bobjohnsonforthehall

2 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

that makes no sense when renewable fuels represent the fastest growing economies and sectors of the job market.  At some point you have to move on from the old.

 

What makes no sense? Not sure that I follow.

6 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

but high end ninos do seem to be occurring more often since the 80s.

Incorrect

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature01779

3 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

I was driving on I-80 near the Delaware Water Gap on Monday and I saw a forest fire just ahead of me and above me, first time I've ever seen that- let alone in February!  It was named the Rock Face Fire and it was burning 70 acres last I heard, and it was on Mt Tammany on the Jersey side.

This has to do with what exactly?

Just now, LibertyBell said:

there is no safe side- I guess people dont care that it's ruining their health too.  Darwinism always wins....

Perhaps because those who want to "be on the safe side" want to bring the economies of the western world to a screeching halt? They want to put an end to the single economic system that has done more to bring the world out of poverty than any other? In doing so, they seem to want to lower the population of the earth and recreate it into a utopia that never has existed, and never will exist to their satisfaction?

I mean...that could be it. You know?

15 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

ENSO is cyclical. The warming has a cyclical component (as internal variability continues to occur within the context of increased greenhouse gas forcing), but global temperatures continue to increase. They do not return to pre El Niño levels each time an El Niño event ends. That long-term rise in temperatures is found in all the major datasets (Berkeley, GISS, HadCrut, NOAA, etc.).

You said that the "rate of warming is virtually without precedent". This is inaccurate and misleading. The rate of warming is not linear. 

18 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

I'm merely citing polling. There is a clear generational difference involved.

https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/do-younger-generations-care-more-about-global-warming/

"Unsustainable" refers to an approach that excludes a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. That approach is unsustainable, because it will lead to more warming and related consequences. Goals aimed at continuing emissions on a stable or rising trajectory are "backward" given the enormous long-term costs involved. Future generations will be confronted by those costs.

You're citing it in such a way as to make anyone who disagrees with you out to be a dinosaur who knows nothing about the subject. That's pretty much the very definition of ageism, but again, you do you. 

And the only way that these future "costs" ever come to bare is if all of the doomsday projections come to pass. Even the IPCC does not believe that. 

What's your view on nuclear power?

China?

India?

8 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

On a geological scale, the rate of warming is virtually without precedent.

No it's not. That's an inaccurate interpretation of ENSO climate pattern. The rate of warming is not linear. But you do you.

2 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Peer review is an assessment of a paper by relevant experts in the field of study. That something has been peer reviewed does not mean that it is beyond question. Subsequent peer reviewed work can support or undermine existing or past peer reviewed work. That's how science and scientific understanding advance.

Your second point turns what's happening on its head. The climate change denial movement (to be distinguished from skeptics who raise questions about residual uncertainties e.g., feedbacks associated with ongoing climate change), for lack of a better name, has demonstrated little interest in science, evidence, or truth.

It outright rejects the conclusions of the overwhelming body of scientific evidence that underpins the scientific understanding of the anthropogenic basis of ongoing global warming. It has no credible alternative explanations for this warming, especially as global temperatures have decoupled decisively from natural forcings (solar, volcanic, etc.). Therefore, it is unwilling and unable to engage in the field of science or bother with peer review.

Lacking scientific explanations, it is seeking to discredit scientific understanding by attacking climate scientists, their integrity, and climate data. It is a loud but shrinking movement that relies on disinformation and deception. It is the 21st century version of the 1960s era tobacco movement. it is intellectually, scientifically, and, in the case of those attacking the female climate scientists and activists, ethically bankrupt.

 Its shrinking aging ranks understand that once the public understands climate change and its causes, the public will back policies aimed at addressing climate change. Lacking confidence in the future and humanity's ability to make big changes--changes on the scale that have occurred before e.g., the Manhattan Project--it is tenaciously trying to imprison the world in an unsustainable status quo. It is shifting the burden of the costs of its backward policy goals onto the future generations who will have to suffer through the consequences of those policies (burdens this aging movement's members will never have to live with).

