What are
/r/climateskeptics'
favorite Products & Services?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The most popular Products mentioned in /r/climateskeptics:
The most popular Services mentioned in /r/climateskeptics:
Windy
Weather Underground
Google Docs
AccuWeather
ScienceDirect
The Weather Channel
SemanticScholar
Google Scholar
BitChute
Encyclopædia Britannica
Mashable
Google Sites
TreePad
The Free Dictionary
The most popular reviews in /r/climateskeptics:
I like this book. Unfortunately it appears that amazon temporarily pulled the kindle version because of formatting issues, but the paperback is still available.
Anyway, it's an easy read IMHO. There is a lot of interesting food for thought about the nature of "the climate debate" from a scientific perspective not presented by the mainstream media outlets.
Al Gore is the chiefest example. Despite being destroyed by Dr. Ray 1994 with "Environmental Overkill".
https://www.amazon.com/Environmental-Overkill-Whatever-Happened-Common/dp/0895265125
Yeah I get to slap Bezos with this one.
Federal monies, and subsidies. End those, the Warmers are done. That's coming.
>What the f is that?
>micro atm pCO2 is partial pressure of CO2. For gaseous species, the mole fraction is represented in units of ppm (for e.g. moles of CO2 per million parts of air). Now assuming ideal gas equation number of moles will be directly proportional to partial pressure of an idea gas. So 950 micro atm (950E-6 atm) CO2 in 1 atm air will be equivalent to 950 ppm of CO2.
From this. https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_can_I_convert_micro_atmosphere_pCO2_into_PPM_pCO2
As for the second part... I would not put much faith into the precision of the pH fall. Lab grade PH scales in real world lab conditions have a hard time with 0.1 pH(IE testing actual things, and not just testing precision for the sake of it).
Secondly, There is no defined control pH for seawater. Straight for them Wiki for pH. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH#Seawater
>In practical terms, the three seawater pH scales differ in their values by up to 0.12 pH units, differences that are much larger than the accuracy of pH measurements typically required, in particular, in relation to the ocean's carbonate system.
Third, parts of the ocean can change an entire pH point in a diurnal cycle. It's basically impossible to separate the natural from the co2 noise. Complicating this even further, Algae is the main cause of changing pH, so if there is a causal link to Co2... it's probably because the base of the oceanic food chain grew 40% from carbon fertilization.
Lastly, I still have not seen a margin of error for OA. Until I see something, the crackpots pushing that crap can fuck off.
As for the thread... they are retarded. OA is not a problem, especially in the context of FAR FAR bigger problems that actually affect ocean life.
Researchers should check temperatures in the Arctic today, the warmest temperature I could find in Alaska is 4C, the rest is still in deep freeze.
Excellent Article, particularly the points about greens rejecting nuclear power and the fact that many of them are acting on essentially religous grounds. To that end, I have written an article that is relevant and codifies some very similar thinking here: Lifestyle Radicals, and why technology change is preferable to social change as a mode of progress.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/03/15/boston-snowfall-record/24822823/
>The National Weather Service said 2.9 inches fell by 7 p.m., pushing total snowfall for the winter of 2014-2015 to 108.6 inches.
>That is a full inch over the previous record set during the winter of 1995-1996, the service's Boston office tweeted, and the most since record books started in 1872.
In fact, 6 of the top ten snowfalls have been since 1992:
2014-2015: 110.6 inches
1995-1996: 107.6 inches
1993-1994: 96.3 inches
1947-1948: 89.2 inches
2004-2005: 86.6 inches
1977-1978: 85.1 inches
1992-1993: 83.9 inches
2010-2011: 81.0 inches
1915-1916: 79.2 inches
1919-1920: 73.4 inches
>Here we have a graphic from the Danish Meteorological Institute that shows Greenland has increased it’s surface melt dramatically in a very short time.
It must have been a very short event, here's Greenland temperatures right now.
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Super Hurricane? No, Hurricane Harvey doesn't even make the list of 10 most intense Atlantic hurricanes. It's only claim to fame is a cold front stalled it over Texas for several days.
Climate alarmists will have you believe that drought is a clear sign of our current climate crisis, and that it’s solely due to man: anthropogenic climate change. That’s simply not true. Not even close. Many past great nations and civilisations have collapsed, often because of a complex set of causes, but drought is often identified as the primary culprit or a significant contributing factor.
