[jonottawa]

PassedOut, on 2016-November-26, 12:24, said:

That's fake information.

Obama Has Done More for Clean Energy Than You Think

I stand corrected.

[mike777]

my last prediction was very wrong but I will predict that Trump will not pull out of the Paris Climate Change Accord.

[Al_U_Card]

mike777, on 2016-November-26, 23:19, said:

my last prediction was very wrong but I will predict that Trump will not pull out of the Paris Climate Change Accord.

So then, saving the planet from 0.008 deg.C temperature increase means that the $800 million "commitment" will come from which other "worthy" cause in Trump's budget?

[Al_U_Card]

The basis for all this controversy lies in the veracity of the claims for catastrophe to be caused by increases in atmospheric [CO2] caused by human activity.

All of those claims come from evaluations of climate models. Only one refutation of these models is sufficient to dismiss their reliability. This is easy for any layman to evaluate based on the predictions of the models over the last several decades. They DO NOT accurately predict actual observations.

As mentioned on the Trump thread:

mikeh, on 2016-December-07, 19:15, said:
Thus climate deniers v climate experts. A used car salesmen or a rich egomaniacal man who inherited 140MM from his father is entitled to as much respect as several hundred scientists with multiple degrees, thousands of peer-reviewed papers, and in total thousands of people-years experience on the topic...after all...we can't be sure that Trump doesn't know more about climate science than the scientists. At the very least, the fact that Trump says it is all a hoax is surely evidence that it may be a hoax? How can we be sure?

It would make me laugh all day long if this sort of argument weren't the staple for right wing politicians, and weren't a winning formula.

Or, any person shown that the only cause for alarm comes from models full of assumptions that cannot predict anything because the uncertainty associated with their calculations invalidates them. It then becomes clear that all claims and positions predicated on them are a scam if they are presented as factual and representative of reality. Such is the state of "belief" that the climate changes based on a factor that can only have marginal effect, at most, if any, within natural variability.
Nothing to do with character or affiliation.

This is why the model comparisons with reality are always presented at congressional hearings.

[Al_U_Card]

Well, Obama stated in 2008 that this was the year that the "seas stopped rising" and based on the last two decades, it looks like about less than a foot by the end of the century. How will we survive?

[onoway]

Al_U_Card, on 2016-December-21, 08:39, said:

Well, Obama stated in 2008 that this was the year that the "seas stopped rising" and based on the last two decades, it looks like about less than a foot by the end of the century. How will we survive?

Admittedly I haven't read most of this thread, just drop in from time to time. Al, are you saying that human activity is not responsible, or that the climate is not changing, sea ice melting etc.?Two different questions and I'm unsure which you are espousing.

[Al_U_Card]

onoway, on 2016-December-21, 10:15, said:

Admittedly I haven't read most of this thread, just drop in from time to time. Al, are you saying that human activity is not responsible, or that the climate is not changing, sea ice melting etc.?Two different questions and I'm unsure which you are espousing.

Basically, the man-made portion of recent warming is much less than the natural change in the climate. (Warming over the last 3 centuries, with no SUVs.) Thus, completely nullifying human activity would result in about .3 C if you believe the climate models, otherwise likely much less.
Natural variation causes change to sea-ice,(at least 3 times up and down over the last 150 yrs) glacier melting (most of which occurred in the late 1800s and there was a natural reversal in the mid 20th century which is now being reversed....naturally)
This is based on scientific studies and the IPCC itself. Only the policy-making part of the IPCC espouses disaster looming.

[nige1]

The Royal Society said:

Nullius in verba
(Take nobody's word for it)

[Al_U_Card]

Especially not mine. One need only look into the actual data from observations and compare them to the "theory" of CAGW as evinced by the GCMs and determine the veracity of their predictions. (How real science is done.) Once the theory is falsified, (the only models that come close to reality have CO2 as a minimal effect on global temps with NO water vapor multiplier) you cannot propose controlling CO2 as a means of affecting global temperatures.

[Al_U_Card]

While we are waiting for that list of climate scientists that will inform us about the reality of global warming caused by CO2, here is an interesting and factual presentation by an actual climate scientist.

[PassedOut]

To no one's surprise: U.S. scientists officially declare 2016 the hottest year on record. That makes three in a row.

Quote

NASA and NOAA produce slightly different records using somewhat different methodologies, but have now concurred on identifying 2014, 2015, and 2016 as, successively, the three warmest years in their records. There was a noticeable difference this year in how much the two agencies judged that 2016 had surpassed 2015, with NASA more bullish — a difference that Schmidt attributed to different ways of measuring the super-warm Arctic on a press call Wednesday.

“The warming in the Arctic has really been exceptional, and what you decide to do when you’re interpolating across the Arctic, makes a difference,” Schmidt said.

But the differences between NOAA and NASA aren’t that significant, Schmidt further argued, in the context bigger picture. “Getting hung up on the exact nature of the records is interesting, and there’s lots of technical work that can be done there, but the main take home response there is that the trends we’ve been seeing since the 1970s are continuing and have not paused in any way,” he said.

Let's hope that the "it's all about me" politicians in Washington DC see some immediate political downside to throwing a monkey wrench into the plans to preserve our planet for future generations.