This is its last gasp. It knows and fears that public understanding will lead to public consensus and, in turn, public consensus will lead to necessary and appropriate policy changes to address climate change.

 

That is certainly very ageist of you. Where does that rank on the victimhood hierarchy? I'm guessing it's below misogyny so thus is ok for you to say without fear of retribution. "Denialists" as you call them, seem to be uninterested in engaging in scientific curiosity. I could say the same for many millions on your side of the debate. They hear what they want to hear. Are told over and over by the media what the media wants them to hear. And they spew things that are scientifically garbage but remain popular tropes that are spilled over and over which I suppose somehow makes them true in their minds. Polar bear population being one of the biggies. Go to an event and uninformed people believe the polar bear population is plunging due to global warming. It's not. But what can you do? Can I say that the young and uninformed are too impressionable by people who purport themselves to be experts in a field but are actually activists uninterested in scientific rigor? Or would that be ageist as well? I'm confused.

"Imprison the world in an unsustainable status quo". That's an interesting take. I would love to hear you expound on that one. What exactly is "unsustainable" and exactly which "backward policy goals" need to be "suffered through"? I'm quite curious to learn.

25 minutes ago, Bhs1975 said:

 

You got another explanation for the sudden warming? I’m all ears bro. If not I’d let the CLIMATE SCIENTISTS do their work and STFU.


.

 

It's not that sudden. Relax. Parts of the world have warmed and cooled throughout human history. That shouldn't surprise you. The attempts that we are currently making to rewrite climatic history nothwithstanding of course. The idea of one global temperature is laughable. The idea that we are even now measuring the temperature of the entire earth in an accurate way is, again, laughable. The idea that a trace gas, that has shown to be a lagging indicator and not a leading one, can cause global temperatures to react in the way that you seem to believe, is what it is I suppose. CO2 has been higher during our planet's history, and at times when temperatures were lower. The climate is more complex than today's scientists can possibly understand. Good for them for trying. It is what they should do. But they should not pretend that they know the answer with certainty. They do not.

Oh, and the vitriol and attempt to squash debate is unnecessary and pretty much aligns with my previous thoughts regarding something else besides science looking to silence critique.

10 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Two quick things:

1. I posted a link to a peer-reviewed paper on the topic in question.

2. The "believer-unbeliever" issue concerns an article of faith. One either believes or one doesn't. The matter involved cannot be tested empirically e.g., matters of religion. Climate change denial is not a matter of 'untestable' faith. It is a matter of deliberate rejection of the conclusions derived from an overwhelming body of scientific evidence in the absence of a similar body of credible research behind an alternative explanation.

1. Peer reviewed = that which cannot be questioned. Good to know. 

2. Or...and hear me out here...science is itself not something that lends itself to the branding of those who question it. Science itself, and more precisely scientists, should not ever believe that something is "settled". Scientists must constantly be ready to challenge and to be challenged. Unless of course there is something else going on. The reason that those who question the supposed consensus are constantly vilified by people such as yourself. Common scientific belief has changed throughout history. Those who would use current scientific belief to brand those who question it as "heretics" (or in this case "deniers") generally do not hold up to the scrutiny of posterity. Thus there is something beyond science at work here to shut down debate - about the most anti-scientific thing one can imagine. 

On 2/25/2020 at 9:15 AM, donsutherland1 said:

Previously, it was noted in this thread that the climate change denial movement is engaging in misogynistic attacks on female scientists and prominent female activists such as Greta Thunberg. The latest such attack through imagery was carried out by Heartland's Anthony Watts/WUWT. On his Twitter stream, he posted a picture of Heartland's new 19-year-old female recruit juxtaposed with a highly unflattering photo of Ms. Thunberg.

Back in August, The New Republic ran a piece on this topic:

https://newrepublic.com/article/154879/misogyny-climate-deniers

There is also peer-reviewed literature on the topic:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/18902138.2014.908627?journalCode=rnor20

Mr. Watts/WUWT is just the latest denier to engage in such reprehensible conduct. Almost certainly, he won't be the last. As the increasingly discredited anti-scientific climate change denial movement and its aging ranks go through its death throes in the face of mounting and unequivocal scientific evidence and growing public understanding of climate change, one can expect even nastier tactics.

