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.

7 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

the popularity of almond milk, coconut milk, avocado milk, etc., probably has a lot to do with it- consider how many commercials you see for those and none for dairy milk (I still remember the old days with the "Got Milk" commercials, you dont see them anymore.)  Starbucks has also switched to plant-based milk.

 

Again "probably". Actually I will give you some credit on this one. I did not realize that plant based milks are getting as popular as they are. I have researched a bit and it seems they are really taking off over the past year or so. So you are correct on this one. Still. Hands off my burger!

9 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

The use of "climate denial movement" was deliberate. It was intended to differentiate between honest skeptics (in general people who seek more evidence and then will allow the evidence to guide them) and deniers (for lack of a better term) who will essentially reject any or all evidence that does not confirm their preferred views. There is a difference and that difference is critical.

Ok that I can certainly agree with. Anyone who closes their mind on either side of this issue is simply a partisan hack and not interested in science. Definitely agree with you there. But that goes for both sides. No? I mean, anyone who closes their mind to the possibility of skeptics being right is guilty of the same thing you are condemning "climate deniers" of. Correct?

8 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

https://theaseanpost.com/article/coral-reefs-are-facing-extinction

 

90% by 2030

Yeah not going to happen. Like the glaciers at Glacier National Park. This arbitrary 2030 deadline for 90% extinction will come and go and everyone who touted will just keep whistling past the graveyard. 

6 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

thats old news, try this on for size:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/best-way-reduce-your-carbon-footprint-one-government-isn-t-telling-you-about

 

The best way to reduce your carbon footprint is one the government isn’t telling you about

By Sid PerkinsJul. 11, 2017 , 4:30 PM

Recycling and using public transit are all fine and good if you want to reduce your carbon footprint, but to truly make a difference you should have fewer children. That’s the conclusion of a new study in which researchers looked at 39 peer-reviewed papers, government reports, and web-based programs that assess how an individual’s lifestyle choices might shrink their personal share of emissions.

Many commonly promoted options, such as washing clothes in cold water or swapping incandescent bulbs for light-emitting diodes, have only a moderate impact (see chart, below), the team reports today in Environmental Research Letters. But four lifestyle choices had a major impact: Become a vegetarian, forego air travel, ditch your car, and—most significantly—have fewer children.

 

•  
•  

Different variation of the same theme that is as incorrect today as it was when Ehrlich first postulated it. Only today it is couched in a "climate change" wrapping. And I suppose if one is gung ho to reduce one's carbon footprint, creating fewer people who would laso have a carbon footprint is a way to go. And hey, that's fine with me. If people I disagree with don't want to procreate more power to you. 

6 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Haven't you been following the news?  The two largest dairy conglomerates have gone into bankruptcy.  Probably because of the hormone crap that was in their "product."

And beef is about the worse thing you can possibly eat, for health and for the environment.  When I stopped eating meat, my BP went down about 20 points.  I'd rather do that than take some pill for the rest of my life.

 

That's great for you. Not my thing though. And "probably" doesn't quite cut it as a reason for whatever bankruptcies you are referencing. Research the reasons and I would highly doubt it has anything to do with "plant based milk".

21 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

ah so you see my point about more population being a factor.  Just look at how bad the pollution is in some of the most densely packed cities in the world.

 

 

Not more population. The location of said increase in population. Along with poor undergrowth policy. And cyclical weather patterns. And carelessness. Lethal combination no doubt.

21 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Is that why the Navy is moving their base in Norfolk 17 miles inland?

 

Pretty much yes. If they are moving the base it is due to land subsidence and landfill settling. Sorry to be the bearer of such bad news.

15 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

the ones about the Great Barrier Reef going bye bye

If were an actual thing. Which it isn't. Coral adapts amazingly well. It thrived in oceans far more acidic during much warmer times with far more CO2 than we are currently experiencing. 

15 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

actually the majority of research has shown that the best way to limit the carbon footprint is to have one less child.

It's one of the biggest problems in the developing world.

 

Paul. Ehrlich. My goodness.

15 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

the spreading of propaganda is something that FOX has taken right from the Nazi play book.

 

So Fox are Nazi like propagandists? Good to know. Please do continue.

15 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Good news is that plant based burgers taste exactly the same and are gaining in popularity and are available at most fast food joints.  Plant based dairy is driving "real milk" into bankruptcy also.