[Al_U_Card]

PassedOut, on 2017-January-18, 12:16, said:

To no one's surprise: U.S. scientists officially declare 2016 the hottest year on record. That makes three in a row.


Let's hope that the "it's all about me" politicians in Washington DC see some immediate political downside to throwing a monkey wrench into the plans to preserve our planet for future generations.

You mean hundredths of a degree difference when the measurement error is in tenths of a degree?
I understand that little has changed because they are still using those useless GCMs to project warming and the "invented" arctic temperatures (there are NO temperature stations there...) depend on their souped-up models to provide those "record-setting" values.

At the zenith of a warming trend, most years will be close to the highest temperature EVAH!

Look at the raw values or the satellite temperatures to see the real situation. Much less alarming or even of interest but not nearly as scary...

[Al_U_Card]

The arctic ice "death spiral" may have to be commuted to a 2011 weather induced "minor blip" as Environment Canada shows in this graph of arctic ice coverage.




The lack of ice back in the 1970s may represent the "coming ice age" that was expected because of INCREASING sea-ice coverage.

[MrAce]

I am not saying it is because of climate change but hey, January is almost over and we are still running coolers here in Houston Texas.
I am not kidding! Winter will be over soon and yet I am still wearing shorts and a tiny shirt!
Never saw that in previous winters here.

[Zelandakh]

Could you send us some of your weather than please? Here it has been horribly cold this week.

[MrAce]

Zelandakh, on 2017-January-25, 05:46, said:

Could you send us some of your weather than please? Here it has been horribly cold this week.

I am waiting Csaba to bring us some breeze.
Where do you live?

[Zelandakh]

MrAce, on 2017-January-25, 07:24, said:

Where do you live?

I am in Nuremberg (Bavaria).

[PassedOut]

Rather than impose a complicated tangle of regulations on industry, we conservatives would like to see a simple carbon tax and let the market respond. I see that some respected conservatives are calling on the Trump administration to implement this proposal: ‘A Conservative Climate Solution’: Republican Group Calls for Carbon Tax

Quote

The group, led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, with former Secretary of State George P. Shultz and Henry M. Paulson Jr., a former secretary of the Treasury, says that taxing carbon pollution produced by burning fossil fuels is “a conservative climate solution” based on free-market principles.

Mr. Baker is scheduled to meet on Wednesday with White House officials, including Vice President Mike Pence, Jared Kushner, the senior adviser to the president, and Gary D. Cohn, director of the National Economic Council, as well as Ivanka Trump.

In an interview, Mr. Baker said that the plan followed classic conservative principles of free-market solutions and small government.

Although Trump is not a conservative and maintains only a tenuous relationship with reality, perhaps some of Trump's family members can get through to him on this. They'll have to deal with the consequences of climate change long after Trump is dead.

[mikeh]

Here in the Pacific Northwest, in (usually) sunny Victoria we are having our 3rd consecutive day of snowfall: some areas had as much as 17 inches Monday. We had snow in December, January and now February. My golf course has been open for, I believe, a total of 4 days since December 4th, and is so snow covered now that I doubt that it will open for at least another week, even if we get the promised increase in temperature (and rain) forecast to start tomorrow.

In addition, the temperatures have been consistently low throughout. I haven't seen statistics but this has been, in my view, easily the coldest winter in the 31 years I have been here, and I cannot recall any winter in which we had snow on three separate occasions. We did have a once-in-a-century snowfall in 1996, over Xmas and New Years, and this isn't that bad in total but is far worse in duration.

Why?

The meteorologists I have heard speak of it say that this is due to global warming, and it makes sense to me even tho it sounds paradoxical. This is the sort of thing that gets climate deniers all worked up, because they see unseasonably cold measurements as evidence against global warming. But the explanation at least in part seems to be that historically there is a wind system that circles the northern areas, which system is known as the polar vortex. It has the effect of trapping cold artic air in the artic. However, the vortex (I can't help but think of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy whenever I say or write 'vortex') has been weakened by the effects of global warming, so the cold air gets out far more readily than it used to. While we see lower temperatures, the artic is seeing, relatively, a higher increase in temperature than we are seeing a decrease. On balance, then, the artic is warming more than we are cooling.

Which is one reason the isolated measurements that al likes to post on occasion are, even when real, irrelevant and misleading.

[PassedOut]

mikeh, on 2017-February-08, 15:05, said:

The meteorologists I have heard speak of it say that this is due to global warming, and it makes sense to me even tho it sounds paradoxical. This is the sort of thing that gets climate deniers all worked up, because they see unseasonably cold measurements as evidence against global warming. But the explanation at least in part seems to be that historically there is a wind system that circles the northern areas, which system is known as the polar vortex. It has the effect of trapping cold artic air in the artic. However, the vortex (I can't help but think of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy whenever I say or write 'vortex') has been weakened by the effects of global warming, so the cold air gets out far more readily than it used to. While we see lower temperatures, the artic is seeing, relatively, a higher increase in temperature than we are seeing a decrease. On balance, then, the artic is warming more than we are cooling.

The weakened polar vortex has made the weather here in Upper Michigan much more erratic also.