Presented here is a "top ten" list of drought's great power over some of the mightiest civilizations in world history - presented chronologically.
>Considering the other things he's said about Mexico how is it not?
What else has he said about mexico? Sometimes the illegal immigrants that are coming over are criminals? They may be rapists?
I don't really see how that's wrong. When people break the law to enter your country, purposely ignoring legal routes and law enforcement, they may not have kind intentions.
To claim that somehow translates into "All mexicans are rapists!" is stretching for the sake of argument.
>Trumped
So a hit piece written by an employee who evidently hates Trump can be taken as evidence? Over the polls, support of Carson and a number of folks in the black community?
Perhaps he's never denied it because he's never been asked if it was true? Or perhaps he's above defending himself from angry ex-employees?
At any rate, it's hearsay. Edit: Via /u/donaldosaurus He did deny it. Go figure, about the same reason I imagined he might have
> book with the alleged quote was "written by a fired and totally disgruntled employee who was terrible at the job he did and who I hardly knew."
>The third quote stands for itself.
Is this a way of saying "I have no source"?
Again, we can see he's been somewhat balanced on Israel, if we're looking for observable, demonstrable prejudice towards Jewish people.
Aside from that, the quote also shows up in the same line as the previous quote, from the same book.
Honestly the claims he's a racist, Xenophobe, Sexist, etc seem so contrived. Some people digging desperately for a quote he may have said. Once. 10 years ago, or some such.
If he was anything these people claim he is, wouldn't there be mountains of evidence? Being Skeptics I would think we shouldn't be taking a theoretical quote as a "Gotchya!" over empirical evidence and observations that demonstrates the opposite.
I'm not sure if you are genuinely asking or just reciting talking points, but several "fingerprints" of GHG warming aren't actually unique to GHGs. They are consistent with it, but not exclusive to it, if that makes sense. For example, stratospheric cooling is consistent with not only GHG increases, but also ozone destruction, which is caused by both increased UV flux associated with high solar activity as well as chlorofluorocarbons.
An essay about some of this: https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp
"The main reason for the recent stratospheric cooling is due to the destruction of ozone by human-emitted CFC gases. Ozone absorbs solar UV radiation, which heats the surrounding air in the stratosphere. Loss of ozone means that less UV light gets absorbed, resulting in cooling of the stratosphere."
(I seem to recall having this conversation with you before.)
What happened to the Larsen C ice shelf crack and shedding? - that seems to have been quietly disappeared into the background. Now we have the Brunt Ice shelf cracking. Seems like this is another rolling catastrophe lark that the warmists are doing.
It's believe with this meaning:
1 "accept as true; take to be true"
a very common usage where there is not absolute proof that a proposition is true.
Not only is it unacceptable, considering the stakes involved here, it's downright fraudulent.
I mean if we take the wolfram alpha data on this ( collected from various sources ) the global trend is 1.3°F/century which on the grand scheme of things is, well... make your own mind up.
>Do some research!!!!
Did some. 25 degrees below zero in Point Barrow, Alaska at this moment. Right now I'd be looking for a boiling pot of water too.
Arctic Ice keeps On Advancing. (try to keep up with current data)
The problem alarmists face is that they cannot rely upon correlation. Correlation is not causation. Sloppy thinking leads you to avoid the scientific method.
An alarmist must show that causation is due to the presence of CO2.
Outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 absorption bands is NOT what is measured in the first paper you link to. General greenhouse gases are cited. In that the specific wavelengths are not specified the conclusions you draw are wrong. In that the study specifies that the changes are due to cloud cover variation...You are wrong again. Triply wrong in interpreting a study is massive failure.
The second study refers to model ensembles to simulate levels of IR received at the Earth's surface....IN 1880.
Excuuuuuuuse me. I do not hold any confidence that the model is of any value because the IR flux towards the Earth's surface was not verified at that point in time. MODELS are not empirical measurements. This is another problem pointed out by Phil Jones at UEA. Reliance on modelers if they are shown to be wrong will decimate the reputations of climate scientists. Looks like it is happening.
The global temperature at half of the present level would be almost the same as the temperature now. The difference is still on the almost horizontal portion of the logarithmic curve. The main difference would be significantly lower plant production due to CO2 starvation. At about 180 ppm, plant life slows and starts to die out. A discussion of the reasons for plant death at around 180 ppm is in the link. The carbon set point.
