hot enough for ya?

[DrDonkeyLove]

Yeah, the temperature is increasing. By about one degree Celsius since 1961-1890. If you reconcile it with the quote in my earlier post, that the Bureau of Meteorology in Australia is limiting the lowest temperature that an individual weather station can record - what do you make of this increase?

I know it will fall on dead ears, but I will repeat it nevertheless. I am not arguing that temperatures are increasing, I am not convinced that it is due to human activity. In this light I am not really moved by Federer's complaints about the weather.

By the way, if you wonder around the site you posted you will find this:

Consistent with global studies, an increase in the proportion of heavy rainfall has been detected over Australia. The fraction of Australia receiving a high proportion (greater than the 90th percentile) of annual rainfall from extreme rain days (greater than the 90th percentile for 24 hour rainfall) has been increasing since the 1970s. Significant regional variability exists, with the east coast region experiencing a significant decrease in extreme rain events since 1950. There is also an increase in the fraction of Australia receiving summer (December to February, accumulated) rainfall that is above the 90th percentile.

That's exactly what this continent needs: decrease of rain in the coastal regions (more tourists) and increase of rain inland (farmers). Trust me, no farmer in Australia will ever complain about increasing rain. Would you wonder why this fact - the positive side of increasing temperatures - is not discussed in the media?

The question is never considered. You would think that groups convinced that horrible AGW consequences are imminent would want 3 things:
1) Make it stop
2) Mitigate the damage via infrastructure investments
3) Take advantage of whatever benefits occur in specific areas such as inland Australian farmers

Yet, "make it stop" is 99.9% of what we hear discussed even though the world has not shown any inclination to truly make it stop. I think it's evidence that we're being lied to or appeased by virtue signalers. At the very least it shows warmers aren't being serious about dealing with the consequences or opportunities associated with AGW.

Personally I think it's a religious urge that involves appeasing the angry god. Mitigating damage or taking advantage of warming changes are the acts of blasphemers and we all know how the angry god treats blasphemers. Hence, it's ignored. It's a story as old as time.

[dead man walking]

adaptation, mitigation, etc is proceeding everywhere. local govt, business, ag.

because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it isn't happening. more could happen if naysayers embraced solutions.

[nafod]

I wonder if NASA working with the commies identified that no shit, zero doubt, ready or not a big fucking asteroid will hit us in 2040 and smite most of life if actions aren't taken..I wonder if the planet could get its act together. I can see mullah casting doubt, religious saying what took the rapture so long, scientists arguing the data sucks, etc. it'd be like my family on a car trip. Harmony...not.

[dead man walking]

it'd be like my family on a car trip.

pretty much explains everything

[Sangoma]

adaptation, mitigation, etc is proceeding everywhere. local govt, business, ag.

because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it isn't happening. more could happen if naysayers embraced solutions.

DrDonkey is spot on. 99.9% of what we hear is about stopping the climate from changing, the least feasible plan of action. The least realistic, given the fact that the economy needs to be expanding to maintain the standard of Western living.

But then again, why do something for which you can be accountable when you can chase imaginary windmills?

As far as mitigation and adasptation being worked on, could you give a few examples of such policies?

[nafod]

As far as mitigation and adasptation being worked on, could you give a few examples of such policies?

Because I saw NYC's architectural planner give a brief, I know about this...
http://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/plans ... iency.page

[JimZipCode]

As far as mitigation and adasptation being worked on, could you give a few examples of such policies?

https://www.acq.osd.mil/eie/Downloads/C ... ward_e.pdf

[Sangoma]

Fair enough. New York re-zoning document is a fair example. Department of Defense Adaptation Roadmap less so, but ok, it will pass as the general plan. Now, any examples of policies aimed at DrDonkey's No.3? Taking advantages of climate change?

[nafod]

Fair enough. New York re-zoning document is a fair example. Department of Defense Adaptation Roadmap less so, but ok, it will pass as the general plan. Now, any examples of policies aimed at DrDonkey's No.3? Taking advantages of climate change?

'Taking advantage' is what the rest of the non-government world naturally does, like the cruise line that is using Canada's NorthWest passage now, or farmers switching crops. That is humanity's downhill direction of flow (I think).

