Slashdot Mirror
Prepare For Even More Volatile Weather in 2017 (engadget.com)
An anonymous shares a report on Engadget: Ice isn't just great for keeping your drinks cool at parties, it also helps keep our planet cool by reflecting some of the sun's heat away. But thanks to our steadfast refusal to address climate change, there's going to be a lot less ice in the Arctic next year. Scientists are observing record high temperatures in the Arctic circle that's likely to lead to record low levels of ice coverage in 2017. Long story short, we're currently melting the wall that's helped stop the seas boiling for all of these years. Normally, by November, the global temperature has dropped sufficiently that ice can form again in the Arctic ready for the following summer. This year, however, climate scientists saw a spike to -7 celsius (19f) -- 15 degrees celsius (27f) warmer than usual. While the readings have fluctuated since November 11, they're expected to rocket up again in the next few days.
"Long story short, we're currently melting the wall that's helped stop the seas boiling for all of these years."
Yes, that bullshit is what passes for "science" on Slashdot these days and if you dare to point out that bullshit is bullshit you can be blacklisted as an "anti-science" nazi for failing to show proper piety to the religion of Global Warming -- oops I mean "Climate Change".
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Trump won - get over it. He's going to give us the best weather ever.
Just keep partying like it's 1859. It'll be the best reality ever.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Okay, I'm all for addressing climate change. I'd like to keep ice on the poles, suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, and generally try to keep earth's climate, weather, and life-supporting capacity stable.
But this tone seems a bit... hyperbolic? Yeah, we're WAY BEHIND where we need to be, and there is a TON of resistance due to complacency and ignorance. But this sort of doom-saying doesn't help, especially if the prophesied end doesn't come before the prophecy itself is forgotten. In the modern world? That takes about 11 seconds.
Haven't been any hurricanes in 10 years? I'm guessing you live in Iowa; hence you didn't see any hurricanes. You are aware that the strongest hurricanes ever observed in the Pacific have been forming regularly? Just because the US hasn't seen a catastrophe doesn't mean "there haven't been any hurricanes for 10 years." This has nothing to do with "politically correct shit." It has to do with science. Don't take my word for it... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
The title of the fucking post is about weather, the content of the post is about weather, so what are you even on about.
Anyone with a cursory understanding of climate over the geologic ages knows that ice at both poles is rare:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth
Humans as a species do not have any serious ability to harm the planet. We can easily make it completely unsuitable for human life, however.
Really ? Kindly explain why it gets cooler on a cloudless night. Heat RADIATES, after all. . .
"haven't been any hurricanes for 10 years"
Funniest shit I've read all week. Couldn't even bother to go to www.google.com to verify that one before you dumped it out there on the internet?
Raised sea levels? Sure... Extinction-level scenario? Possibly... Unliveable in certain parts of the world due to heat? Maybe. But boiling away the oceans of the world is not going to happen anytime before the sun starts to run out of its fuel.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
No hurricane? The 10 trees down in my yard (2 of those on my house) after hurricane Matthew seem to suggest otherwise. My town lost around 120000 trees during this non-event, dumbass.
The climate in the arctic has been getting progressively warmer because of rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. The unusual polar conditions this autumn and winter are weather. Next summer will have unusually low levels of ice. But very low levels of ice in the polar summer are becoming the new normal. That's climate.
I'm not worried anymore. Trump said he'll be tough on volatile weather. I know it will be the most serene weather we've ever had.
And if it doesn't cooperate, he'll build the biggest wall you've ever seen on the east border of California. That will kill two birds with one stone. (Not that trump has only one stone...He definitely has two and they're the biggest and best stones you've ever seen).
Are you positive that those trees fell down due to "wind"? Correlation does not equal causation you know. Maybe those trees were just tired. Or, maybe they got drunk and passed out. Quit blaming everything on this "wind" hocus-pocus.
Consider the concept that the planet could trap more heat than it radiates away. More heat is trapped as greenhouse gas concentrations increase in the atmosphere. The unprecedented sharp increase in these gasses is due to human activity. There are actual measurements of both the greenhouse gas concentrations, and the increase in average global temperature.
I would also point out that a thermos DOES radiate away heat. In fact it is the only way a thermos loses (or gains) heat to equalize temperature of its contents to that of its environment. The low pressure between the inner and outer walls of the thermos means very low loss due to convection. Heat must radiate from one thermos wall to the other. Some can conduct through the neck, but good designs try to minimize this.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Yes, because the two are completely separate...
The fear-mongering that we're going to successfully wipe ourselves out by not immediately embracing solar or wind energy, or electric cars, or whatever the faux solution-du-jour is ..... That's as much B.S. as this sensationalist garbage that our oceans will begin boiling if the polar ice melts.
If we succeed in destroying ourselves as a species on Earth, it will probably be with a nuclear war. But even that is a situation that essentially peaked in the 1980's, and nations have taken steps to back-pedal from it since then.
and we keep adding heat
Not really. That's not how greenhouse gasses work. They trap incoming heat by preventing it from re-radiating. The net heat input from fossil fuel use over the entire planet is down in the noise level compared to incoming solar energy.
This is why the no-science public needs to chill out, STFU and quit getting whipped into a frenzy by people trying to leverage AGW for political gains. We understand the basic principles, but are still far away from useful predictive models that could be used to evaluate the impact of changes in energy policies.
Have gnu, will travel.
Hurricane Sandy happened in October 2012 ... $75 billion in damages and at least 233 people dead along the storm's path.
Yes, I'm afraid I have to agree on this. It's a nice quip, but the oceans are not going to boil.
Look, global warming guys, global warming is real, the science is well established, but scaremongering hyperbole is not helping you . I know you think it's funny, and you know that nobody really believes that there is a possibility that the oceans are going to boil, but you are just giving ammunition to the deniers.
Stop it. Stick to facts-- the kind that are real.
Stupid ass hyperbole (seas boiling) is not helping.
Increases in CO2 are real, impacts to global temperature due to CO2 are real, impacts to life (human or otherwise, positive and negative) due to rising temperatures and ocean levels are real.
Hollywood-esque hyperbole just confuses the issue and makes it trivial to lump all information into the same cesspool of misinformation.
I think it was a tropical storm when it made landfall. A HUGE tropical storm, but not a hurricane.