I note you have also posted this:
Interesting articles, but what are we supposed to take from them? What argument are you making and what points or data in these articles do you see as being supportive of your position?
As they stand, they are just mute links.
You might be interested to learn that the Oxford English Dictionary now has two definitions for "literally" - and interestingly enough, those two definitions contradict each other:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/literally
This ambiguity adds a layer of sarcastic humor to informal phrases like "literally Hitler" (and by extension "literally anthrax").
You can access the pre-press version of the paper here. The original is gone from www.princeton.edu/~nurban/
You mean the great Roman Empire during what is call the climate "optimum?" Just fine, thank you. And the Medieval warm period led to the flourishing of Western civilization as well:
>It is frequently pointed out that the MWP was a prosperous time in European history. The interval was concurrent with Norse explorations of the New World, the founding of Norse settlements in Iceland and Greenland, and increased agricultural productivity and crop diversity in northern Europe. Some paleoclimatologists and historians claim that the pleasant conditions of the MWP allowed the settlements in Iceland and Greenland to prosper and Norse explorers to venture to the coasts of Labrador and Newfoundland to hunt and fish. They interpret records of bountiful harvests over much of Europe to mean that the region benefited from a series of extended summers and mild winters. As proof of warmer average temperatures in northern Europe, they cite the existence of wheat cultivation and vineyards at latitudes and elevations that were far higher than today. link
>Sounding the alarm, Yuccas continued: “However, there’s now the potential this rare event could strike the San Diego area again.” Scientist Art Miller, a researcher for the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, fretted: “It could happen, especially if the ocean temperatures continue to stay in this anomalously warm state.”
So, how warm is the ocean off of Southern California today? Hurricanes need 28C water temperatures to survive and California waters are 22C, about normal for this time of year.
That San Diego hurricane they mention? That was in 1858 when there was no global warming and the climate was always perfect.
>The rapid rise of bedrock beneath one of the fastest melting regions of the West Antarctic ice sheet could help prevent it collapsing, new research suggests.
>The natural uplift of the ground in response to melting of ice could help stabilise the ice sheet and “literally pin the ice to the rock”,..
>Tthe new research, published in Science, suggests that the rapid rebound of the ground beneath the ASE’s melting glaciers could help stabilise the ice sheet. In the long run, this could prevent the West Antarctic ice sheet from collapsing.
>This adjustment of the land once the weight of the ice has been lifted is known as “glacial isostatic adjustment”. It is usually thought to be a slow process, but the new data suggests the ground uplift beneath the ASE area is occurring at an unprecedented rate of 41mm per year..
Not mentioned is the volcanic activity that's melting the ice. Volcanic activity also causes uplift (lava flows, volcanic cones) and add to the isostatic rebound. The article eventually decays into the usual global warming rhetoric, CarbonBrief is after all an alarmist site.
FYI: The sea temperatures are -1.7 degrees in that area and that's a zero degrees temperature anomaly.
> Lyakhovsky Islands
Kind of pathetic that's the best they could come up with, I had to Google the islands to see where they are. Here's the 10-day weather forecast for the Lyakhovsky Islands out to mid-May and not one day above 0 degrees.
BTW, the current temperature is -11 degrees there. What this has to do with the coldest April in the U.S. is beyond me, never could fathom climate activist logic.
Greenland is -26 degrees C right now. The warmest temp (+3C) I can find is on the coast at very southern tip Greenland, a place called Kangilinnguit.
>Got any proof?
The invective laden account name which seems to have been created only to troll here, the style of rhetoric in the comments, along with the fact that the first account abruptly stopped four days ago, exactly when the second began...
As AllyssaMoore said, it appears to be so.
>ad popups
I use the free Adblock Plus.
It blocks about 99% of the ads.
When I use someone's computer who doesn't have any type of ad blocking software I can't believe how they surf the internet without it.
For websites that I really like and want to support I add them to the adblock whitelist so that they can still show me ads.
Though I up-voted this comment, you don't know what you're talking about. MacOS is based on Unix, which is what Linux is derived from, which is what most of the world's heavy duty computers run as an OS. Most of the major computing is done by nodes which have nothing more than a simple kernal. No windows, no user interface of any kind, just something to communicate with other nodes and to allow the processing of data.
