Bartles thinks showing a weather station next to a transformer proves something as if the scientists compiling the records weren't aware of such issues. Problem is that satellites don't measure temperature but the radiance of microwave emissions of O2 which they then apply a model to to derive temperatures. There are far more adjustments made to the satellite data than the surface temperature record.
If you compare the state of Milankovitch Cycles for the Eemian to their current state it's not surprising that the Eemian was warmer. Thing is currently Milankovitch Cycles are trending toward cooler and it was getting cooler since the Holocene Climatic Optimum (6,000-8,000 years ago) until human emissions of CO2 started raising the level in the atmosphere.
We are still in what geologists consider an ice age and probably will still be for thousands of years, as long as there are still substantial ice caps on Greenland and Antarctica. When all known natural drivers of climate are considered we should actually be cooling slightly but we aren't.
That's from an Isaac Asimov quote. Here is the full quote:
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
Federal grants for climate change research dwarfs anything the fossil fuel industry offers.
Maybe the fossil fuel doesn't spend money on research to refute climate change because they know it would be wasted money. After all as early as 1977 Exxon's in house scientists told them about the possibility for global warming from carbon dioxide emissions.
Since we're on the subject of the Solar System a relatively rare phenomenon is occurring Jan. 20 to Feb. 20. All five of the easily visible planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn) are visible together in the early morning sky. The last time that occurred was Dec./Jan. 2004/2005. They will be visible together again Aug. 13 to 19 but will be more easily seen in the Southern Hemisphere because Mercury and Venus will be difficult to see in the dusk sky.
Congress has given the FAA the power to regulate airspace in the US. Unless Congress explicitly disallows it I believe the FAA probably does have that power.
- smoking weed killer should not be confused with smoking killer weed.
Great line. I'll note that the Oregon (which legalized recreational use last year) recently published a list of allowable agricultural chemicals to use on legal weed and requirements for testing before bud or other products are sold to the general public or medical users.
I think the assumption is that if you want the thing delivered fast by drone you will be there to receive it. If the speed doesn't matter then just have it delivered by normal means. Also I wonder if there's going to be a surcharge for extra fast delivery by drone. That would tend to make the deliveries by drone only those that really need the speed.
The Pricipia Scientific article was interesting in that it shows a correlation between insolation and cloud cover when looked at hemispherically. It does not however show anything about a long term trend in insolation that could account for rising temperatures. Particularly since the trend in insolation is slightly downward since the 1950s.
... so of course reasonable people like yourself will be convinced that humans need to de-industrialize...
Don't try to tell me what I think. I've never said anything like that ever. What I think is industry needs to work toward sustainability.
I am trying to make you aware that the IPCC is not about science, but about cover for a pre-defined neo-Marxist policy which doesn't actually care about the science.
Ah, it appears to me that your objection to the current consensus on climate science is more rooted in your politics than science and you're desperately seeking anything you can throw at it. The IPCC's Working Group I report is entirely written by credentialed scientists even though you may not consider them to be scientists.
You simply dismissed the data I gave.
You presented one cite that I could find regarding the RWP, the GISP2 graph at joannanova (the link appears to be nonfunctional right now but there are plenty of other pages with GISP2 information).
The first thing you need to know about that graph is that it ends 95 years before the present and by convention in those types of graphs 1950 is considered the present. So the graph ends in 1855. I wonder what it would look like if you could add 1856 to 2015 to it?
The other thing is I want to corroborating evidence from geographically dispersed sites before I consider it anything but indicative of the GISP2 site itself.
Again the optimum CO2 and mean global temperature are irrelevant questions. The question is how fast can they change so that we can still maintain our global civilization and the natural systems we depend on remain viable. If the change took 2000 years rather than 200 it would be much easier to adapt to the change.
As far as Arctic sea ice I go mostly by what is published in the IPCC reports but they have consistently underpredicted the loss of Arctic sea ice. Other people may have made more hyperbolic predictions but I can't stop that.
Yes, El Nino is natural. But why is it that when they claim "No warming for 18 years!" it starts at the last super El Nino year in 1988. If you plot only El Nino years the long term trend is still upward. And plotting La Nina years or ENSO neutral years also show an upward trend.
Any warming on Pluto can probably be attributed to orbital eccentricity. It has by far the most eccentric orbit of any planet and it just recently passed perihelion (September 1989). I still want more than anecdotal evidence that other bodies in the solar system are heating up. Whenever I've tried searching the web for that I've come up empty.
You keep leaking politics into what should be a scientific discussion.