[dead man walking]

mitigation: read corporate sustainability reports. i'll bet 90+% talk about resilience, which is their word, or adaptation.

mitigation: google miami. google norfolk. google long island.

i don't know what sydney is doing, but it's airport is going to have to do something to keep its runways from going underwater

(it is worth noting that small changes in temperature increases at this point can result in disproportionate effects. you google. info is out there.)

farmers are already adapting. spring comes earlier. growing season is longer. for ex, soybean cultivation moving north. orchards around the globe are having to adapt practices to deal with earlier blooms and risk of frost damage. protocols for fungus and pests are changing.

this shit is going on everywhere. it's manmade. no other explanation that has been posited has held up to scrutiny.

THUS ENDETH THE LESSON

[Sangoma]

Using "scrutiny" in the context of climate "science" is a joke. The Church of Climate has never allowed to be scrutinised in the first place. I say it is not manmade, warming has happened before and Reverend Mann is a huckster protected by his cronies.

[Sangoma]

The whole thing is one big joke. Prediction after prediction fails to come to life, while the "scientists" are keeping straight face as nothing of the sort is happening. Contrary to the forecasts, the number and severity of storms and hurricanes hasn't increased, in spite of rising sea level the planet is actually gaining dry land surface, there is more rain in dry areas (not increasing drought), in Australia dams are full of water and the desalination plant hasn't been used since it was built. The image of polar bear swimming in thawed water to its death is stuck in every climate documentary, yet nobody talks about the numbers of polar bears actually increasing. Climate refugees, climate driven food shortages, climate casualties - every prediction has failed. In 2007 IPCC warned that there are only eight years left to avoid the worst effects of climate change; it's 2018 now.... yawn...

At the same time there is tremendous bias towards the current climate adage. The centrepiece of the argument, the hockey stick, is built on fraud, and every attempt of the opponents to have a discussion has been shut down by the scientific power. The media is heavily biased. Last year the area I go to hunt received highest amount of rain since 1924; how much attention did that get from the media? IPCC members all have a finger in the jar of climate science - yet it is "Independent". Many of its members have left because of disagreements with the way things are done there; they are marked as "deniers". And the Australian Bureau of Meteorology puts the limits on the lowest temperature allowed to be recorded. There are enough facts of fraud and misleading reporting to fill several pages.

Yet the crowds are cheering for the "science" and installing solar panels (which in fact cost the environment more than "dirty" coal power stations in the long run), switch off the light on the Earth Day and join to ridicule the few with common sense. The "scientists" get away saying any shit, no matter how outrageous. In 2010 Science used take image of polar bear to make a point, they later admitted to doing so. Fucking Science, are you kidding me?!

If this is not enough to at lest have some doubt about the climate science Church I don't know what is.

[Sangoma]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/ ... -change/

[nafod]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/ ... -change/

Ugh, horrible article.

I believe with high confidence that the planet is warming. I believe with slightly lower, but still high, confidence that we are contributing to it. That's where the facts take me.

According to the author of the paper, I am a Climate Alarmist who hates fossil fuels.

[nafod]

...in spite of rising sea level the planet is actually gaining dry land surface...

The sea are rising and many, many cities will be inundated and ultimately made unlivable along with current climate winners turned into climate losers, causing enormous social upheaval which will lead to wars and other bad stuff.

But hey, there's some uninhabited coast line that is growing and your hunting site has more rain. Win-win!

[JimZipCode]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/ ... -change/

Ugh, horrible article.

Yes.

It may be "natural" to return to temps near the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. But I would be against it.

[nafod]

The National Climate Assessment was released on Black Friday, which tells you Trump is trying to hide what his own experts are saying...

Most significantly, the National Climate Assessment—which is endorsed by nasa, noaa, the Department of Defense, and 10 other federal scientific agencies—contradicts nearly every position taken on the issue by President Donald Trump.

Where the president has insisted that fighting global warming will harm the economy, the report responds: Climate change, if left unchecked, could eventually cost the economy hundreds of billions of dollars per year, and kill thousands of Americans to boot. Where the president has said that the climate will “probably” “change back,” the report replies: Many consequences of climate change will last for millennia, and some (such as the extinction of plant and animal species) will be permanent.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... ay/576589/

[vern]

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/11/ ... l-warming/

[Turdacious]

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/11/ ... l-warming/

Research from scientists at Harvard and Yale universities was recently published in a journal called Environmental Research Letters which proposes using a technique called stratospheric aerosol injection to fight against climate change. The proposed technique would see scientists launching sulfate particles into the Earth’s lower stratosphere at altitudes up 12 miles high.