Or maybe they were depressed and gave up on life. Trees need a hug now and then. :D
the claims after Katrina hit 11 years ago that THE GULF COAST would see hurricane after hurricane, claiming there would be 3, 4, maybe over half a dozen per year
I just did a Google News search constrained from 8/20/2005 to 9/30/2005 and I couldn't find an article saying that. Can you please link to some?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Ah, it's just you.
You have a RIGHT to low electricity prices, damn the consequences.
You have RIGHT to an unobstructed view.
You MUST be a special snowflake. Except we don't have snowflakes anymore....
And don't conflate climate change with your incompetent government. You can have both quite handily.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Probably because there are a lot of WE and who are doing OUR part to reduce emissions. No, most of us aren't going to shun man made energy/waste all together, which is apparently what it takes to be labeled as someone who will address climate change.
Anti-science? It's an Engadget blog post. Engadget is peer-reviewed as fuck. I think the blogger who posted it has 9 PhDs.
I think you're trying to be sarcastic, but you are apparently unaware that sarcasm is hard to distinguish on the internet, and becomes completely invisible against the background on slashdot comments.
No.
"Sandy developed from a tropical wave in the western Caribbean Sea on October 22, quickly strengthened, and was upgraded to Tropical Storm Sandy six hours later. Sandy moved slowly northward toward the Greater Antilles and gradually intensified. On October 24, Sandy became a hurricane, made landfall near Kingston, Jamaica, re-emerged a few hours later into the Caribbean Sea and strengthened into a Category 2 hurricane. On October 25, Sandy hit Cuba as a Category 3 hurricane, then weakened to a Category 1 hurricane. Early on October 26, Sandy moved through the Bahamas.[7] On October 27, Sandy briefly weakened to a tropical storm and then restrengthened to a Category 1 hurricane. Early on October 29, Sandy curved west-northwest (the "left turn" or "left hook") and then[8] moved ashore near Brigantine, New Jersey, just to the northeast of Atlantic City, as a post-tropical cyclone with hurricane-force winds.[1][9]"
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
On the bright side, no more pesky ice to get in the way of oil rigs. Plus, as an added bonus, once the methane trapped in the frozen Siberia tundra is released, Arctic oil crews can then work outside in shirt sleeves and shorts, even in the winter.
Because when they say "steadfast refusal to climate change" they are either looking past all the progressive attempts by individuals, companies and governments to shift more to renewables. No, it's not going to happen over night. And no it isn't a good idea to create tax penalties (carbon tax credits are SJW bullshit) to try to pretend to force companies to improve their green status.
and we keep adding heat
Not really. That's not how greenhouse gasses work. They trap incoming heat by preventing it from re-radiating.
...which is exactly how a Thermos keeps things warm (with the exception that a thermos works by reflection, while the greenhouse effect works by absorption and reradiation). The metaphor "we live in a thermos" has some accuracy to it.
The net heat input from fossil fuel use over the entire planet is down in the noise level compared to incoming solar energy.
Greenhouse warming isn't due to heat produced directly from fossil fuels, it's due to the greenhouse effect produced from the carbon dioxide. You're right that the natural greenhouse effect is larger than the component due to human-produced greenhouse gases-- about twenty times larger; without the greenhouse effect, Earth is 255 K. Whether that means the human contribution "in the noise" depends on what you mean by "in the noise." It turns out we've adapted to the planet the way it currently is, with ocean levels the way they currently are, and ice caps present at both poles. A few degrees of greenhouse warming might be "in the noise", you say, compared to the 33 degrees of natural warming, but it still can have large effect on us.
This is why the no-science public needs to chill out, STFU and quit getting whipped into a frenzy by people trying to leverage AGW for political gains. We understand the basic principles, but are still far away from useful predictive models that could be used to evaluate the impact of changes in energy policies.
Right now, I'm more worried about the people trying to attack science for political gains. The science of the greenhouse effect is well understood.
Hurricane Sandy was barely a CAT 1, and "major" hurricanes are CAT 3 and above. So the OP could have been correct if he had said "no major hurricanes in the last 10 years," which would address the scaremongerers post-Katrina/Wilma who, with no evidence to back them, claimed that we would be experiencing dozens of major hurricanes by now.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
But boiling away the oceans of the world is not going to happen anytime before the sun starts to run out of its fuel.
That's not the current best guess. It's expected to happen in about a billion years, where as the sun isn't expected to enter the red giant phase for 5 billion years, and not expected to run out of fuel for 8.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
She was in essence a project manager, and was fired for not following the agenda and the pre-approved points. I have worked in several corporate environments where people have been fired for saying things that are not approved, because they have not necessarily been vetted and can cause damage to a company's reputation and financial status. Why would government be any different?
so "retaliation" sounds to me to be meant as a dog-whistle headline term meant to stir up people emotionally. There is probably a lot more nuance than makes it into the FreeBeacon articles, based on the other articles I see on their site.
"Ice isn't just great for keeping your drinks cool at parties..."
Was this written for 3rd-graders?
Thanks for the credible scientific lead in. I mean, I had NO IDEA that ice was good for anything beyond keeping my drinks cold at parties. And now it turns out it's got something or other to do with the planet? Well I'll be damned. Can't we just go to the mini-mart and buy a few more bags?
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Sandy got to Category 3.
You also neglect the Pacific, which has had some significant typhoons recently.
In 2011 there was a typhoon which knocked out a significant amount of hard drive manufacturing capacity. The Phillipines got hit by two typhoons in a week in 2016.
You can keep splitting hairs, but OP's (who is also AC) assertion is demonstratably false, just as the claims of alarmists are. Too bad people can't seem to have rational discussions any longer, or more recently, will just make stuff up and keep repeating it until people believe it.
Irrespective of the category of the storm, the financial impact of the storm places it pretty high on the "economic impact" chart.
Do you mean like how it just snowed in the Sahara Desert for the first time in 37 years?
One sentence in your linked article, which was as sensationalist as TFA: "Ain Sefra is 1,078 meters above sea level and is surrounded by the Atlas Mountains. "
It snowed in the mountains during winter. Who'da thunk it?
Have you ever seen the sun? It is far enough away to essentially be considered a point light source. There is no significant difference in the amount of insolation between the hemispheres, except for the fact that the earth is closer during the southern hemisphere's summer, causing the summers there to be sunnier and the winters darker than in the northern hemisphere. Overall, southern hemisphere insolation is higher.