That is kind of rambling and I was wondering if you'd been drinking but then I saw you were ill which can have similar effects:)
I don't think geothermal energy output is much more than at the level of a rounding error compared to the incoming solar radiation. I doubt climate models take that into account at all except perhaps as a constant input. When averaged over climatological periods that seems to be a reasonable assumption.
At this point I see no reason to think that the mid-ocean ridges are doing anything different than they have for millions of years.
I know of Henrik Svensmark's cosmic ray hypothesis. There may be some relationship between cosmic rays and clouds but it's far from clear how much of an influence GCRs are. There are plenty of cloud condensation nuclei in the atmosphere even without the influence of GCRs.
Do you not know that the IPCC's terms of reference is to investigate man-made climate change ONLY.
It's impossible to understand anthropogenic climate change without also understanding natural variability and the scientists who put together the IPCC WG1 reports are well aware of this.
Have I not already given you the data multiple times.
What data? You've just made the bald statement that "The fact that the RWP exists shows that NATURAL VARIABILITY is greater and faster than what we've seen over the last 200 years." No cites to anything to support that.
It is completely relevant. In the past the global mean terrestrial surface temperature has been as high as 25 C and life THRIVED. Plants thrive when at 2000 ppmV CO2, which was the level when they evolved...
Sure but that doesn't mean that life in its current evolutionary state can easily withstand those conditions. It's probably been 100 million years since CO2 was at 2000 ppm and over 65 million years since it was even above 1000.
But let us ignore the fact that you are the ultimate of conservatives who wants to keep conditions exactly as they were in 1970. And let us also ignore you (nor any other alarmist) can answer what the optimal terrestrial temperature ought to be. But let us examine your statement about "the rate of temperature change is far faster than natural and human systems can adapt to easily." What is the maximum acceptable rate of change? You made the claim, now quantify it so we can discuss further.
Didn't I quantify it somewhat by saying " If you took the temperature change expected over the next 200 years with BAU and spread it out over 2,000 years or more it wouldn't be nearly as big a problem."?
Thank you for looking at the data. Now, what would you expect to see if the CAGW/AGW hypothesis is true? didn't Al Gore scam millions with the statement that all polar bears would be dead (they're not only not dead, their numbers are UP - because it is thick spring ice that kills them and their cubs after hibernation - not a lack of summer ice), that children would not know what snow was, and that the Arctic would be 'Ice Free' in summer. Not only are all the predictions of you Alarmists neo-Marxists wrong, reality turned out to be 180-degrees away from your predictions - because you don't use the Scientific Method. Your goal is described exactly here: [green-agenda.com] - but you are not only on the wrong side of history, you are on the wrong side of reality. You are akin to a Flat Earther who does not want to look at the data (eg. UAH and RSS satellite data sets) that blows your non-falsifiable hypothesis (CAGW/AGW) away.
I don't think any of those predictions were expected to happen by now. In particular Arctic sea ice is expected to disappear by mid-century by most scientists.
I went to that exercise in quote mining at GA. There are some things in there that I agree with but I completely disagree with the stuff from Earth First and and others like it. The ones that involve religion are meaningless to me.
I pay attention to the UAH and RSS data. I just think the surface temperature data is more reliable. I expect UAH and RSS to show large spikes this year as they have during past large El Ninos.
Someone needs to do a definitive study taking the known temperature data for other planets compared to Earth over time. I'd be interested in that. But there's probably not enough data on other planets yet to make the study.
SpaceX is doing things that have already been done. They aren't breaking major new technical ground.
Well said. NASA's job is to break new ground and push the boundaries of what we know. Once they do that to some level it's up to others to take what NASA has done and commercialize it.
No one thinks it's Milankovitch Cycles alone but they clearly seem to have a major effect over multi-thousand year periods. I suspect they understand more than you think they do.
The aerosols that a volcano emits actually have a cooling effect, particularly in a major eruption that injects sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere. The effect can be seen in the temperature record with a 2 year drop in temperatures after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in June of 1991 (an effect predicted and well modeled by climate models BTW). As you note these underwater volcanoes won't be putting any aerosols into the atmosphere.
I don't see any reason to believe these volcanoes on the mid-ocean ridges are having any more effect on ocean temperatures than they have been for thousands of years. Mostly they're so deep that any effect they might have on ocean surface temperatures would probably take hundreds or thousands of years to manifest.
Slashdot Mirror
Bartles thinks showing a weather station next to a transformer proves something as if the scientists compiling the records weren't aware of such issues. Problem is that satellites don't measure temperature but the radiance of microwave emissions of O2 which they then apply a model to to derive temperatures. There are far more adjustments made to the satellite data than the surface temperature record.
Don't worry. The current super El Nino will probably cause the satellite records to set new record highs in the next few months.
