Are you talking about Bob Hunter? He left when died of prostate cancer in 2005. Possibly you mean David McTaggart? He left when he died in 2001 of a car accident. Dorothy and Irving Stowe are also both dead and supported Greenpeace until their dying days. Or do you mean this guy?
If you did put stock in the opinions of Nobel laureates, you'd want to look at more than one source to understand their broad consensus. Here's a declaration by 36 of them calling for urgent action on climate change. So 1/36 dissenters means that there's about a 97% consensus among Nobel laureates.
Most scientists are more interested in investigating the nature of the universe than in framing debates. They are probably largely shocked when they become the subjects of conspiracy theories and are issued congressional subpoenas.
The coverage is quite good and more than sufficient for evaluating global temperature trends (and much more besides!). In fact, the ARGO buoys are of sufficient resolution to be used in the study of mesoscale eddies!
Richard Tol, professor of the economics of climate change, was coordinating lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
There was also the warming event roughly 130 years ago following the cooling event of Krakatoa, but honestly nothing like this sustained increase over time over the intervening mean.
Looks like I misread. You're talking about warming following the cooling event of Krakatoa (1883). So I think you must be talking about 1910-1040? Yes that looks comparable, but it's not a separate event - it is really just the early part of the modern warming trend plus natural variability . http://woodfortrees.org/plot/h...
There was also the warming event roughly 130 years ago following the cooling event of Krakatoa, but honestly nothing like this sustained increase over time over the intervening mean.
Krakatoa erupted in 1883. The 30 year trend leading up to that event is only 0.04/decade compared with 0.17/decade now: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/h...
Oh, there was a similar global warming trend, one that was even steeper than the current one. Roughly 65M years ago.
That similar global warming event didn't go so well for contemporaries of the period: "The Cretaceous–Paleogene (K–Pg) extinction event, also known as the Cretaceous–Tertiary (K–T) extinction, was a mass extinction of some three-quarters of the plant and animal species on Earth that occurred over a geologically short period of time approximately 66 million years ago."
I hope our current event isn't actually that similar...
The new study shows that the NOAA method works quite well. It may be worth trying an alternate and seeing how well it matches the instrumentally homogeneous reference data, but since we're dealing with temperature anomalies and not absolute temperatures It's not clear to me that it would make any difference.
The evaluation was performed by a third party that is not associated with NOAA. In fact, lead author Zeke is associated with the Berkeley BEST skeptics that were once the darlings of the climate contrarian movement - until the results of their audit were released and ended up confirming the consensus position.
Regarding the graph, what you are looking at is the difference between the reference and the reconstruction. A negative trend means the reconstruction is lower than the reference. A positive trend means that the reconstruction is higher than the reference. A zero trend means that the reconstruction is bang on. You'll notice that the ERSSTv4 matches the instrumentally homogeneous reference datasets quite well. That's a good thing!
Right. During the late 20th century, ocean temperatures readings were primarily taken mechanically through an “engine-intake valve.” Ships pump water into their hull in order to cool the engine room, and a thermometer measures its temperature on the way. This can introduce bias to the numbers, though: Because engine rooms get hot, engine-intake-valve readings are skewed warmer than the actual ocean.
Whereas 95 percent of NOAA’s readings came from ship engine rooms in the early 1990s, 85 percent now come from buoys, which provide a more accurate reading. It turns out that if you don't account for that known bias you get a result that is less accurate.
On his November 27 program, Jones spent roughly half an hour pushing pizzagate conspiracy theories and told his audience that they “have to go investigate it for yourself," claiming, "Something’s going on. Something’s being covered up. It needs to be investigated.
He has since removed the video. According to the Internet Archive, the “Down The #Pizzagate Rabbit Hole” video was online as of December 6 but “removed by the user” by December 7. A tweet by Jones promoting the video is still online; it captures roughly 10 minutes of the video and links to the removed YouTube page. Non-Jones YouTube accounts have re-uploaded the “Down The #Pizzagate Rabbit Hole – Warning! Soul Sucking Info.” The video is roughly 30 minutes long.
Jones also removed the Jon Bowne video that Jones played during his November 27 program. On November 23, Jones’ YouTube channel posted the video with the headline “Pizzagate Is Real: Something Is Going On, But What?” The video was removed “by the user” shortly after the shooting, according to the Internet Archive.
Interesting interview with a couple of them here. “The reason I’m hired is to make simple people change their mind about their vote and also about Russia,” the woman said. She later added that she identifies herself as an American housewife from Nebraska while online, and not as a Russian.