Anybody like to share my popcorn?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
LOL, dude, great joke!
Because,and correct me if I'm wrong, there's a significant lack of sunlight during the night.
OP did say "Kindly explain why it gets cooler on a cloudless night.". To which the answer is clouds keep the heat in, not that they reflect sunlight back.
Oh, and look at the albedos of Earth(0.3) and Venus(0.75). The difference in temperatures is FUCK ALL to do with red clouds (which indicates NOT IR) but with the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus. Hell, the Moon is darker (0.12) than us, but has a lower temperature because it has no greenhouse effect, despite absorbing more IR (as most solids do).
Really ? Kindly explain why it gets cooler on a cloudless night. Heat RADIATES, after all. . .
In general, overnight low temperatures are rising faster than the overall global average temperature.
Why? Because adding CO2 blocks more of that RADIATING heat from escaping to space.
(Of course, the science isn't "settled" on that yet. The laws of thermodynamics are just a theory, after all.)
Emails unearthed during the investigation “show a sequence of events leading to a premeditated scheme by senior DoE employees ‘to squash the prospects of Senate support'” for the radiation act, a move that lawmakers claim was meant to help advance President Obama’s own climate change goals.
Because of this climate change hysteria my electricity bill more than doubled in just a few years (despite more than thousand dollars upgrades into the "green" appliances etc.) and my heating bills will go up at least 30% on January 1st.
Do you understand the difference between correlation and causation? It seems likely the answer is no.
Because your claim of climate change driving up your electricity prices would be valid only if:
You also said nothing about how your energy consumption (in KW/Hours most often) compares to "a few years" ago. Sure, you bought "green" appliances but how much are you using for other things? Is your computer running all the time? What about your cable or satellite box? How many battery operated gizmos are you charging all the time? The list goes on and on. Just because your refrigerator uses 30% less power doesn't mean you cut 30% off your consumption.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
"Boiling seas" is needless hyperbole. The truth is startling enough. This is one year and it's not clear that this dramatic excursion from the trend isn't just an anomaly. Anyone interested in polar ice should follow Neven's Arctic Sea Ice Blog
It's only 35F degrees higher than normal in some parts of the Artic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12...
Seriously, Engadget for science news?
BlameBillCosby.com
thanks for contributing to make earth not human life viable in few years...
These days, a degree just means "I agree with the politics of the doctrinal committee"
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
you must be new here (in the collective think of world, not on /.)
I actually wrote COBOL programs on punch cards in high school. The deck of cards, in the right order, would get a rubber band and go in a bin for overnight processing. The print-out of the run came back the next school day. Fortran was a bit easier, as we got to use teletype terminals with built-in acoustic coupplers.
Later, working for Rockwell, I wrote some X-Windows software for pulling punched cards with attached microfiche.
No we are not far away from useful predictive models. Every model produced in the last quarter century has shown warming. Yes the precise timelines are hard, and one big flaw was that until recently we didn't fully understand the oceans' ability to absorb heat, but that's how science works.
There is absolutely no doubt that we are warming the planet and that if we cannot restrain CO2 emissions and start bringing them down very soon, we will cross the red line where the worst case scenarios begin playing out.
You've just bought into a sort of epistemological nihilism, whereby because we do not have perfect knowledge, we therefore have no useful knowledge and can make no useful prediction, and that is just plain false.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
So you'd rather just offload the costs on to the next generation? Because in fifty years, the costs you pay now will be nothing compared to what local and larger scale economies will have to pay out.
And really, the bigger problem in Ontario is absurd electricity contracts, not green energy. That's just Postmedia's talking point, because it has whored its newspaper chain out to be the voice of the fossil fuel industry.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If we succeed in destroying ourselves as a species on Earth, it will probably be with a nuclear war. But even that is a situation that essentially peaked in the 1980's, and nations have taken steps to back-pedal from it since then.
Well, climate change and nuclear war are not necessarily independent. With Himalaya glaciers shrinking, water supply for India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and even China will become a lot less stable. There are 3 billion people in these countries, and 3 of the 4 states already have nuclear weapons. If they start to seriously compete for limited water resources, things may easily become very ugly. There is a reason why China is in Tibet, and why India and Pakistan are fighting a slow war over what currently is an extremely inhospitable ice desert.
And what do you think will happen to the stability of the region if a few tens of millions of (mostly Muslim) Bangladeshis will be forced to flee into India because sea level rise is going to flood significant parts of the Bengal delta, one of the most fertile and most densely populated areas of the planet?
Stephan
How is this related to weather or climate?
The current anthropogenic climate change doctrine is that the single greatest contributor to global temperature is the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and suggesting that the the level of irradiation the Earth gets from the Sun is a larger component of planetary temperature than any atmospheric condition is heresy of the blackest stripe, which must be cut out root and branch, because Obama has repeatedly declared that he doesn't want anyone not fully onboard with the pravda of CO2-driven AGC in his administration.
“2006: Expect Another Big Hurricane Year Says NOAA”—headline, MongaBay .com, May 22, 2006 .com, Aug. 7, 2008 .com, June 19, 2015
“NOAA Predicts Above Normal 2007 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration press release, May 23, 2007
“NOAA Increases Expectancy for Above-Normal 2008 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, gCaptain
“Forecasters: 2009 to Bring ‘Above Average’ Hurricane Season”—headline, CNN, Dec. 10, 2008
“NOAA: 2010 Hurricane Season May Set Records”—headline, Herald-Tribune (Sarasota, Fla.), May 28, 2010
“NOAA Predicts Increased Storm Activity in 2011 Hurricane Season”—headline, BDO Consulting press release, Aug. 18, 2011
“2012 Hurricane Forecast Update: More Storms Expected”—headline, LiveScience, Aug. 9, 2012
“NOAA Predicts Active 2013 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, NOAApress release, May 23, 2013
“A Space-Based View of 2015’s ‘Hyperactive’ Hurricane Season”—headline, CityLab
“The 2016 Atlantic Hurricane Season Might Be the Strongest in Years”—headline, CBSNews, Aug. 11, 2016
“NOAA: U.S. Completes Record 11 Straight Years Without Major Hurricane Strike”—headline, CNSNews, Oct. 24, 2016
Thanks James Taranto's WSJ "Best of the Web" column...