Mac has software development tools equivalent to the PC's software development tools. How do you think people write software for the Mac? https://developer.apple.com/xcode/ide/
FYI, I'm a software developer by trade, specializing in C++ and C#. I despise Apple because of their incessant need to control everything you do with your computer. That said, I loved my Apple ][gs when I was in school.
Stossel's a straight shooter. Until the madia mob dissolved the investigatory program with him and Diane Sawyer. Course, she was sleeping with the boss.
It's all written about in "Media Monopoly "1980's by Ben Bagdikian, of Pentagon papers rep. That predicted the Madia current mess.
https://www.amazon.com/New-Media-Monopoly-Completely-Chapters/dp/0807061875
This is really the key here. Gore is their Achilles' heel and he has been disproven so many times, even the Meteorologists highly disagree with his "warming causes worse tropical storms" malarkey.
Their total refusal to face the facts about his silly, irrational, unsupportable and so far totally unproven claims, is egregious, blatant, and devastating to their warmer positions.
https://www.amazon.com/Environmental-Overkill-Whatever-Happened-Common/dp/0786161116
He's the big termite colony in their wooden, badly structured beliefs. And he will be their downfall, yet.
As have ALWAYS written here.
Extraordinary Warmer Claims require Extraordinary evidence.
Former are all over the place. Latter are simply smoke and mirrors.
And outright lies, incessantly repeated.
>For those unfamiliar with her background, Klein rose to prominence in the 1990s as one of the foremost intellectual voices associated with the anti-globalization movement. Her 2007 manifesto, The Shock Doctrine, accused free-market conservatives of ghoulishly exploiting tragedy to rebuild societies in their preferred image. After page upon page of Klein waxing moralistic over the practice of using an emergency to impose a preexisting agenda — “the treatment of disasters as exciting market opportunities,” she put it then — it comes as, well, a shock to see Klein urging her side to do exactly the same thing.
>This Changes Everything makes the case that the problem of climate change reduces to the same problem that aroused her before, and the solution entails the exact same things she has always favored. Tragedies “that kill thousands and cause billions in damages serve dramatically to educate the public about the terrible costs of our current system, driving an argument for radical change,” she notes happily, even at one point calling this a “reverse Shock Doctrine,” but not recognizing that she has demolished her previous argument.
What you quoted is what AllTricksZone wrote, not what Der Spiegel wrote.
And (hat tip to Google Translate) let's read what they actually wrote instead of AllTricksZone's fantasy (emphasis added by me):
>Also, the latest observation from the drop in sea level can be explained by natural weather changes, experts say: El Niño, a climatic phenomenon particularly influential , changing and La Niña, the weather for months. The eastern Pacific heated up by up to ten degrees, gigantic amounts of water evaporated - about South America and later, during La Niña, moved to Australia were the water masses at numerous thunderstorms to the ground again.
I use gnuplot for much of my graphing, and I know there are several tutorials on curve fitting for it. Here's the top google result:
http://www.duke.edu/~hpgavin/gnuplot.html (See section 7 on that page.)
My antivirus software didn't show a virus on that page.
Avira, BitDefender, G-Data, Malc0de Database, ParetoLogic, Phishtank, TrendMicro and Websense ThreatSeeker also show that it doesn't have a virus:
http://www.virustotal.com/url-scan/report.html?id=f82eb3988f4b6c91128bc1c6ad17f5bd-1307037263
>Even so, I still believe that the people ultimately control their governments, including the global government.
shakes head
>I think for the people to completely abdicate all their power to private organizations to solve such an important problem would spell disaster.
Private organizations ARE the people. They are open to competition, and obtain their funds voluntarily, rather than through force.
>Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine comes to mind as an example of a historical perspective demonstrating how private organizations exploit crisis situations for private gain, as opposed to looking out for the best interest of the general public and the common good.
There is no such thing as "the common good". All individuals are self-interested. 9 times out of 10, when a private organization is exploiting people unfairly, it's doing it because a government has given it a monopoly or unfair barrier-to-entry.
At least when private organizations are bad, they can be competed-against by other organizations. Governments kill their competitors.