If you compare the state of Milankovitch Cycles for the Eemian to their current state it's not surprising that the Eemian was warmer. Thing is currently Milankovitch Cycles are trending toward cooler and it was getting cooler since the Holocene Climatic Optimum (6,000-8,000 years ago) until human emissions of CO2 started raising the level in the atmosphere.
Ever notice how you human-made climate change morons never have any evidence to backup what you say?
Ever notice how you just coveniently ignore any evidence presented to you about anthropogenic climate change?
We are still in what geologists consider an ice age and probably will still be for thousands of years, as long as there are still substantial ice caps on Greenland and Antarctica. When all known natural drivers of climate are considered we should actually be cooling slightly but we aren't.
and record-shattering historical data rerererereadjustments
Actually if you compare the unadjusted record to the adjusted record it's the unadjusted record that shows more warming. Link.
We're still in an ice age according to the definition that geologists use, just in an interglacial period. /pedant
How's the cod fishing been off New England lately?
my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.
That's from an Isaac Asimov quote. Here is the full quote:
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
Federal grants for climate change research dwarfs anything the fossil fuel industry offers.
Maybe the fossil fuel doesn't spend money on research to refute climate change because they know it would be wasted money. After all as early as 1977 Exxon's in house scientists told them about the possibility for global warming from carbon dioxide emissions.
Since we're on the subject of the Solar System a relatively rare phenomenon is occurring Jan. 20 to Feb. 20. All five of the easily visible planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn) are visible together in the early morning sky. The last time that occurred was Dec./Jan. 2004/2005. They will be visible together again Aug. 13 to 19 but will be more easily seen in the Southern Hemisphere because Mercury and Venus will be difficult to see in the dusk sky.
Congress has given the FAA the power to regulate airspace in the US. Unless Congress explicitly disallows it I believe the FAA probably does have that power.
- smoking weed killer should not be confused with smoking killer weed.
Great line. I'll note that the Oregon (which legalized recreational use last year) recently published a list of allowable agricultural chemicals to use on legal weed and requirements for testing before bud or other products are sold to the general public or medical users.
Maybe. It depends on how well the drones are able to hold altitude.
If they're only flying between 200 and 400 feet AGL it's pretty close to 2 dimensions.
I think the assumption is that if you want the thing delivered fast by drone you will be there to receive it. If the speed doesn't matter then just have it delivered by normal means. Also I wonder if there's going to be a surcharge for extra fast delivery by drone. That would tend to make the deliveries by drone only those that really need the speed.
Drones won't be slowed down by streets, traffic lights and traffic itself. It's going to be pretty much a straight line from start to finish.
If you get enough drones flying at the same time there will be traffic issues.
The Pricipia Scientific article was interesting in that it shows a correlation between insolation and cloud cover when looked at hemispherically. It does not however show anything about a long term trend in insolation that could account for rising temperatures. Particularly since the trend in insolation is slightly downward since the 1950s.
Don't try to tell me what I think. I've never said anything like that ever. What I think is industry needs to work toward sustainability.
I am trying to make you aware that the IPCC is not about science, but about cover for a pre-defined neo-Marxist policy which doesn't actually care about the science.
Ah, it appears to me that your objection to the current consensus on climate science is more rooted in your politics than science and you're desperately seeking anything you can throw at it. The IPCC's Working Group I report is entirely written by credentialed scientists even though you may not consider them to be scientists.
You simply dismissed the data I gave.
You presented one cite that I could find regarding the RWP, the GISP2 graph at joannanova (the link appears to be nonfunctional right now but there are plenty of other pages with GISP2 information).
The first thing you need to know about that graph is that it ends 95 years before the present and by convention in those types of graphs 1950 is considered the present. So the graph ends in 1855. I wonder what it would look like if you could add 1856 to 2015 to it?
The other thing is I want to corroborating evidence from geographically dispersed sites before I consider it anything but indicative of the GISP2 site itself.
Again the optimum CO2 and mean global temperature are irrelevant questions. The question is how fast can they change so that we can still maintain our global civilization and the natural systems we depend on remain viable. If the change took 2000 years rather than 200 it would be much easier to adapt to the change.
As far as Arctic sea ice I go mostly by what is published in the IPCC reports but they have consistently underpredicted the loss of Arctic sea ice. Other people may have made more hyperbolic predictions but I can't stop that.
Yes, El Nino is natural. But why is it that when they claim "No warming for 18 years!" it starts at the last super El Nino year in 1988. If you plot only El Nino years the long term trend is still upward. And plotting La Nina years or ENSO neutral years also show an upward trend.