Yeah, sure the original may not just be about US hurricanes, but the point is still the same.
To mix parables, crying wolf about the sky falling is a quick way to get people to ignore actual serious issues.
will just make stuff up and keep repeating it until people believe it.
Also a great campaign strategy.
Have you ever seen tundra? Know anything about it? No? Thought not.
Tundra is a type of biome where the ground is substantially underlain by permafrost. In the Arctic, we build homes on pilings because otherwise the ground will melt. Water being more dense than ice, melting means subsidence -- you get a lake or a bog, not farmland. This is one reason why Alaska has some 3 million lakes. The soil layer overall tends to be thin, and being that it is permanently frozen most of the time, it's not actually what you would consider "farming soil", which is a complex ecology of its own that takes many years to develop. But if we can ignore reality enough to solve both of those problems, you're still going to be left with a short growing season and somewhat less intense daylight, so it's unlikely to compare favorably with other farming regions.
You cannot farm tundra. Melting tundra does not produce farmland. It would be easier to farm the Sahara than the Northwest Territories.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Also a great campaign strategy.
BIGLY
Damn. Total ownage. Congrats. You shut him up.
"But thanks to our steadfast refusal to address climate change"
No, they are mixing climate and weather together. Intentionally. So what is THAT about?
Awww poor Space Nutter doesn't like me!
The Earth will keep right on zooming around the sun, new life forms will evolve and populate the planet. Or not. Pretty much the same as it has been for the last 2B years.
Sure, it's bad for humans and other flora and fauna that are contemporaneous with humans. The world kept on going after the Great Oxygenation Event caused the first mass extinction 2.3 billion years ago. It kept on going through 20 or so mass extinction events [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event]. It'll go on after humans.
I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.
Obama's first inauguration speech...messiah much?
oh god not this bs again.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
the same misinformation, time after time.
one can only conclude that you are paid to repeat it.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Is this a new electric instrument shaped like a rodent?
love is just extroverted narcissism
Yup, it disagrees with your already settled worldview, therefore it's wrong. I mean, it's not like you could run any sort of experiment to find out if CO2 and H2O cause warming -- where would you even obtain such things? To be safe I think you should also disbelieve in the greenhouse effect entirely. The planet is at 252K and anything suggesting otherwise is a liberal myth.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
I'm not trying to prove anything -- I certainly have no knowledge about this other than what is in the congressional report. So, this has nothing to do with a "crazy-ass website" - that quote comes straight from the report.
Yeah what a damp squib he turned out to be too.
>search constrained from 8/20/2005 to 9/30/2005
What a disingenuous fuck you are, Bill. Who told you to constrain your search to that one month period?
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/global-warming-is-causing-more-hurricanes-8212584.html
http://sciencenordic.com/geophysicist-katrina-hurricane-will-strike-every-two-years
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/18/study-katrina-like-hurricanes-to-occur-more-frequently-due-to-warming
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-projects-more-frequent-and-stronger-hurricanes-worldwide-16204
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/business/alatheia-nielsen/2015/08/26/katrina-anniversary-medias-10-most-outlandish-hurricane
1. NBC Says To ‘Expect Such Storms More Often’ Thanks To Global Warming
2. CBS: Frequency of Sandy and Katrina-like Storms Will ‘Double’ By 2030
3. ABC Claims Scientists Might Need to Invent Category 6 for Hurricane Scale
4. Katrina Is The Beginning of What May Be ‘A Long Stretch of Wild and Devastating Weather’
5. CBS Consults Liberal Environmentalist Who Claims ‘Katrina Was First Urban Extinction’ and ‘Just the Beginning’ of Extreme Weather
6. CBS’s Hannah Storm Claims Katrina-like Storms Will Happen ‘All Along Our Atlantic and Gulf Coastlines.’
7. ‘No End In Sight’ For Big Hurricanes, CBS Says
8. NBC Blames Global Warming for Stronger Hurricanes, Says It’s ‘A Trend That’s Likely To Continue’
9. CBS: Sunday Morning Warns There Will be Twice as Many ‘Monsters
10. Time Editor on CBS: ‘Katrina-type Events Are Turning Out To Be Twice As Likely’ During Warming Years
Of course, you came across these links when searching and knew that in order for you to prove the OP wrong, you'd have to selectively choose a narrow period of time to search for these articles. The prevarication only proves that you're an asshole who is intellectually dishonest, and also justifies skepticism of the climate change ideology promoted by your ilk is more than warranted.
These articles don't say what you're suggesting. I didn't see anything in them predicting that more hurricanes would be hitting the US specifically. They predicted stronger hurricanes (which has been happening) and more hurricanes (which has been happening), but I didn't see anywhere saying "more of this will happen in the US". Generally they just say, correctly, that warmer weather produces more storms.
Go ahead and point to whatever evidence that you can that shows that CO2 doesn't absorb heat. I'm sure the work of Tyndall needs some revision, or perhaps you've found another way to move heat off the planet? Because as far as I can tell, you only need a two-dimensional model to be able to determine whether a higher concentration of CO2 should show warming. And I am sure you have some good explanation for the rise in temperatures and correlated rise of CO2 concentrations as well. Then you'll have to explain why our radiative transfer models work for extraterrestrial atmospheres like Venus and the Sun when, as you seem to be saying, they are entirely wrong. Is the entire greenhouse effect a myth, or just the inconvenient bits? We await the results of your paper.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
In the end, no matter what or who is at fault for " climate change ", Mother Nature will eventually step in and show everyone who's really in charge.
All it takes is one very large volcano, not unlike Campi Flegrei near Naples, to wake up and do its thing. The ash output from something like that will effectively put the brakes on any Global Warming and likely plunge the entire planet into a rather chilly place to live for a while.
I like to think that the Earth has mechanisms built in to ensure that we, the peons who live upon it, can't do any real lasting damage in the grand scheme of things.
It'll just push the reset button, wipe everything out, and start anew. Earth 2.0 or 3.0, or whatever cycle we're on now.
Story 1
This article says nothing about the Gulf coast being hit by 3, 4, maybe over half a dozen hurricanes per year. Just that as there is a observable and measurable correlation between oceans warming and hurricanes growing more frequent and severe.