Speaking of fake news, can anybody prove a specific news story was fake and had a measurable effect on election results, with data to back that up? No takers?
How about anything published by Jestin Coler, CEO of a company called Disinfomedia?
During the run-up to the presidential election, fake news really took off. "It was just anybody with a blog can get on there and find a big, huge Facebook group of kind of rabid Trump supporters just waiting to eat up this red meat that they're about to get served," Coler says.
At any given time, Coler says, he has between 20 and 25 writers. And it was one of them who wrote the story in the Denver Guardian that an FBI agent who leaked Clinton emails was killed. Coler says that over 10 days the site got 1.6 million views.
And as the stories spread, Coler makes money from the ads on his websites. He wouldn't give exact figures, but he says stories about other fake-news proprietors making between $10,000 and $30,000 a month apply to him.
In fact, the evidence is only getting stronger. The first IPCC report suggested that observed warming could be largely due to natural variability:
"Our judgement is that: global mean surface air temperature has increased by 0.3 to 0.6 oC over the last 100 years; The size of this warming is broadly consistent with predictions of climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability. Thus the observed increase could be largely due to this natural variability; alternatively this variability and other human factors could have offset a still larger human-induced greenhouse warming. The unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect is not likely for a decade or more."
The warming observed since then makes the statement in the latest report all but unequivocal: "It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report."
Slashdot Mirror
That's why the original leader/founder left.
Are you talking about Bob Hunter? He left when died of prostate cancer in 2005. Possibly you mean David McTaggart? He left when he died in 2001 of a car accident. Dorothy and Irving Stowe are also both dead and supported Greenpeace until their dying days. Or do you mean this guy?
If you did put stock in the opinions of Nobel laureates, you'd want to look at more than one source to understand their broad consensus. Here's a declaration by 36 of them calling for urgent action on climate change. So 1/36 dissenters means that there's about a 97% consensus among Nobel laureates.
Ok: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data...
Can you show me one of the reasonable metrics you are referencing? Otherwise it seems you are going by nothing more than feelings
- in fact, the estimate you cite is absurd;
We've been tracking at the very highest end of that projection for the last few decades. Perhaps reality is also absurd.
you couldn't out-crawl even if your crutches floated away?
How fast do buildings run? The real question is "What is the cost of adapting to projected sea level rise?", or worse, as you are suggesting, "what is the cost of abandoning the beach front properties?"
You are only offering your own incredulity as evidence. This is not convincing.
That is complete nonsense. We're on track to have between half a meter and 1.5 meter sea level rise by the end of the century. That's on average - there will be less SLR near Greenland and more near USA. And we're currently tracking at the very high end of IPCC projections - so it looks like that number may be underestimated.
Most scientists are more interested in investigating the nature of the universe than in framing debates. They are probably largely shocked when they become the subjects of conspiracy theories and are issued congressional subpoenas.
The coverage is quite good and more than sufficient for evaluating global temperature trends (and much more besides!). In fact, the ARGO buoys are of sufficient resolution to be used in the study of mesoscale eddies!
Richard Tol, professor of the economics of climate change, was coordinating lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
I think he may have been upset when they pointed out that that he'd swapped a minus sign for a plus sign in his study. When you use the correct sign the economic outlook is less rosy. He ultimately admitted to the mistake and issued a correction to the original paper.
You're on the wrong side of it.
Yes. Sorry about that.
If you're going to average temps over a decade, the effect will certainly be minimized.
Usually we'd want to look at 30 years or more to see what the climate is doing rather than focusing in on annual variability.
There was also the warming event roughly 130 years ago following the cooling event of Krakatoa, but honestly nothing like this sustained increase over time over the intervening mean.
Looks like I misread. You're talking about warming following the cooling event of Krakatoa (1883). So I think you must be talking about 1910-1040? Yes that looks comparable, but it's not a separate event - it is really just the early part of the modern warming trend plus natural variability . http://woodfortrees.org/plot/h...
There was also the warming event roughly 130 years ago following the cooling event of Krakatoa, but honestly nothing like this sustained increase over time over the intervening mean.
Krakatoa erupted in 1883. The 30 year trend leading up to that event is only 0.04/decade compared with 0.17/decade now: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/h...
Not comparable.
Oh, there was a similar global warming trend, one that was even steeper than the current one. Roughly 65M years ago.
That similar global warming event didn't go so well for contemporaries of the period: "The Cretaceous–Paleogene (K–Pg) extinction event, also known as the Cretaceous–Tertiary (K–T) extinction, was a mass extinction of some three-quarters of the plant and animal species on Earth that occurred over a geologically short period of time approximately 66 million years ago."