Currently, the technology exists but there are no aircraft suitable to carry the particles and “developing a new, purpose-built tanker with substantial payload capabilities would neither be technologically difficult nor prohibitively expensive,” the researchers stated. The researchers have estimated that it would cost $3.5 billion to launch a system in 15 years time and would cost $2.25 billion a year to maintain over the course of those 15 years.

As long as we give Lockheed Martin the contract, everything will be ok.

[Gene]

I wonder if NASA working with the commies identified that no shit, zero doubt, ready or not a big fucking asteroid will hit us in 2040 and smite most of life if actions aren't taken..I wonder if the planet could get its act together. I can see mullah casting doubt, religious saying what took the rapture so long, scientists arguing the data sucks, etc. it'd be like my family on a car trip. Harmony...not.

An asteroid is a clear and present danger. Astronomy is a well established science.


Human caused climate change? It's about "models". How many models? Which climate model? I'm still waiting for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry or Physics for this work.

The logic is pretty easy to follow. If Climate Change is an existential crisis for human beings then the science should be acknowledged by the Nobel Prize committees. The science, not the economics or a peace prize. An acknowledgement of the science itself by the international scientific community. Once this is done we will have a standard model. We can have honest discussion of what works.

Not a consensus. Consensus is bullshit in science. The 2005 Nobel Prize for Medicine was awarded for the discovery of the role H. Pylori stomach ulcers. The two researchers were acclaimed for their refusal to follow the consensus of doctors about the causes of ulcers.

We need something like this for climate change. Been how many years? The science is settled? Let's see the science. Not the forecasts or the models. The science itself. Models are based upon scientific principles, equations and data that is realized in computer artifacts.



I'm for nuke power, specially breeder reactors. Least amount of mining, least amount of contamination. Least amount of social engineering. Ain't corporate welfare, it's how to reduce CO2 emissions. Not windmills, not social democracy, not income redistribution. Not meat taxes and cramming people into cities.

Fix the problem.

[Gene]

Yet the crowds are cheering for the "science" and installing solar panels (which in fact cost the environment more than "dirty" coal power stations in the long run), switch off the light on the Earth Day and join to ridicule the few with common sense. The "scientists" get away saying any shit, no matter how outrageous. In 2010 Science used take image of polar bear to make a point, they later admitted to doing so. Fucking Science, are you kidding me?!

If this is not enough to at lest have some doubt about the climate science Church I don't know what is.

You grew up under scientific socialism, Sangoma. How scientific were they?

Hansen et al had this to say....

We use paleoclimate data to show that long-term climate has high sensitivity to climate forcings and that the present global mean CO2, 385 ppm, is already in the dangerous zone.

Despite rapid current CO2 growth, ~2 ppm/year, we show that it is conceivable to reduce CO2 this century to less than the current amount, but only via prompt policy changes.

Human-made global climate forcings now prevail over natural forcings (Fig. 2). Earth may have entered the Anthropocene era [60, 61] 6-8 ky ago [62], but the net human-made forcing was small, perhaps slightly negative [7], prior to the industrial era. GHG forcing overwhelmed natural and negative human-made forcings only in the past quarter century (Fig.
2).

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/20 ... 00410c.pdf


Figure 2 is located on page 4 of this document. Shows a time line going back 400,000 years ago. The Earth is roughly ten times older. What was the CO2 before 400K years ago?

Apparently people were taking the "global temperature" back to about 1900 or so. Satellites were not launched until the late 1950s. I have no idea when they were taking the planet's temperature or how they were doing it.

That little green line? The GHG forcing? What does it mean in that context?

What about "All forcings"? Why is it less than the GHG forcing line?

A little sloppy here, I think.

[nafod]

I wonder if NASA working with the commies identified that no shit, zero doubt, ready or not a big fucking asteroid will hit us in 2040 and smite most of life if actions aren't taken..I wonder if the planet could get its act together. I can see mullah casting doubt, religious saying what took the rapture so long, scientists arguing the data sucks, etc. it'd be like my family on a car trip. Harmony...not.

An asteroid is a clear and present danger. Astronomy is a well established science.

Not to mention all of the impact craters that are still visible on the Earth.

And yet we have an absolutely minimal effort in actual money to really track these planet-level existential threats, and no real effort to figure out how to deal with it if/when it shows up. Who is developing and testing the technology to nudge a comet swinging in from deep space that we only have a year or two to deal with? We are constantly surprised by rocks that appear out of the void and come inside the moon's orbit as they zip by us. If one is boresighting central-PA, what will we do?