This is how to see what's going on worldwide. Wundermap
https://www.wunderground.com/wundermap
Can peruse weather ANYWHERE, and anywhen (satellite, radar images of rain, snow, ice falls, cyclones and Trop. Storms) on planet Earth. And watch weather as it happens, in Real Time in Eurozone, East asia, and all over, even into the Greatest Little Nations of our Aussie and Kiwi mates.
Mates , Bundle up, it's going to be cold!!!
Truly a great, global resource.
This means nothing and is expected. Just because a glacier increase in size a few years in a row doesnt mean it isnt dramtical smaller than it once was. Overall, glacier and seaice are at record lows. https://weather.com/news/news/2019-06-17-arctic-ice-melt-record
Heatwave MUST be climate change!
Freezing winter, how stupid of you to confuse weather with climate Trump!
They love to have it both ways, if that doesn't tell you it's unscientific then nothing else will.
I know your fanaticism gives you the ability to erase inconvenient facts from your memory, but that just makes you confident, it doesn't make you smart.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=argo+%22correcting%22+ocean+cooling
In particular
> erincd - "If you use a fallacy it means you didn't have a logical argument to begin with" opinion
> Wikipedia - Arguments containing informal fallacies may be formally valid, but still fallacious.[6] fact
It is right there for all to read and is only semantics if the meaning of valid is ambiguous. Which it is most definitely not!!! You don't know what semantics means either do you?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantics
And once again the meaning for VALID. https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=valid+definition&*
Valid definition - (of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.
Please point out the ambiguity in that definition. Because like you say, I am an idiot and I cannot for the life of me see where it is, and I am always prepared to learn.
>You can't read? Or you do not understand the meaning of words?
You just indirectly answered this by using semantics in the wrong context.
EDIT > You learn something new every day on reddit.
You don't it seems.
They go even further. If you don't rely on government grants, you aren't doing real science:
>Your chance of doing real science—self-directed, disinterested—at the places you mention is close to zero. People choosing careers need to know that, and they’re not served by this misdirection. Google is not science with free sushi and a ballpit.
Then why did you not detect it here?
With statistics, you must understand what you are doing before you make the first calculation. Otherwise, you get techno-nonsense.
The literature is full of admonitions against this. One of the best known is the classic introduction to statistics, How to Lie With Statistics by Darrell Huff. Worth buying. In fact, it looks like the copyright has run out, and it can be legitimately downloaded here:
Not just that. There is none when the sun doesn't shine or there is no wind. Happens pretty often here, especially in the wintertime. And the idea is, we will heat with electricity in the near future. Really sounds like a solid plan...not. If it were not so sad one could laugh about it.
TIL - there are 35 words for "traurig" in english.
Actually, we have tons of direct data that there is no difference in hurricane activity currently even with our warmer temperatures.
Alarmists are in denial of it because it doesn't show the narrative they want.
Tell me if you see any increase here: https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/accumulated_cyclone_energy.asp?basin=gl
If anything, it is a decrease. It is actually what the science would say if you increase the temperature of the polar region more than the equator. The lower temperature differential decreases the intensity of storms.
I just checked Moscow weather. It's currently about 2°C, and snow is forecast. According to your Forbes chart, Moscow is enjoying a 15° warm anomaly, which should mean that normal late December temps are -13°. Let's check.
According to Accuweather Moscow is indeed enjoying a bit of a warm spell, with averages of about 1.6° (34°F low to 36°F high), and has a historical average of -9.7°C (9°F to 20°C).
So, sure, they are enjoying our warmth. Damn them.
There are no hurricane force winds let alone a hurricane circulation anywhere in the Eastern North Atlantic right now.
The current Atlantic Tropical Weather Discussion makes no mention of any hurricane in the Atlantic either.
Air from melting ice is warmer, not colder. Ice melts at 0C while intact arctic ice is colder. It's May and Arctic Ocean air temperatures are well below freezing right now and most of Greenland is -27C.
Google N-Grams shows the usage of the term back into the mid-19th century with a rising usage post-1940.
Damn those time travelling AGW hoaxers.
We must be greatful for the fact that such intellegent, knowledgable people, who I am sure have much more reproductive uses for their precious time, take the trouble to shine the light of logic under the refridgerator of unreason to reveal rows upon rows of the gleaming beady cock-a-roach eyes of the deniosphere staring back .