I hope our current event isn't actually that similar...
The new study shows that the NOAA method works quite well. It may be worth trying an alternate and seeing how well it matches the instrumentally homogeneous reference data, but since we're dealing with temperature anomalies and not absolute temperatures It's not clear to me that it would make any difference.
The evaluation was performed by a third party that is not associated with NOAA. In fact, lead author Zeke is associated with the Berkeley BEST skeptics that were once the darlings of the climate contrarian movement - until the results of their audit were released and ended up confirming the consensus position.
Regarding the graph, what you are looking at is the difference between the reference and the reconstruction. A negative trend means the reconstruction is lower than the reference. A positive trend means that the reconstruction is higher than the reference. A zero trend means that the reconstruction is bang on. You'll notice that the ERSSTv4 matches the instrumentally homogeneous reference datasets quite well. That's a good thing!
Right. During the late 20th century, ocean temperatures readings were primarily taken mechanically through an “engine-intake valve.” Ships pump water into their hull in order to cool the engine room, and a thermometer measures its temperature on the way. This can introduce bias to the numbers, though: Because engine rooms get hot, engine-intake-valve readings are skewed warmer than the actual ocean.
Whereas 95 percent of NOAA’s readings came from ship engine rooms in the early 1990s, 85 percent now come from buoys, which provide a more accurate reading. It turns out that if you don't account for that known bias you get a result that is less accurate.
On his November 27 program, Jones spent roughly half an hour pushing pizzagate conspiracy theories and told his audience that they “have to go investigate it for yourself," claiming, "Something’s going on. Something’s being covered up. It needs to be investigated.
He has since removed the video. According to the Internet Archive, the “Down The #Pizzagate Rabbit Hole” video was online as of December 6 but “removed by the user” by December 7. A tweet by Jones promoting the video is still online; it captures roughly 10 minutes of the video and links to the removed YouTube page. Non-Jones YouTube accounts have re-uploaded the “Down The #Pizzagate Rabbit Hole – Warning! Soul Sucking Info.” The video is roughly 30 minutes long.
Jones also removed the Jon Bowne video that Jones played during his November 27 program. On November 23, Jones’ YouTube channel posted the video with the headline “Pizzagate Is Real: Something Is Going On, But What?” The video was removed “by the user” shortly after the shooting, according to the Internet Archive.
If a direct interview with the culprits wouldn't convince you then what proof possibly could?
...shit Alex Jones would doubt
There is not likely to be any conspiracy that Jones would doubt. In fact, he was one of the main promoters of the fabricated conspiracy.
Interesting interview with a couple of them here. “The reason I’m hired is to make simple people change their mind about their vote and also about Russia,” the woman said. She later added that she identifies herself as an American housewife from Nebraska while online, and not as a Russian.
Speaking of fake news, can anybody prove a specific news story was fake and had a measurable effect on election results, with data to back that up? No takers?
How about anything published by Jestin Coler, CEO of a company called Disinfomedia?
During the run-up to the presidential election, fake news really took off. "It was just anybody with a blog can get on there and find a big, huge Facebook group of kind of rabid Trump supporters just waiting to eat up this red meat that they're about to get served," Coler says.
At any given time, Coler says, he has between 20 and 25 writers. And it was one of them who wrote the story in the Denver Guardian that an FBI agent who leaked Clinton emails was killed. Coler says that over 10 days the site got 1.6 million views.
"The people wanted to hear this," he says. "So all it took was to write that story. Everything about it was fictional: the town, the people, the sheriff, the FBI guy. And then ... our social media guys kind of go out and do a little dropping it throughout Trump groups and Trump forums and boy it spread like wildfire."
And as the stories spread, Coler makes money from the ads on his websites. He wouldn't give exact figures, but he says stories about other fake-news proprietors making between $10,000 and $30,000 a month apply to him.
In fact, the evidence is only getting stronger. The first IPCC report suggested that observed warming could be largely due to natural variability:
"Our judgement is that: global mean surface air temperature has increased by 0.3 to 0.6 oC over the last 100 years; The size of this warming is broadly consistent with predictions of climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability. Thus the observed increase could be largely due to this natural variability; alternatively this variability and other human factors could have offset a still larger human-induced greenhouse warming. The unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect is not likely for a decade or more."
The warming observed since then makes the statement in the latest report all but unequivocal: "It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report."
North Carolina also famously outlawed scientific evidence on sea level rise because it negatively impacted coastal developers. Better to impact residents than developers I suppose?
Science news is of interest to nerds. When politicians start misrepresenting science that is also of interest.