Your example says more about humanity's ability to stick its head in the dirt and pretend the threat doesn't exist, than it does about anything else.

Human caused climate change? It's about "models". How many models? Which climate model?

As an aside, it is every bit as much about the initializations. The instrumenting of the planet in order to get accurate current states and inputs to feed the models, forecasts of human activity to predict ahead, and the effort to get historical data from the planet's past in order hindcast the models and to again give initializations. I don't see Nobel Prizes in space, geology, oceanography, glaciology, ecology, or see any prizes given out for instrumentation needed to gather this data.

I'm still waiting for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry or Physics for this work.

Nor do they give out Nobels for meteorology or climatology. Nor are there big analogs for those fields like the Turing Award or Fields Medal.

The logic is pretty easy to follow. If Climate Change is an existential crisis for human beings then the science should be acknowledged by the Nobel Prize committees...

...not a consensus.

That's what committees do. They generate a consensus.

The committee for economics generated a consensus this year and awarded the Nobel in Economics to a scientist who modeled where climate and economics intersect, which is really what we care about. They gave him an award for his modeling.

...In the mid-1990s, he became the first person to create an integrated assessment model, i.e. a quantitative model that describes the global interplay between the economy and the climate. His model integrates theories and empirical results from physics, chemistry and economics.

I'm with you on the market-based solutions and bringing in nuclear, for example, but the government controls the incentives through things like carbon taxes and regulatory structure.

[Gene]

I'm still waiting for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry or Physics for this work.

Nor do they give out Nobels for meteorology or climatology. Nor are there big analogs for those fields like the Turing Award or Fields Medal.

Given the gravity of the threat why not? If this is really such an existential crisis for every human being then the Nobel Prize committee should form a special category of Climate Science. They should have done it years ago. They could do it right now. Announce that for 2019 they are going to award a prize to the most outstanding worker in Climate Science.

If the Nobel Prize committees won't add this category what does that tell me about the solidity of the science? What does that say about the urgency?

And yet we have an absolutely minimal effort in actual money to really track these planet-level existential threats, and no real effort to figure out how to deal with it if/when it shows up. Who is developing and testing the technology to nudge a comet swinging in from deep space that we only have a year or two to deal with? We are constantly surprised by rocks that appear out of the void and come inside the moon's orbit as they zip by us. If one is boresighting central-PA, what will we do?

Your example says more about humanity's ability to stick its head in the dirt and pretend the threat doesn't exist, than it does about anything else.

Some U.S. nuclear-warhead components, scheduled for disassembly in the next year, have gotten at least a temporary new lease on life. The reason: possible use in defending the Earth against killer asteroids.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-takes- ... 1412119610

Melosh’s campaign suffered a setback last month when the Obama Administration’s new Energy Secretary, Ernest Moniz, signed an agreement with the Russians that the Americans said could open the door to new collaboration between nuclear weapons scientists on asteroid defense.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... ds/280593/

[Gene]

The committee for economics generated a consensus this year and awarded the Nobel in Economics to a scientist who modeled where climate and economics intersect, which is really what we care about. They gave him an award for his modeling.

...In the mid-1990s, he became the first person to create an integrated assessment model, i.e. a quantitative model that describes the global interplay between the economy and the climate. His model integrates theories and empirical results from physics, chemistry and economics.

Modeling in economics, yes? Which assumes that the crisis is real.

To which I ask - why not form a committee on Climate change? Where are the prizes in Climate Modeling?

[nafod]

I'm still waiting for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry or Physics for this work.

Nor do they give out Nobels for meteorology or climatology. Nor are there big analogs for those fields like the Turing Award or Fields Medal.

Given the gravity of the threat why not? If this is really such an existential crisis for every human being then the Nobel Prize committee should form a special category of Climate Science. They should have done it years ago. They could do it right now. Announce that for 2019 they are going to award a prize to the most outstanding worker in Climate Science.

If the Nobel Prize committees won't add this category what does that tell me about the solidity of the science? What does that say about the urgency?

There’s really no big “aha” piece to warrant a physics or chemistry prize, like discovering gravity waves or a new cool molecule. It’s more grinding away at the problem. But they’ve given a peace prize (Gore 2007) and now an economics prize. The signal is there.

The AMS is all over it, though.

https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/a ... d-fellows/