The RSS satellite record shows warming of between -0.177 to 0.199 C/decade since 1998. Because of this large uncertainty in over the period you end up with a result that is consistent with predictions. Uncertainty could be reduced by picking a larger period, but then you start to see the long term warming trend and you remain consistent with predictions. Ted Cruz doesn't really get it.
Curiously, if you split the RSS record at 1997, you will find the trend after 1997 is almost flat (with very large uncertainty), and the trend before 1997 is flat (with large uncertainty). But the trend over the whole period shows a strong warming trend (with narrow uncertainty). How can this be? No warming before, and no warming after, but warming over the whole period? See here for example: http://phosphorus.github.io/ap...
FBI Director James Comey said Wednesday that the government had purchased "a tool" from a private party in order to unlock the iPhone
I wonder how that squares with 17 U.S.C. Sec. 1201 of the DMCA which prohibits the distribution of tools that enable a user to circumvent access controls.
That was 1995 - probably their last ditch effort. The Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement was entered in 1998 - game over. I wonder if we're approaching the point in climate denial where that kind of congressional testimony is untenable. Ignorance (hopefully) can't win out in the long run.
If global warming is a problem then I'd expect the federal government to be handing out nuclear power plant permits as fast as the applications come in. We should be building a new nuclear power plant once every month. Since we are not then I am not convinced that the politicians believe that global warming is a problem. If they don't see it as a problem then why should I?
Sane conservative solutions to climate change exist. Left wing solutions of handouts and subsidies are not market efficient.
There is a reason why sane conservative solutions to climate change are not being pursued. Republicans are denying the issue rather than stepping up to the big boy table and pushing for more conservative solutions.
We are basically handing this issue over to the left to solve the only way they know how.
I imagine they wouldn't have bothered lying to the public and buying physicians if they didn't think it would pay off. Evidence shows that it did pay off:
For the tobacco companies, physicians’ approval of their product could prove to be essential, especially since patients often brought smoking-related symptoms and health concerns to the attention of their doctors. Through advertisements appearing in the pages of medical journals for the first time in the 1930s, tobacco companies worked to develop close, mutually beneficial relationships with physicians and their professional organizations. These advertisements became a ready source of income for numerous medical organizations and journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), as well as many branches and bulletins of local medical associations.19
Coming during the Great Depression, the placement of advertisements in medical journals helped to keep medical organizations financially solvent when resources were scarce. Philip Morris praised physicians in these advertisements with taglines like “Every doctor is a doubter” and “Doctor as judge” as they appealed to physicians’ expert ability to evaluate the evidence, referring them to scientific articles that they claimed illustrated the superiority of their brand. As one such advertisement explained in its entirety in 1939, “If you advise patients on smoking—and what doctor does not—you will find highly important data in the studies listed below. May we send you a set of reprints?”20
Not only, then, did physicians’ findings help to make the Philip Morris brand appear superior in the eyes of the public, but the company also turned to physicians with great effect. Physicians became, through this process, an increasingly important conduit in the marketing process.
That's idiotic. Virtually no science paper about climate change even mentions nuclear power.
And those that do recommend nuclear power as the primary solution. For example:Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power - Because nuclear power is an abundant, low-carbon source of base-load power, it could make a large contribution to mitigation of global climate change and air pollution. Using historical production data, we calculate that global nuclear power has prevented an average of 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent (GtCO2-eq) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning. - http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10...
Are you comparing the money used to put satellites into orbit with the money spent to spread misinformation, doubt, and denial? Possibly more is spent on the science than on misinforming people about the science... but so what?
There are certainly forces at work promoting ignorance in order to sustain the status quo. The video shows that this is even promoted in congressional testimonies. And this ignorance pays dividends.
The article quotes a tobacco company memo:
“Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.”
Good guess, but wrong. Here's a hint: your confusion over decadal temperature trends (espoused at the top of this thread) and the role CO2 plays therein is largely why you are blind to this large increase.
I think it's humorous that you use Dr. Spencer.
There is a very good reason I recommended using the satellite data as the basis for this bet, but there are good odds that I'll win either way.
you're well on your way to losing this one. Check out the data here..
Based on the March 2014 global analysis from NOAA? That is a very interesting hypothesis but I think you're on the wrong track.
You probably have no idea why I think you're well on your way to losing this bet.
You've got that right. Especially if the March 2014 analysis has something to do with it.
BTW, I didn't even bother to look at any of the data for this year until tonight.
Regarding our bet (https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8770607&cid=51633883), we've just had the hottest March on record: http://www.drroyspencer.com/20...