If Hitler was alive today he would surely be reading libertarian, conspiracy theorist, climate denial, blogs . Brother /u/Thoughtso has just proven this .
https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/yrm68/what_motivates_rejection_of_climate_science/
The scurrying ravings of the deniosphere will not prevail before the bugspray of truth!
Edit: spelling
It's a copy of the peer reviewed article published in Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 70, No. 23. (01 December 2006), pp. 5665-5675. DOI 10.1016/j.gca.2005.11.031
I like to post links to publicly readable copies when possible.
Vitae of the authors. Notice the distinct lack of formal background in Climate Science. Oh - and it is being published in a journal that one of them is an editor for and that is not even a climate journal. Conflict of interest, much?
>Robert Fildes is Distinguished Professor of Management Science in the School of Management, Lancaster University and Director of the Lancaster Centre for Forecasting. He was co-founder in 1981 of the Journal of Forecasting and in l985 of the International Journal of Forecasting. For ten years from l988 he was Editor-in-Chief of the IJF. He was president of the International Instititute of Forecasters between 2000 and 2004. His current research interests are concerned with the comparative evaluation of different forecasting methods, the implementation of improved forecasting procedures in organizations and the design of forecasting systems. His interest in climate modelling arose from the realization that the forecasting community has made little contribution to the important debate about global warming. > >Nikolaos Kourentzes is a post-doctoral research assistant in Management Science at Lancaster University Management School. He received his Ptychion degree from Athens University of Economics and Business (AUEB), an M.Sc. in Management Science and a Ph.D. from Lancaster University Management School. His research focus is on time series prediction, with a particular emphasis on neural networks, input variable selection and high frequency data.
Hearstian Yellow Journalism. Plus
"Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madnesses of Crowds." MacKay 1841.
https://www.amazon.com/Extraordinary-Popular-Delusions-Madness-Crowds/dp/1463740514
It's Real! Scroll down for part of chapter 1.
>Then, when she was eight, something happened in school that changed Greta’s life.
Her class watched a film about global warming—-how the earth’s average temperature was rising to a point that it was causing terrible harm to the planet.
It was the reason why extreme flooding and dangerous dry spells had become much more common, as well as violent hurricanes and uncontrollable fires.
From the film, Greta learned that ice caps at the North and South Poles were melting. This was dangerous for polar bears, which all live in countries near the Arctic Circle. To find food, polar bears must swim from one sheet of floating ice to the next. Because of ice melting, the distance between these sheets of ice was greater. It was harder for the polar bears to make it from one sheet to the next. Many weren’t finding enough food to eat.
Utter rubbish, to put it politely.
The film was likely Al Gore's propaganda masterpiece, I'm guessing.
de·ni·er 1 (d-nr) n. One that denies: a denier of harsh realities.
I wonder what dictionary Watt's is using that makes him think it's like the n-word.
/u/Monky11, why did you editorialize the headline? Here's the actual title of the article:
Observations of increasing carbon dioxide concentration in Earth’s thermosphere
The word stratosphere doesn't appear anywhere in the abstract. The only place it occurs in the page is in one of the cited references. Further, the paper is from 2012.
In fact, CO2 is not the primary radiative cooling agent in the stratosphere. It the change in ozone concentration:
"The main reason for the recent stratospheric cooling is due to the destruction of ozone by human-emitted CFC gases. Ozone absorbs solar UV radiation, which heats the surrounding air in the stratosphere. Loss of ozone means that less UV light gets absorbed, resulting in cooling of the stratosphere." -- Dr. Jeff Masters
> Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere
The 'energetic particles' that cause Auroras, are electrons and ions.
The majority of energy received from the Sun are photons (in the form of high-frequency radiation). This cannot produce Auroras.
> 'Blocks'
I've looked through the study, and there aren't any references to the word 'block'.
Btw, I haven't used SKS for a while
Although he never invented the internet, nor did he actually claim he did. His early efforts made the internet as we know it today possible-free and user driven.
What a legacy to throw away in order to spread fear across the world for the sake of profit.
The bomb looks like a dud.
Adelaide expects the most, 36.5mm. Frankly that's an embarrassingly small amount of rain.
>In fact, one article specifically alleges that the Nel and Cooper, 2008 paper is fundamentally flawed in its analysis and that it's conclusions are "demonstrably wrong and could lead to grossly misguided policies".