Story 2
This article mostly talks about the fact that hurricanes may become more intense and that a category 6 will eventually have to be created if that happens because hurricanes with windspeed ranging from 257.5 kph to 407 kph are being lumped together into category 5. It goes on to speculate that dumping the category system might be a better idea than creating a category 6. Towards the end it even says: This oscillation means the Atlantic is expected to cool in the future, obscuring links among hurricane activity and global warming. Perhaps counterintuitively, recent computer modeling studies predict fewer tropical cyclones if the ocean heats up further as a result of global warming. But they also predict intensification of the ones that do form, albeit with limited confidence. Frequency drops by 6 to 34 percent this century, according to 2010 review article in Nature Geoscience, whereas intensity rises 2 to 11 percent. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.) , i.e. fewer hurricanes but the ones we'll get will be more severe. Nothing about the Gulf coast being hit by 3, 4, maybe over half a dozen hurricanes per year.
Story 3
The independent isn't really a scientific source but all this piece says is that somebody found evidence that warmer oceans seem to be linked to an increase in hurricane frequency and that in a warm year hurricanes are twice as likely as in a cold year. The real news here is that somebody found a way to extract data about hurricanes from old measurements made before the satellite age. They say nothing about the Gulf coast being hit by 3, 4, maybe over half a dozen hurricanes per year.
Story 4
Still nothing about the Gulf coast being hit by 3, 4, maybe over half a dozen hurricanes per year. It does talk about more hurricanes but the frequency is nothing like you claim: ”If this trend continues, it is realistic to expect a ten-fold increase in hurricanes like Katrina. That amounts to once every two years,”
Story 5
And yet again nothing about the Gulf coast being hit by 3, 4, maybe over half a dozen hurricanes per year. This guy talks about improvements in computer modelling since 2005 and seems to be making the case that global hurricane frequency will not increase but that the severity of the hurricanes we do get will increase. I.e. about the same number of hurricanes but they'll be more destructive.
Yea, you did a search.
Found all these in less than 1 minute, and everyone voted you up because they want you to be right, but obviously you are not. I like the one claiming Category 6 hurricanes will be hitting any day now.
Bonus speech by Al Gore saying the same thing.
Read that long winded piece and it is mostly a regurgitation of d
Look, a lot of "new" slashdot people probably failed high school, so just say it so they can understand it.
You keep putting gasoline on the fire, it's going to explode.
This means bigger storms, bigger waves, bigger hurricanes, crops dying, and the fair being destroyed by high winds ain't nobody done seen for nigh onto a hunnert years.
Also, the cows and chickens gonna die and the bears gonna et them cause you done destroyed their food too.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Actually, I've been a software engineer for 20 years, and I see people with "more education" as being just academic sycophants. The only accomplishment in graduate degrees is how much of a slave and a yes-man you can be to the degree mills.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Here is a list of 107 failed predictions made by alarmists:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
But for some people, 107 failed predictions isn't enough to destroy the credibility of the alarmists. One wonders how many failed predictions it will take until the holdouts think "hmm, perhaps the whole thing is not credible."
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Linking to Wikipedia articles about two particular hurricanes says nothing about the relationship between CO2 levels and hurricanes.
Al Gore (with no background in science) made alarmist assertions that the frequency and intensity of cyclones was in the process of skyrocketing. Dr. R.N. Maue analyzed actual data and found just the opposite:
Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity
Abstract
Tropical cyclone accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) has exhibited strikingly large global interannual variability during the past 40-years. In the pentad since 2006, Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Additionally, the global frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low. Here evidence is presented demonstrating that considerable variability in tropical cyclone ACE is associated with the evolution of the character of observed large-scale climate mechanisms including the El Nino Southern Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. In contrast to record quiet North Pacific tropical cyclone activity in 2010, the North Atlantic basin remained very active by contributing almost one-third of the overall calendar year global ACE.
- R.N. Maue, Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies, Florida State University
And there are plenty of studies that show increasing global temperature causes reduced storm activity. One such study published in Quaternary Science Reviews is summarized here.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Still not buying. The Pan Evaporation Rate Data from NOAA contradicts the narrative so soundly that I won't buy it at all. Sure, the Earth is warming, but if you want me to believe your argument of Cause, then you have to resolve the contradiction. I know, Pan Evaporation Rate, who cares about Water Absorbing heat and evaporating fueling the Water Cycle? It's just used to make sure we have enough water in our reservoirs. There isn't anything it can tell us about Global Warming because if we accept that data, then we know that between 1950 to 2005 there was little to no measurable global warming. I wonder why? Why is it that solar cycle 24 seems to be embedded into the Pan Evaporation Rate, but not the periods prior? That's a bit Odd, doncha think? It's quite queer to have a solar event embedded into a weather measurement so clearly, but not in the previous measurements. Did something change between 2005 and 2011 to explain the change? I don't know because merely bringing up the data gets me labeled some very despicable things just for a wee little bit of dissent. I guess it's just Socially Unacceptable Data; Science has been there before.
Climate is not the same as weather.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
For most of Earth's history, the planet had no polar icecaps whatsoever.
The only reason we currently have icecaps is, we are still emerging from the most recent ice age. (There's a reason the Quaternary glaciation is referred to as "the current ice age.")
Also note that every species alive today, including polar bears, has survived the comings and goings of multiple ice ages.
Also note that just a few tens of millions of years ago, natural CO2 levels were "thousands of parts per million" (cf. the current level of 405 ppm). At that time, Antarctica was covered with lush beech forests. As you know, today Antarctica is a barren wasteland, so the subsequent CO2 decrease was NOT good for life.
Also note that there is no scenario of fossil fuel usage that could ever get us back to thousands of parts per million.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
There is. His first name is Zucker.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
What argument? I just provided data. The greenhouse theory is basic physics understood even back in the 1800s: http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrh....
That the world is warming is confirmed by direct measurement, and satellite measurement. We can directly observer the impacts of that warming on the cryosphere, and sea level. We don't need to use pan evaporation rate as a proxy for global temperatures when we have direct measurements. This is especially true since PER makes a very poor thermometer - it's affected by a number of factors other than temperature including humidity, rain fall, drought dispersion, solar radiation, and wind. A change in any of these other factors would render it useless as a thermometer.
https://xkcd.com/1321/
I didn't say when the sun has depleted its fuel, I said when it STARTS to run out. While the sun is technically running out of fuel all the time, the only real significance this has for earth and its habitability is how that depletion affects the habitable zone around the sun. In about a billion years, as you said, the sun will be burning hotter enough than it is now that Earth will no longer be in the habitable zone and the oceans will indeed start to boil away.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
that is a situation that essentially peaked in the 1980's...don't fret, Trump is going to fix that for you!
