures. But there’s nothing unusual about the January to February 2016 change in monthly global surface temperatures represented by the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index. See Figure 5 [above-RG].


Let's see what this looks like mathmatically, using standard Cartesian plotting:

Before "subtracting"
X=1, y=1
X=2, y=2
X=3, y=3
X=4, y=4

After "subtracting"
X=1, y=1
X=2, y=1
X=3, y=1
X=4, y=1

If you take an upwards sloping line, and subtract the previous Y value, of course it is going to be flat.
“Look at this, once you take out the slope, nothing to see here!” :wow

What amazes me is that this gentleman does this, and seems to think it rebuts what the scientists involved said about the current spike being huge relative to the past. What I see is someone who doesn’t understand math/graphs.

I kinda get what he is saying, but this is just not really a very useful way of looking at the data, and ends up muddying things rather than actually being a valid rebuttal.

[DarrinS]

RG,

That person was plotting monthly change in temperature. How else are you supposed to plot that?

[Blake]

"A team of European researchers have unveiled a scientific model showing that the Earth is likely to experience a “mini ice age” from 2030 to 2040 as a result of decreased solar activity.

Their findings will infuriate environmental campaigners who argue by 2030 we could be facing increased sea levels and flooding due to glacial melt at the poles........."

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/616937/GLOBAL-COOLING-Decade-long-ice-age-predicted-as-sun-hibernates

[Blake]

"The earth is cooling.....no it's warming"

http://m.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature2.php

[Winehole23]

Carbon release rates from anthropogenic sources reached a record high of ~10 Pg C yr−1 in 2014. Geologic analogues from past transient climate changes could provide invaluable constraints on the response of the climate system to such perturbations, but only if the associated carbon release rates can be reliably reconstructed. The Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) is known at present to have the highest carbon release rates of the past 66 million years, but robust estimates of the initial rate and onset duration are hindered by uncertainties in age models. Here we introduce a new method to extract rates of change from a sedimentary record based on the relative timing of climate and carbon cycle changes, without the need for an age model. We apply this method to stable carbon and oxygen isotope records from the New Jersey shelf using time-series analysis and carbon cycle–climate modelling. We calculate that the initial carbon release during the onset of the PETM occurred over at least 4,000 years. This constrains the maximum sustained PETM carbon release rate to less than 1.1 Pg C yr−1. We conclude that, given currently available records, the present anthropogenic carbon release rate is unprecedented during the past 66 million years. We suggest that such a ‘no-analogue’ state represents a fundamental challenge in constraining future climate projections. Also, future ecosystem disruptions are likely to exceed the relatively limited extinctions observed at the PETM.http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2681.html

[boutons_deux]

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2681.html

iow, planet is fucked and unfuckable. US environmental policies paid for, owned by BigCarbon.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2681.html

We are mucking about with a complex system that we don't fully understand.

Thinking that you can indefinitely do that without increasingly unpredictable or undesirable effects is ignoring some substantial risks. I prefer not to be that liberal with risk-taking.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2681.html

Trying to correlate extinction to CO2 release rates?

Wow...

I wonder who funded that study...

Other than mentioning extinction, this article doesn't say anything we don't know already. In fact, the article is wrong an in that other studies have shown ocean pH is cyclical, and this is not the fastest drop in pH.



Possible known consequences of the rapid man-made carbon emissions have been extensively discussed elsewhere. Regarding impacts on ecosystems, the present/future rate of climate change and ocean acidification is too fast for many species to adapt, which is likely to result in widespread future extinctions in marine and terrestrial environments that will substantially exceed those at the PETM (ref. 13).


From other research showing rates and cyclical activity of ocean pH:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/CoralreefpH_zps1cb6434e.png

Unlike you WH, I have a subscription to Nature Geoscience, and can read the whole article. I don't know what blogger told you to post that, but it is pretty irrelevant in my view. It's a good journal if you have $59 annual to invest. If you seriously are interested in the truth of the climate sciences, you should put your money where your mouth is.

There are also papers saying our emission rates are now flat. the 10 Pg rate is not expected to increase, but lower.

[Wild Cobra]

We are mucking about with a complex system that we don't fully understand.

Thinking that you can indefinitely do that without increasingly unpredictable or undesirable effects is ignoring some substantial risks. I prefer not to be that liberal with risk-taking.
If you say so.

You really should read more than just the abstract...

Besides, it was funded with a federal grant and EU grant. Such things often are agenda related, as politics hold the pursestrings.

NSF grant OCE12-20602

ERC-2013-CoG-617313

[Winehole23]

politics hold the pursestrings for a lot of R&D. we might not be chatting online but for political spending on science.

lot of other good shit too.

what do you have against public spending for the public good, WC?

[Winehole23]

government ought not to study and invest, but leave it all to to the profit motive?

[Winehole23]

how can we trust the worst of men, with the worst of motives, to perform the public good behind their very own backs?

isn't that why the founders established a form of government where they in principle have to fight for privilege against contending interests instead of coasting on the advantages of inheritance?

[Wild Cobra]

what do you have against public spending for the public good, WC?

Plenty.

What spending is good and bad is matter of opinion. Now if skeptics could get the same level of grants that alarmists do, it would be fair. However, only those proposing ideas that support the bureaucracies ideals get funding.

[Winehole23]

like the DOD and the NSA?

[Winehole23]

what does government exist for, in your opinion?

[Winehole23]

is it good that our ancestors gave us a form of government or not?

why or why not?

[Winehole23]

what is it fucking for, WC?

[Wild Cobra]

how can we trust the worst of men, with the worst of motives, to perform the public good behind their very own backs?

isn't that why the founders established a form of government where they in principle have to fight for privilege against contending interests instead of coasting on the advantages of inheritance?

Did the founders fight to allow government to pick winners and losers?

[Wild Cobra]

what does government exist for, in your opinion?
Read the Preamble to the Constitution.

[Winehole23]

does it have legitimate functions apart from protecting us from hostile, swarthy foreigners and unruly citizens?

[Winehole23]

Read the Preamble to the Constitution.Know it by heart. It isn't legally binding.

The Preamble, though normatively persuasive, isn't a point of law.

[Winehole23]

Did the founders fight to allow government to pick winners and losers?They absolutely did. They forbid the abolition of slavery until 1808, or something like that.

[Winehole23]

the government picks who gets the public goodies. that's been a constant.

it isn't a novelty.

[Winehole23]

it's in the nature of power to distribute goodies.

One of Julius Caesar's methods was to lay a heavy bribe in gold to duly enrolled citizens and even a few wannabees before the election.

Only the manner has changed. Our politicians promise to pay us afterwards.

[Winehole23]

you still haven't said what you think government is for, WC.

waving your hands at the Preamble to the US Constitution doesn't quite put your own point across.