I'm glad you bring that up that paper.
"Zecca and Chiari (2010) have sought to challenge the findings of Nel and Cooper (2009), who argued that the impending peak and decline of fossil fuel production will most likely lead to a lower emissions trajectory than the majority of scenarios offered by the IPCC. Zecca and Chiari used their own model to produce a higher projection of atmospheric CO2 concentration, drawing on the conclusions of Archer (2005) to do so.
"In this short comment, we show that the model of Zecca and Chiari is an erroneous interpretation of Archer (2005). We present a model based on an improved interpretation of Archer’s paper and demonstrate that the model still significantly overpredicts atmospheric CO2 with respect to historical observations of CO2 concentrations.
"Furthermore, whichever carbon cycle model one chooses to use (i.e. to convert a carbon emissions scenario into an atmospheric CO2 concentration), the primary concerns raised by Nel and Cooper (2009) – regarding an inability to achieve the IPCC’s high emissions scenarios due to fossil fuel constraints – remain valid. These concerns are supported by a growing body of literature pointing to a peak in world oil and coal production within the coming few decades."
>It's laudable that you're trying to start genuine discussion here instead of just regurgitating op-eds and mis-informed blog posts.
Thanks. It is actually somewhat rewarding to see that my own suspicions have actually been considered by others more qualified than myself and that they have concluded similarly.
>According to you I'm an associate professor
No, you have posted on Reddit that you are a "researcher/lecturer".
>what was it? 2000 citations?
No, according to Google Scholar you have over 700 citations.
It depends on where you are, and your economic choices.
Wood can be obtained at very low cost in many areas. This is especially attractive to people in areas not served by natural gas pipelines, where the alternatives are oil, propane and electric, all of which cost far more.
But the emissions (smoke, soot and other particulates) can be a problem. In a rural area these are not a big deal, but in a suburb or city they can be.
I heated with wood for a few years with an EPA certified stove. Even when burning at best efficiency, where no visible smoke came out of the chimney, there was still a noticeable smell. And best efficiency was not obtained for every burn or over the course of every burn. Those efficiency figures are best case in a lab. Real world where people may use damp wood, unseasoned wood, plus that variation in burn temp from initial start to banking coals overnight all cause deviations from best efficiency.
IMO, anyone that burns wood in a populated area when other alternatives are available, is causing potential harm to others and should be prevented from doing so just based on clean air needs.
Pellet fuel does cost more than split firewood, but is still typically cheaper than oil/propane/electric and burns cleaner than wood.
To see the difference, you can enter local costs from where you live with these two tools:
Direct file download link: EPA Heating Fuel Cost Spreadsheet Calculator
Here is a special interst page with similar functions: Pellet Fuels Institute
Disclaimer:
Yes, I know what the SSRC is.
And I know what the opinion of John's background is.
And I suppose that people who study the sun are not considered climate scientists to some people. I do not share this opinion, and find that the sun is a key player in our climate.
Also, I'm sure there are all sorts of bloggers, climate scientists and others that will have an opinion on John, SSRC, one of its past publications or other things that aren't necessarily on topic.
>So, until you have evidence of this mysterious, unknown force affecting clilmate, I'll go with the current science, thanks.
I just started reading this today:
>Considering the majority of them agree that AGW is real, it's safe to say most of them are concerned as well.
Appeal to authority and strawman in a single sentence. That's two logical fallacies for the price of one!
I am sure that Cathy and Chris are fine people, and they put their hearts into the graphics and coding for this game, but the date, 1990, shows that the politics and the belief system was firmly in place long before there was any extensive study in this area.
This is kind of funny:
> Hurricanes
You posted a link to a paper that is over 15 years old (from 2001).
https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/accumulated_cyclone_energy.asp?basin=gl
I think this ACE chart shows it all, really. I don't understand the exact science as much as you, but I do understand a chart, and unless the data is fraudulent which I rather doubt, Hurricanes simply aren't a growing threat. Hard to sell carbon taxes on "Hurricanes will be the same or slightly less powerful than before".
Why do alarmist do that, they come on here, and instead of just posting something with fact or truth, they call names and try to make fun?
Try this, Name one thing that has come true? If we are all going to die, then explain how? What's going to get us?