“The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.”
I'm not saying that we shouldn't do some "upgrades", retire some old tech via introducing some new...and we really will need to upgrade our delivery and defensive systems to counter-act the newer systems that Putin is pledging to develop. Perhaps Trump will take another page from Reagan and actually develop and deploy a working "star wars" defense system. If so, I'm hoping Trump also makes the system "reversible", as in able to defend outwards as well as downwards.
The laws of thermodynamics are just a theory, after all. I know your being sarcastic, but the recent EMDrive findings might show your closer to being correct in some ways than you think LOL
Climate effects weather patterns?
I thought that was obvious by now.
From the report:
Emails produced to the Committee by the DOE showa sequence of events leading to a premeditated scheme by senior DOE employees “to squash the prospects of Senate support” for H.R. 5544 and the LDRRP.
plus
D. DOE management worked to kill the LDRRP because it did not further the Administration’s goals to advance climate research.
Thats A LOT of spin to try and convince me that all my stories don't have claims of tons of more hurricanes of records levels that didn't happen.
Too bad all of the stories I linked were outrageous claims about increased hurricane activity, which looking back 11 years, appears to not have happened. Its awfully odd how "settled science" is 100% incorrect, and yet you are STILL CLAIMING ITS TRUE.
You must feel like shit that you have to spin like you did for any hope of people believing you. I suggest you look again at the conversation and see if you really convinced ANYONE that AGW supporters didn't FUCKING LIE with their claims. Because you didn't. Its pretty clear they lied, and you denied that they did.
You are a truth-denier.
No, while I agree that some of the stories predict increases in hurricane frequency I sharply disagree whit your outlandish claims you made about their content. A couple of those stories mentioned an increase in hurricane frequency but not the huge increases you claimed. At least one story even talked about a cooling Atlantic leading to fewer hurricanes. Yours is a typical response by an alt-right drone. Most of those stories talked about more powerful hurricanes not more of them. I read the articles and provided you with a summary and your only response to that is a nebulous accusation of 'spin' which is political code for lying. Like the rest of the alt-right you don't like logic and you don't like facts and when confronted by them you just retreat into lala-land and accuse everybody of lying. Suck it up, and next time, read the articles and make sure they support your case of climate scientist making ridiculous claims before you post them as proof of your fantasies.
The Syrians, and other middle easts invading Europe right now, tell another story.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Damned right. The worst code comes from people with graduate degrees.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
And those studies are bollocks. ... interesting. Facepalm *)
If you would think about it for 2 to 10 seconds you would realize that yourself.
(* throwing more coal into the fire does not make the fire bigger, ah ha
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
However, fortunately or unfortunately (depending how you look on it and your background in science) the EM drive (and again, regardless if it works or not):
has nothing to do with the laws of thermodynamics!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
All those folks in California so scared about the earth getting warmer (they seem overly scared about everything these days), don't realize just how cold our planet is. Where I live, it's been below freezing for months and largely will be until next May.
In fact, last week, it was colder here than on Mars and parts of an asteroid belt.
We have a long, long way to go to being a warm planet.
Actually it does relate to thermodynamics. If EmDrive works it violates the conservation of momentum, which is also equivalent to violating conservation of energy, and also implies a "preferred frame" for the universe, and also that the laws of physics are different in different places, and potentially implies that the speed of light does actually vary. It would invalidate every physical theory that we have, and potentially end our ability to know what the "real" physical laws are. Not bad for a few guys and a hunk of copper. But, in actuality, they had a poor experimental design and worse error analysis.
That said, they're pretty far over their heads already, they may as well improve their experiment and learn something from the inevitable null result.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
As you can see from this animation, when dinosaurs were roaming the forests of Antarctica 70 million years ago, the continent was still quite centered on the south pole.
As seen in Alaska, trees can survive several months of no sunlight, if the temperature is warm enough.
My assertion was that the comings and goings of ice ages did not kill any of the species alive today, which is self-evidently true.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
The Arctic ice is melting, the Antarctic ice is growing.
Antarctic ice is not growing, at least not this year. Of course when talking about ice in the polar regions you need to distinguish between sea ice and ice that is on land. It's true that for the past few years Antarctic sea ice has set new records but this year the Antarctic sea ice extent is 10% below normal. See here and click on the "Antarctic" tab.
We know from the GRACE satellites that the Antarctic land ice continues to melt.
So no, Antarctic ice in both forms is not growing this year.
The "seas boiling" was over the top but if that's all it takes for you to ignore what science tells us about the climate then there must be some motivated reasoning on your part that has nothing to do with science.
Last year was very warm due to 'super El Nino' conditions. El Nino occurs every 4 years or so, and is then followed by La Nina conditions which are usually very cold.
The El Nino of 2015/2016 wasn't quite as strong as the El Nino of 1997/1998 and yet the temperatures in 2016 blew the 1998 temperatures out of the water. So there's something going on besides El Nino. I was going to take issue with El Nino's occurring every 4 years but that's may be about average. They can occur as often as two years in a row or have a 6 or 8 year gap between them. Also El Nino is not automatically followed by La Nina. There have been some La Nina like conditions in the later part of 2016 but they haven't been strong or long lasting enough for most of the people who call the ENSO stages to call this a La Nina.
As far as snow in the Sahara and more ice than normal on Greenland you are confusing weather and year to year variability with climate.
Sigh... Of the 7.4 billion people on earth a little over 325 million live in the USA, that's less than 5%.
Why then do some slashdotters still assume that everybody on the forum lives there?
Statistically, China would have been a far better guess.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Few, if any, deny that climate changes.
Many deny that it's AGW.
People who say it is, need to prove it.
Not 'model' it, prove it.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
The climate in the arctic has been getting progressively warmer because of rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Not to throw a snowball at you, but do you have any proof of that?
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
In looking at the graphs you cite I see several "precipitous" drops in temperature of similar magnitude and steepness. Maybe the most recent one is the fastest but I can't tell without downloading and analyzing the numbers but it doesn't stand out to the point where it's obvious. What is obvious is the positive temperature trend during the period of record. If you think you can tell anything about climatic temperature trends over a less than about 20 year period you're wrong.