Watts should do the decent thing and retract the tweet.

Misogynistic. Lol. That's rich. It's as if you have never seen a political opponent shown in an unflattering picture before. When it happens to be a female that makes it misogynistic? Just stop.

By the way. Deniers = unbelievers correct? Let me know when the stonings begin so that i can prepare. many thanks!

Quite prescient given our recent pattern.

The main pieces of energy have yet to be well sampled. The models are just guessing at this point. I will start noticing trends from 00z overnight to 12z tomorrow and not before. And I'm not rooting for snow. Hoping that it doesn't snow actually. But realistically Miler A setups shouldn't be taken seriously or have white flags waived until you start seeing definitive trends within 72 hours of the storm. Just my opinion anyway.

37 minutes ago, NYCweatherNOW said:

Cmc is a MESS 

Fixed the apparent misspelling

28 minutes ago, Vice-Regent said:

Well better get back into the hall and steer this ship away from disaster.

Or it's not headed towards disaster.

43 minutes ago, Vice-Regent said:

Right but for the wrong reasons. Curtailing overpopulation through personal decisions just serves as palliative care for your posterity at this juncture will not turn our trajectory away from resource overshoot or rather for the more sensible among us - extinction.

Have fun whistling past your 2030 graveyard because dieing in 2050 will just be that much better.

Oh sweet merciful crap. Yes...we'll all be dead by 2050. Just like every other doomsday prediction that has come true. Oh wait...

If my eyes rolled any further to the back of my head I could see Russia from my house.

Seriously though. The more people who believe in this that choose not to procreate the better we will all be going forward. So by all means have at it. Or actually don't "have at it" as the case may be.

Per Chang et al, the average annual change in ocean heat content is 5.5 zettajoules per year...about 0.1% of the energy entering and leaving the ocean. Yet all we hear like a constant drum beat is that this tiniest of imbalances is due to human causes. We never hear about IPCC or others noting other possible causes. It is always humans. It is always critical. It is always an impending catastrophe, and it always requires a massive restructuring of human activity. When science runs into politics it generally degrades science.

10 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

The reason that they are so worried, I think, is that they are keeping track of certain "keystone" species that other creatures are reliant upon and whose numbers are reduced (one of them being starfish).  Some species are more important than others as you probably know (this is why the reduction in pollinator species is so important.)

 

Perhaps, but you are still not looking at a "mass extinction". This is still at the species level. The term "mass extiction" carries a lot of weight and thus is thrown around to scare people. A better, more accurate term could be used to describe the goings on, but it won't be, because it wouldn't scare enough people. 

So "mass extinction" we get I suppose. Correct or not.

1 minute ago, bdgwx said:

Yeah, pretty close. Most estimates I've seen show DWIR to be about 345 W/m^2. The EEI would then be about 0.2% of that. I'm not sure how meaningful that is by itself though. Like you said...context.

"Hiroshima bombs" sounds so bad and scary. That's why it is used. Scare the masses.

12 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

This paper is not relevant to the error for the annual OHC anomaly or annual global temperature. Nor is the quoted 0.6C figure the measurement error that can be expected from an ARGO float which is said to be approximately ±0.002C for individual measurements. The 0.6C figure is the RMS error of ARGO derived hydrographic section temperature fields. These sections are computed even in lieu of being occupied by an ARGO float at each grid cell. Using the WOA (World Ocean Atlas) dimensions we can estimated 75x30 = 2250 grid cells along the cruise line of the hydrographic section used in the paper. If you were to then answer the question...what is the error of computed mean temperature of this hydrographic section then you might expect it to be 0.6/sqrt(2250) = ±0.01C using the standard error of the mean formula. In reality I suspect the actual error to be a bit different for a variety of reasons. I'm just giving you an order of magnitude estimate based on trivial statistical principals using the RMS error of the temperature field on that single hydrographic section mentioned in the publication. Note that this hydrographic section represents but an infinitesimally small part of a much larger 3D volume containing vastly many more grid cells by which to significantly reduce the error in the global mean temperature estimate. I do not see anything in this publication that is inconsistent with Cheng's OHC 2σ envelope.