Any warming on Pluto can probably be attributed to orbital eccentricity. It has by far the most eccentric orbit of any planet and it just recently passed perihelion (September 1989). I still want more than anecdotal evidence that other bodies in the solar system are heating up. Whenever I've tried searching the web for that I've come up empty.
You keep leaking politics into what should be a scientific discussion.
That is kind of rambling and I was wondering if you'd been drinking but then I saw you were ill which can have similar effects :)
I don't think geothermal energy output is much more than at the level of a rounding error compared to the incoming solar radiation. I doubt climate models take that into account at all except perhaps as a constant input. When averaged over climatological periods that seems to be a reasonable assumption.
At this point I see no reason to think that the mid-ocean ridges are doing anything different than they have for millions of years.
I know of Henrik Svensmark's cosmic ray hypothesis. There may be some relationship between cosmic rays and clouds but it's far from clear how much of an influence GCRs are. There are plenty of cloud condensation nuclei in the atmosphere even without the influence of GCRs.
Do you not know that the IPCC's terms of reference is to investigate man-made climate change ONLY.
It's impossible to understand anthropogenic climate change without also understanding natural variability and the scientists who put together the IPCC WG1 reports are well aware of this.
Have I not already given you the data multiple times.
What data? You've just made the bald statement that "The fact that the RWP exists shows that NATURAL VARIABILITY is greater and faster than what we've seen over the last 200 years." No cites to anything to support that.
It is completely relevant. In the past the global mean terrestrial surface temperature has been as high as 25 C and life THRIVED. Plants thrive when at 2000 ppmV CO2, which was the level when they evolved ...
Sure but that doesn't mean that life in its current evolutionary state can easily withstand those conditions. It's probably been 100 million years since CO2 was at 2000 ppm and over 65 million years since it was even above 1000.
But let us ignore the fact that you are the ultimate of conservatives who wants to keep conditions exactly as they were in 1970. And let us also ignore you (nor any other alarmist) can answer what the optimal terrestrial temperature ought to be. But let us examine your statement about "the rate of temperature change is far faster than natural and human systems can adapt to easily." What is the maximum acceptable rate of change? You made the claim, now quantify it so we can discuss further.
Didn't I quantify it somewhat by saying " If you took the temperature change expected over the next 200 years with BAU and spread it out over 2,000 years or more it wouldn't be nearly as big a problem."?
Thank you for looking at the data. Now, what would you expect to see if the CAGW/AGW hypothesis is true? didn't Al Gore scam millions with the statement that all polar bears would be dead (they're not only not dead, their numbers are UP - because it is thick spring ice that kills them and their cubs after hibernation - not a lack of summer ice), that children would not know what snow was, and that the Arctic would be 'Ice Free' in summer. Not only are all the predictions of you Alarmists neo-Marxists wrong, reality turned out to be 180-degrees away from your predictions - because you don't use the Scientific Method. Your goal is described exactly here: [green-agenda.com] - but you are not only on the wrong side of history, you are on the wrong side of reality. You are akin to a Flat Earther who does not want to look at the data (eg. UAH and RSS satellite data sets) that blows your non-falsifiable hypothesis (CAGW/AGW) away.
I don't think any of those predictions were expected to happen by now. In particular Arctic sea ice is expected to disappear by mid-century by most scientists.
I went to that exercise in quote mining at GA. There are some things in there that I agree with but I completely disagree with the stuff from Earth First and and others like it. The ones that involve religion are meaningless to me.
I pay attention to the UAH and RSS data. I just think the surface temperature data is more reliable. I expect UAH and RSS to show large spikes this year as they have during past large El Ninos.
Someone needs to do a definitive study taking the known temperature data for other planets compared to Earth over time. I'd be interested in that. But there's probably not enough data on other planets yet to make the study.
How so?
Probably more like gristly if it's cheap ham.
SpaceX is doing things that have already been done. They aren't breaking major new technical ground.
Well said. NASA's job is to break new ground and push the boundaries of what we know. Once they do that to some level it's up to others to take what NASA has done and commercialize it.
No one thinks it's Milankovitch Cycles alone but they clearly seem to have a major effect over multi-thousand year periods. I suspect they understand more than you think they do.
The aerosols that a volcano emits actually have a cooling effect, particularly in a major eruption that injects sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere. The effect can be seen in the temperature record with a 2 year drop in temperatures after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in June of 1991 (an effect predicted and well modeled by climate models BTW). As you note these underwater volcanoes won't be putting any aerosols into the atmosphere.
I don't see any reason to believe these volcanoes on the mid-ocean ridges are having any more effect on ocean temperatures than they have been for thousands of years. Mostly they're so deep that any effect they might have on ocean surface temperatures would probably take hundreds or thousands of years to manifest.