Solar magnetic variability. LOL. When you first brought it up a few years ago I looked into it some but I didn't find that it held water very well. I'm not saying it's impossible but the hypothesis is going to have to have better evidence for it than it has now. And it has to be fleshed out to the point where it does at least as good a job as current climate theory does in explaining the results we see in the climate.
Well you've never heard me say snow is a thing of the past. The only reasonable way to measure changes in snowfall is to observe how it changes over a period of decades. Maybe the last snowfall before the one 37 years ago was only 25 years before that, and the previous one was only 20 years before that. I made those numbers up for the sake of example. I don't know the real numbers but I know that snow has fallen on the Sahara before so it's not shocking that it did this year. As far as Greenland, it is melting. This time of year the mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet is generally positive because of colder temperatures and more snow but the melting and calving of ice in the summer loses more ice than it gains over the winter (there might be an occasional year where that is not true but it would be rare). The GRACE satellites measure changes in gravity and they tell us that Greenland is losing mass year over year so the net change in ice on Greenland is negative despite periods in the fall and winter when it isn't.
All you need to understand anthropogenic global warming is the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that absorbs photons in certain infrared frequencies and that the primary cause of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is humans. At this high a level everything else is just details.
Sorry, you can't just assert that Dr. Maue's study is bollocks. Point out a flaw in his methodology, just one, and then it can be debated whether it is bollocks.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Why don't you simply stop watching local US news and watch global news instead? E.g. BBC or something?
Then you would know that basically everything you quoted from him in that few paragraphs is wrong.
And I'm for my part are to tired to point that out all the time. Tropical storms in the Pacific are more and more server, increasing since decades in power and more important in frequency. (The fact that they are more frequent, prevents them right now from being significantly more powerful)
I have plenty of friends in Thailand and Phillipines ... so I'm more concerned about that area than you are :D
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
We agree, nothing of a timescale less than 20 years is significant. What is very significant is that the underlying trend started around 150 years ago - well before the IPCC's AGW could have been the initiator of the change. What is absolutely fascinating is that the IPCC claims that this underlying trend went for 100 years naturally and then 'suddenly' switched off the natural cause and switched entirely to a 100% human-caused effect. I don't believe in magic, but apparently the IPCC do as this is their official position, all warming since 1950 is human-induced. Why do you believe in this magic ? what switched the century of natural warming off and instantaneously changed it to human warming? you support the IPCC so surely you know what this miraculous mechanism is, right?
There was a pretty substantial increase in the sun's radiation in the first half of the 20th century. That had something (but not everything) to do with the warming. Since then the sun's radiation has been slowly declining. The rise in temperature didn't really get going until around 1900. By that time CO2 was above where it was in 1800 so that had some effect as well. The slope of the temperature trend is significantly steeper after about 1975 than it was earlier in the 20th century.
The Little Ice Age is correlated with solar magnetic variability. This is beyond dispute.
Correlation is not causation. Show me some causative link that connects the two. Vague notions about cloud cover aren't enough for me.
Your team wants to destroy the First World and all halt progress (technology requires energy abundance), ...
There's no reason we can't have energy abundance with renewable energy. The Sun puts more energy on the surface of the Earth in less than 12 hours than humans use in a whole year. It's just a matter of building enough of it. It took us a while to build out the current fossil fuel technology too.
Let me guess, they never told you the projected temperature change if all the IPCC's wishes were fulfilled, did they?
The point isn't to reduce temperatures but to stop the rise. I don't know where you get your 0.4 number but temperatures will undoubtedly rise more than that before we manage to stop CO2 from rising.
You're really going off the rails there with your 'rich cronyists' and UN apparatchiks remark. What does that have to do with climate science?
In your reference to Arctic ice melting did you notice the words "at this rate" and "could". I realize that you don't deal well with scientific uncertainty but they just said it was a possibility, not that it would happen. Folks like you who ignore the qualifications that scientists put on their statements just can't handle that subtlety I guess.
As far as the glaciers melting, so what? It's not surprising that glaciers were melting in the early part of the 20th century due to warming. They probably had a bit of a rebound in the 1950s and 1960s as there was some cooling due to the pollution we were dumping into the atmosphere. Once we started limiting that pollution the warming trend came back with a vengeance.
The point was, if the IPCC AGW CO2-centric claims are correct then this cannot happen. especially so early in the winter season. (referring to snowfall in the Sahara)
Why not? The IPCC is quite conservative in its projections and I'd be surprised if you could find anything in their report that supports that statement.
Greenland has put on a RECORD amount of ice and the ice is MUCH higher than usual for this time of year. MUCH MUCH HIGHER!
Again so what? It's one year in the record. If it continues next year and for several years after that you might have something. Right now all you have is short term noise.
Did you notice this line in the text of the Danish site? " The calving loss is greate
I'm familiar with John Christy and was aware of his testimony before the House Science, Space & Technology committee. I skimmed through the PDF and didn't find anything that surprised me. I don't hold Christy in very high regard based on past performance.
Here is a critique of the graphs Christy used by Gavin Schmidt. Schmidt basically said Christy's graph were inconsistent, misleading and slanted toward making the difference between models and satellite observations appear greater than they actually are.
I will also note that in 2016 after Christy's testimony that both major satellite records, UAH and RSS set new all time records for high temperatures reducing the discrepancy between models and satellite observations.
Also, it should be noted that the real world forcing turned out to be less than that used in the models which caused a warm bias in the model output. Quoting Gavin Schmidt:
In work we did on the surface temperatures in CMIP5 and the real world, it became apparent that the forcings used in the models, particularly the solar and volcanic trends after 2000, imparted a warm bias in the models (up to 0.1C or so in the ensemble by 2012), which combined with the specific sequence of ENSO variability, explained most of the model-obs discrepancy in GMST.
Rerunning the models with the actual forcings that occurred rather than the expected forcings that were fed into them ahead of time reduces the model-observation discrepancy by quite a bit.
One other thing, Christy's graph of satellite observations and radiosonde (balloon) observations only go to 2005 but since about 2000 there has been considerable divergence between satellite observations and radiosonde observations. This appears to be because of uncorrected for drift in the satellites orbit. Why didn't Christy plot the radiosonde data up to say 2014? My answer would be because it undermines his argument about tropospheric temperature trends.