I'm three for three now. Any guess yet how I knew?
If CO2 is returned to pre-industrial levels - the ideal goal in addressing global warming
I'm not sure it's ideal to move back to pre-industrial levels. There is some evidence that at least the initial warming was beneficial: https://www.aeaweb.org/article... Some substantial errors were later discovered in that paper, but I think even when corrected there is still some evidence of net benefit for at least the initial warming.
Why is it the job of some guy on Slashdot to explain the last 100 years of physics? Do a google scholar search if you are curious. You will find that jfbilodeau is absolutely right. You may consider starting here in 1896
I think there's a fairly well accepted theory that the Antarctic land ice is melting quicker, reducing the salinity of the surrounding water, which helps to freeze the surface in the winter.
It's not so cut–and–dried. Eric Steig explains: "A basic problem, though, is that the greatest discharge of meltwater is occurring in the Amundsen Sea, exactly where sea ice is declining, so while this probably is part of the story, I doubt it’s very dominant." - http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
Kill the ban on breeder reactors in the United States and license French reactor designs. Could be done in 10-15 years and cut our carbon output 50%. Unfortunately there is no political will to do what needs to be done.
Agreed. This is the discussion we should be having. We need the republicans to come to the table to bring some balance to the conversation.
If winter sea ice does recover due to a slowdown in the AMOC that may not be such a good thing. "This “overturning circulation” (AMOC) plays a major role in the climate because it brings warm water northward, thereby helping to warm Europe’s climate, and also sends cold water back towards the tropics"
This web app shows the evolution of northern and southern hemisphere sea ice evolution over the satellite record. Use left and right to change month. http://phosphorus.github.io/ap...
In this case they are looking at a distinct pattern of warm water relative to the surrounding seas, so warmer seas overall may not play a part in this phenomenon.
Slashdot Mirror
The RSS satellite record shows warming of between -0.177 to 0.199 C/decade since 1998. Because of this large uncertainty in over the period you end up with a result that is consistent with predictions. Uncertainty could be reduced by picking a larger period, but then you start to see the long term warming trend and you remain consistent with predictions. Ted Cruz doesn't really get it.
Curiously, if you split the RSS record at 1997, you will find the trend after 1997 is almost flat (with very large uncertainty), and the trend before 1997 is flat (with large uncertainty). But the trend over the whole period shows a strong warming trend (with narrow uncertainty). How can this be? No warming before, and no warming after, but warming over the whole period? See here for example: http://phosphorus.github.io/ap...
FBI Director James Comey said Wednesday that the government had purchased "a tool" from a private party in order to unlock the iPhone
I wonder how that squares with 17 U.S.C. Sec. 1201 of the DMCA which prohibits the distribution of tools that enable a user to circumvent access controls.
My god. 99% of scientists agreeing that climate change is real and that humans are the cause.
It's 97%
Not according to a more recent study that finds 99%: http://www.jamespowell.org/
There are many other studies, all finding consensus in the high 90s.
You can do a spot check of the literature yourself and you will be hard pressed to find an article that takes a contrary view.
.
California hopes to have 50% of their electricity from renewables by 2030. If Scotland has already achieved this then it is likely California lacks ambition.
That was 1995 - probably their last ditch effort. The Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement was entered in 1998 - game over. I wonder if we're approaching the point in climate denial where that kind of congressional testimony is untenable. Ignorance (hopefully) can't win out in the long run.
If global warming is a problem then I'd expect the federal government to be handing out nuclear power plant permits as fast as the applications come in. We should be building a new nuclear power plant once every month. Since we are not then I am not convinced that the politicians believe that global warming is a problem. If they don't see it as a problem then why should I?
Sane conservative solutions to climate change exist. Left wing solutions of handouts and subsidies are not market efficient.
There is a reason why sane conservative solutions to climate change are not being pursued. Republicans are denying the issue rather than stepping up to the big boy table and pushing for more conservative solutions.
We are basically handing this issue over to the left to solve the only way they know how.