One float covers an area the size of Portugal for goodness sake. And two kilometers deep. Are we to believe that one data point covering the entire country of Portugal is an accurate representation of temperature for the entire country? I should hope not. 

If we want to get within .03 instead of .003 accuracy, we could do so using 1/100th the number of points of measurement. So you are saying that we would be able to get within .03 of the actual temperature of the entire ocean with just 40 data points? I'm gonna say no to that one. Which is why I am saying that getting within .003 using 4000 data points is equally absurd.

47 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

You can see in the graph that @chubbs posted that the 2σ (95%) confidence envelope is delineated by the green error bars.

Argo in situ calibration experiments reveal measurement errors of about ±0.6 C.

Hadfield, et al., (2007), J. Geophys. Res., 112, C01009, doi:10.1029/2006JC003825

False precision is fun.

48 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

Heat is the transfer of thermal energy. For the body being warmed/cooled it requires a net positive/negative flow of energy. If I am to interpret your question in precise terms then it is equivalent to asking...of the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) how much does the Sun contribute? The answer is effectively nothing. The reason is because total solar irradiance is not increasing. In fact, if anything it has actually been decreasing, albeit by a small amount, over the last few decades. I'm going to estimate the RF of the Sun over this period at about -0.01 W/m^2 as compared to the EEI of +0.70 W/m^2. In order of magnitude terms you might say it is 1/100th and in the opposite direction. 

Now if the question were...how much energy is being added by the Sun then the answer is about 240 W/m^2. This is the effective solar ingress flux near the surface. It is about 300x the EEI.

Jan 2014 Skeptical Science:
“… in 2013 ocean warming rapidly escalated, rising to a rate in excess of 12 Hiroshima bombs per second”

https://skepticalscience.com/The-Oceans-Warmed-up-Sharply-in-2013-We-are-Going-to-Need-a-Bigger-Graph.html

So I guess we are looking better then? 

Five Hiroshima bombs is the equivilant of 0.6 watts per square meter. Downwelling energy at the surface is about half a kilowatt per square meter. 

Context.

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

the sun has existed for 5 billion years and the rate at which it has been adding heat has been fairly constant (note I said "fairly").  If that weren't true, life as we know it would not exist.

 

Correct. Just pointing out that the old "Hiroshima bomb" tripe is used for sensationalism and is not in any sort of context. I am simply giving it context.

50 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Yep.  I'm actually shocked you didn't know a mass extinction event was going on.

https://cosmosmagazine.com/palaeontology/big-five-extinctions

Biologists suspect we’re living through the sixth major mass extinction. Earth has witnessed five, when more than 75% of species disappeared. Palaeontologists spot them when species go missing from the global fossil record, including the iconic specimens shown here. “We don’t always know what caused them but most had something to do with rapid climate change”, says Melbourne Museum palaeontologist Rolf Schmidt.

This is what I mean by science being so unscientific. Biologists don't understand what "mass extinctions" are I guess? Mass extinctions go far beyond a species level to entire genera, families, orders, classes and sub-phyla. Species extinction does not equate to "mass extinction". It also doesn't take into account new species that are forming or being discovered all the time. 

So don't be shocked. Understand that a mass extinction is not really happening.

2 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

I originally thought that way also, but I've seen that wind and solar are both less expensive than fossil fuels now, so they should probably be transitioning over too.  That would improve their air pollution problems quite a bit.

I'd throw nuclear in there also if I was confident that developing countries could properly safeguard nuclear reactors.....

 

 

Wind and solar are not reliable. Energy needs to be reliable. Nuclear is a big win for everyone, and the technology available today makes it very safe. 

4 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

it's more of a problem in the developing world, in the developed world we've already lowered the birth rate to around 2 per family.

 

This is correct. But the way for those countries to move from "developing" to "developed" is through the use of fossil fuels. Something that you seem to want to deny them.