Do you understand the difference between correlation and causation? It seems likely the answer is no.
Can you read? It seems likely the answer is no.
Because of this climate change hysteria
So you'd rather just offload the costs on to the next generation? Because in fifty years, the costs you pay now will be nothing compared to what local and larger scale economies will have to pay out.
How do you know? And why does it mean I'll have to pay more taxes? How is it doled out? The Chinese economy is larger than of the Ontario's, do they pay same or more taxes on CO2?
Here's your answer*:
http://www.citynews.ca/2016/04...
*Spoiler: It's not because of climate change!
Please don't offend my intelligence.
Despite a mild winter which saw Ontarians conserve electricity, hydro rates are set to increase next month because we saved too much energy.
Typical socialist propaganda: blame the society.
It happened because the climate change hysteria made the Ontario Liberals to cut off all sources of cheaper electricity, what's why.
It happened because the climate change hysteria made the Ontario Liberals to make us to rely on non-manageable generators of expensive electricity without any ability to store it, what's why.
Do you understand the difference between correlation and causation? It seems likely the answer is no.
The previous comment had absolutely zero evidence to support the claim of climate change anything being the sole cause of his utility bills going up. I stated all the factors that drive energy prices that he did not address in any way, shape, or form in his comment. Now you seem to be ignoring the difference between correlation and causation as well.
Why did you choose to quote me, when you didn't bother reading the statement that you quoted?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Look, my point was not about the climate change being the cause of utility bills going up.
It was about how local politicians choose to react to pressure from the environment protection groups, left media and other socialists to the climate change.
I called this "the climate change hysteria".
IMO they could replace coal with natural gas (that's gone down in cost at least 50% in the last 10 years) and increase the water slice (you could buy it cheap in Quebec) instead of increasing the slice of the expensive nuclear and wasting hundred of millions on subsidizing the windmills and solars.
To illustrate my point, this is the mix of 2003:
Water power 23.5%
Alternative Power Sources 0.7%
Nuclear Energy 38.5%
Natural Gas 8.4%
Coal or Oil 28.9%
http://www.ontarioenergyboard....
and this is the mix of 2014:
Water power 24.1%
Alternative power sources 7.1%
Nuclear Energy 60.0%
Natural Gas 8.7 %
Coal 0.1 %
http://www.ontarioenergyboard....
I trust you'd be able to get the difference.
I really don't have time to argue with you, sorry, I'm not an idiot and done/know all about consumption, conservation, price etc.
All the best to you, cheers.
Look, my point was not about the climate change being the cause of utility bills going up.
Really? You earlier said
Because of this climate change hysteria my electricity bill more than doubled in just a few years
Which certainly indicates you believe that it was the direct cause. If you meant to write something else, that's fine just say what you meant to write.
I'm glad you took the time to research where your power comes from. Apparently you don't agree with the composition, and you are entitled to have that opinion. Can you provide a source to support the notion of nuclear being so terribly expensive though? Can you also provide justification to significantly increasing the consumption of a non-renewable resource (specifically natural gas) or any notion of how much of it remains in comparison to the amount that is already consumed in a given year?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
3) The first graph in Appendix A should surprise every CAGW alarmist, because it completely destroys your narrative.
Three things:
That graph only covers the USA, less than 3% of the Earth's surface.
I'm not sure that the number of 100 degree days is particularly meaningful in the context of global warming. Since more warming is occurring overnight and in winter than in summer it's certainly possible that warming is occurring without increasing the number of 100 degree days.
I'd like to see Christy's method of selecting those 982 stations.
His criticism don't change the fact that the models are WRONG by a whopping FACTOR of 3.
Climate observations remain well within the 95% uncertainty range of most climate models. If you think they should be more accurate than that I think your criteria for judging models needs to be revised.
It was the super El Nino of 2016. This is already ending and it looks like severe La Nina may be building, which is why Greenland is putting on ice at a record rate (fourth graphic on the following page):
Here's a discussion of current ENSO conditions. It looks like there are currently some weak La Nina conditions but that's expected to end and ENSO neutral conditions will persist through the spring.
I've read the Groenland page in detail. I agree that this year so far is way above average in surface mass balance. But it's only one year. Neither you nor anybody else has any idea at this point what is means in the long run. It may be the start of a trend or it may be just a part of natural variability. We'll have to wait and see. In the context of climate you just make a fool of yourself emphasising such a short period.
In short, the models were WRONG.
In short your criteria for judging the models is wrong. How can you predict ahead of time the strength of solar cycles? How can you predict ahead of time volcanic eruptions? How can you predict ahead of time the cycle of El Nino/La Nina? The answer is you can't. All you can give a climate model is a realistic scenario for those things based on past behavior.
Rerunning the models with actual behavior of those things is a check on how good the model is. They don't change the model, just the input to more accurately reflect what happened in the real world for things they couldn't predict ahead of time. How can you possibly think that they should be able to know ahead of time exactly what would happen?
And you would be wrong. Perhaps you shouldn't skim next time.
I read that part around Christy's radiosonde graph in detail before I brought it up with you. That graph does indeed end in 2005. In this blog post Tamino (statistician Grant Foster) compares satellite to radiosonde out to about 2015. The second graph clearly shows the divergence of radiosonde (RATPAC) data to UAH and RSS satellite date after about 2006. Christy had access to that data so why didn't he show it.
You go all political again at the end. I can find plenty of analyses that show it will be far more costly to ignore AGW than to do something about it. I guess the way things are going people who are younger than me will find out how bad it gets.
BOOM ! how can you say that these NATURAL effects are justification for the IPCC's AGW hypothesis which is ANTHROPOGENIC. Do you even think before you guys post ?
You lost me there. There are many things that affect climate both natural and anthropogenic. How can you make sense of climate without looking at all of them?
I understand the scientific method just fine thank you. The results of climate model runs are contingent on the real world more or less matching the parameterizations they do ahead of time before they know what will actually happen. How can scientists know ahead of time what will happen with solar radiation, volcanic eruptions, the ENSO cycle and even the actual change in greenhouse gas forcing? It is perfectly reasonable to rerun the model using what actually happened to those things to test the model.
I don't see how Stokes' third graph says anything about models. Maybe you can enlighten me.