 

Not really no. Plant based burgers aren't too bad. but they are about as unhelathy as they can possibly be. So what's the point exactly? I'm going to eat something that is full of things that are bad for me just to avoid meat? Sorry. Not happening. And plant based dairy is driving real milk into bankruptcy? Lol. Hyperbole much?

1 minute ago, donsutherland1 said:

The attack on Dr. Michael E. Mann, one of the world's most-cited and visible climate scientists, provides just another illustration of the intellectual, scientific, and moral bankruptcy of the shrinking climate denial movement.

That movement's success rests on total rejection of science, complete repudiation of evidence, and wholesale perversion of truth. Its arguments have nothing to do with science, evidence, or truth. Its arguments are nothing more than unsubstantiated (and more often, repeatedly discredited) public relations talking points aimed at confusing the public and raising doubt.
The shrinking climate denial movement is currently engaged in an all-out noisy "Battle of Bulge" disinformation campaign.  Its propaganda has largely recycled the discredited arguments made by the tobacco industry in the 1960s to counter unequivocal and irrefutable evidence of the link between smoking and, among other adverse health impacts, lung cancer.  In this case, it seeks to evade the overwhelming and still growing body of scientific understanding of anthropogenic climate change, its causes, and its consequences.

The climate denial movement does not seek to advance arguments through scientific peer review. Doing so would be futile, because its arguments could not survive rigorous scientific examination. In addition, doing so would not serve its purposes, because that movement is not interested in productive endeavors such as knowledge creation, along with the enormous positive spillovers that arise from new knowledge translated into innovation.

That movement as a single goal: Sustain an indefensible status quo at all costs. Thus, its target audience is the general public, not the scientific community or others who have expertise in the field.

The climate denial movement understands that as long as it can raise doubts among the general public, not all of whom are scientifically literate and many of whom are not connected to the scientific community, it is well-positioned to thwart effective public policy responses to the severe challenge of climate change. So long as the public policy landscape remains frozen in time, that movement can reap additional profits made possible from the status quo, while remorselessly shifting the burden of the costs of those destructive activities to future generations.

The climate denial movement is  nothing more than the 21st century version of the "tobacco prophets" who tilted against the windmills of scientific understanding. The climate denial movement is not scientific. It is not noble. Its intentions are not good. Just as those who knowingly and tenaciously fought to deprive the public of the devastating health-related risks of smoking, the climate denial movement knowingly aims to imprison society in a status quo that is hazardous to the economic, financial, and social well being of humanity. That movement has no concern whatsoever for the future generations who will be left to bear the full consequences of that movement's ruinous efforts.

Wow. Lots to unpack there. However, I will say that your constant use of the term "climate denial movement" is rather telling. Why argue on merits when labeling your opposition is much faster and more effective. Amirite? My suggestion on this front would be using this invective a tad less often while accusing others of "spreading propaganda". Just an FYI.

As to Dr Mann, being cited and published is what makes him an authority? Back when science was actually...your know...concerned with science I could see that being true. These days unfortunately "publish or perish" is the rule of the day. Add in the grant money needed to continue actually working in the profession, and there is little wonder why Mann and his ilk are so revered within the echo chamber that is the scientific community these days. Many papers these days, including the one cited in another thread regarding oceans warming, are nothing more than a pile-on to gets one's name on something to keep the grant money flowing. There is often an inverse relationship between the number of names on the paper and the quality of the work. That particular one being a prime example.

You say that the "climate denial movement" is shrinking. Not entirely sure where you get that idea. Seems quite a few countries throughout the world are heading away from your way of thinking. Perhaps I am wrong. What do I know? Whether there are a billion people or just one, being correct has nothing to do with the number of people who "believe" something to be true. You use the term propaganda. I would postulate that the propaganda has been on your side for decades. Simply substitute the term "climate alarmist movement" for "climate denial movement" and it is quite applicable to most of your above statement. Except for the scientific peer review part. Which, again, tough to penetrate an echo chamber that is so beholden to the money that flows only in one direction. Same with media. The more sensational the better. So alarmism wins every time. Gets more clicks. 

Science is not afraid of contrary views. It welcomes it. It is always pushing what is perceived to be accurate. If it didn't we'd all still be eugenicists. Wouldn't we?