For the tobacco companies, physicians’ approval of their product could prove to be essential, especially since patients often brought smoking-related symptoms and health concerns to the attention of their doctors. Through advertisements appearing in the pages of medical journals for the first time in the 1930s, tobacco companies worked to develop close, mutually beneficial relationships with physicians and their professional organizations. These advertisements became a ready source of income for numerous medical organizations and journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), as well as many branches and bulletins of local medical associations.19
Coming during the Great Depression, the placement of advertisements in medical journals helped to keep medical organizations financially solvent when resources were scarce. Philip Morris praised physicians in these advertisements with taglines like “Every doctor is a doubter” and “Doctor as judge” as they appealed to physicians’ expert ability to evaluate the evidence, referring them to scientific articles that they claimed illustrated the superiority of their brand. As one such advertisement explained in its entirety in 1939, “If you advise patients on smoking—and what doctor does not—you will find highly important data in the studies listed below. May we send you a set of reprints?”20
Not only, then, did physicians’ findings help to make the Philip Morris brand appear superior in the eyes of the public, but the company also turned to physicians with great effect. Physicians became, through this process, an increasingly important conduit in the marketing process.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
That's idiotic. Virtually no science paper about climate change even mentions nuclear power.
And those that do recommend nuclear power as the primary solution. For example: Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power - Because nuclear power is an abundant, low-carbon source of base-load power, it could make a large contribution to mitigation of global climate change and air pollution. Using historical production data, we calculate that global nuclear power has prevented an average of 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent (GtCO2-eq) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning. - http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10...
Are you comparing the money used to put satellites into orbit with the money spent to spread misinformation, doubt, and denial? Possibly more is spent on the science than on misinforming people about the science... but so what?
There are certainly forces at work promoting ignorance in order to sustain the status quo. The video shows that this is even promoted in congressional testimonies. And this ignorance pays dividends.
The article quotes a tobacco company memo:
“Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.”
The problem has never been that the public disagrees that "smoking is bad for you"
Congressional testimony: "I believe that nicotine is not addictive" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You don't know.
Good guess, but wrong. Here's a hint: your confusion over decadal temperature trends (espoused at the top of this thread) and the role CO2 plays therein is largely why you are blind to this large increase.
I think it's humorous that you use Dr. Spencer.
There is a very good reason I recommended using the satellite data as the basis for this bet, but there are good odds that I'll win either way.
you're well on your way to losing this one. Check out the data here ..
Based on the March 2014 global analysis from NOAA? That is a very interesting hypothesis but I think you're on the wrong track.
You probably have no idea why I think you're well on your way to losing this bet.
You've got that right. Especially if the March 2014 analysis has something to do with it.
BTW, I didn't even bother to look at any of the data for this year until tonight.
There's a good chance you still haven't.
I'm three for three now. Any guess yet how I knew?
If CO2 is returned to pre-industrial levels - the ideal goal in addressing global warming
I'm not sure it's ideal to move back to pre-industrial levels. There is some evidence that at least the initial warming was beneficial: https://www.aeaweb.org/article... Some substantial errors were later discovered in that paper, but I think even when corrected there is still some evidence of net benefit for at least the initial warming.
There are many tipping points. Some have likely already been crossed: eg: Feldmanna and Levermanna 2015 . Lenton 2008 lists others to watch for.
The "extinction of the human race" was certainly a hyperbolic comment
Fighting hyperbole with further hyperbole doesn't really get us anywhere. Better to call it out when you see it and look to the science for answers.
Why is it the job of some guy on Slashdot to explain the last 100 years of physics? Do a google scholar search if you are curious. You will find that jfbilodeau is absolutely right. You may consider starting here in 1896
Antarctic ice increases were predicted as a result of warming several decades ago
I don't think that's true. Do you have a citation for that?
Eric Steig provides a good summary of our current understanding: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
I think there's a fairly well accepted theory that the Antarctic land ice is melting quicker, reducing the salinity of the surrounding water, which helps to freeze the surface in the winter.
It's not so cut–and–dried. Eric Steig explains: "A basic problem, though, is that the greatest discharge of meltwater is occurring in the Amundsen Sea, exactly where sea ice is declining, so while this probably is part of the story, I doubt it’s very dominant." - http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
Kill the ban on breeder reactors in the United States and license French reactor designs. Could be done in 10-15 years and cut our carbon output 50%. Unfortunately there is no political will to do what needs to be done.
Agreed. This is the discussion we should be having. We need the republicans to come to the table to bring some balance to the conversation.
If winter sea ice does recover due to a slowdown in the AMOC that may not be such a good thing. "This “overturning circulation” (AMOC) plays a major role in the climate because it brings warm water northward, thereby helping to warm Europe’s climate, and also sends cold water back towards the tropics"
This web app shows the evolution of northern and southern hemisphere sea ice evolution over the satellite record. Use left and right to change month. http://phosphorus.github.io/ap...
In this case they are looking at a distinct pattern of warm water relative to the surrounding seas, so warmer seas overall may not play a part in this phenomenon.
If I recall you had to pop the disk out as part of the sequence to trigger the message :)
Good point. Seems like Nukes are the most successful solution.