The people that posted the above remind me of that austin powers movie where he is screaming as the steam roller is heading his way... at .00002 mph. Just screaming like he is going to die...
Yes, wrote on that one yest. Here's another update, which confirms this "Historic Spring Storm".
Global Warming, undoubtedly. grin
Temperatures are as low as -69C in Antarctica right now (8:30PM HST). The warmest I can find anywhere is -13C. Can you explain how ice melts at those temperatures?
Not breaking news: many scientific studies are ultimately proved wrong! here
Great scientist have told us that you could not put any matter together with a motor and break earths gravity, 2 years later, the wright brothers did just that. Scientist in the 50's wrote papers on how maned flight to space could never happen, it was pure fiction. Now we have man's footprints on the moon.
If the science was settled then, we would be where we are now. And if you are one of them people/scientist that would say it is settled, you are looking through blinders. Science is never settled, and the fact they say climate science is settled, tells me it's a scam. Just look at history for all the times it has been.
> The ignorance is... stunning. Let's have a little fun: Explain what other 'forms' can the 280 zetajoules locked in the ocean take? Just a few examples will do.
Your "tell" is showing...
Well first let's understand that when you apply radiative energy to an item with low thermal conductivity and is large enough that there is attenuation in the energy (like the ocean) it doesn't heat uniformly. The surface heats faster than the deep oceans. In fact we SEE this in actual measurements! Shocking, that experimental observations back up what we know about the universal laws of physics!
So, given that sunlight only penetrates 500m deep, and the oceans cover 65.7% of the surface of the earth, 335,258,000 km^2 this changes the value you used for mass (total ocean mass) down about a factor of about 10^4. While that's closer than the naive assumption you made of instant heating throughout the entire ocean body at once, we could probably add complexity by also including other "forms" radiant energy can take besides "locked in the ocean" heat ... reflection, photosynthesis, melting, chemical bond breaking, etc ....
Science!!!!
[uh-lahr-mist]
a person who tends to raise alarms, especially without sufficient reason, as by exaggerating dangers or prophesying calamities.
In any case, I haven't raised any alarm. I am merely willing to accept the conclusions of reasonably qualified scientists.
>This is false, based upon a misunderstanding of Latif's research (conflating two different stories concerning Latif, actually).
Need more detail here, or links - What misunderstanding? What two stories?
Is this quote taken out of context?
"a significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles [the North Atlantic Oscillation] -- perhaps as much as 50 percent."
I am only vaguely aware of Latif's work, so I will have to fill in the detail by googling with my new search engine, Duck Duck Go. Even so, what I may find is not necessarily what you meant, so a few pointers would be an advantage.
Hey OP (and anyone else interested), you can read the whole thing now, I think. I haven’t read it myself yet because I just discovered it following this excellent thread but here it is: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08XXTQ9H8/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_FP1THC9T2A7F0R48395B
Roy Spencer, who is a principal generating UAH, disagrees with you that humans definitely cause warming. He speaks scientifically and states that whether humans are causing the change is entirely debatable. Just read his book intro.
Gore is a liar, exploiter and infamous. Dr. Dixie Lee Ray debunked his woo-woo in the 1990's. & he's like a busted CD. He keeps playing the same old, bad tracked CD.
Here's the ref Using Amazon to counter itself.
https://www.amazon.com/Environmental-Overkill-Whatever-Happened-Common/dp/0895265125
I can only find it for sale on Amazon. https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Hustle-Blu-ray-Marc-Morano/dp/1937825477/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1471882692&sr=8-3&keywords=climate+hustle
Edit: And on the Climatehustle.org site.
To be honest, I would have to google those myself, but I know that Einstein faced serious backlash, even from anti-semitic sources, from people like Weyland and Gehrcke trying to change the overall narrative to the negative for him in Berlin in the 1920's. Let me try to find something and come back to this - hope to have something for you by tomorrow ;)
edit: Looks like the original citation is: "Warum einhundert? Wenn sie Recht hätten, würde ein Einziger genügen!"
Which translates to: "Why a hundred? If they were right only one would be enough"
Now, it looks like this was his response to a book the Nazis initiated, to form a narrative against him. It might not be fully focused on, and entangled with, his scientific theory of relativity. But I think in a general way you could say this is a good response to 'academic' bullshit (and 'looney' truth vice versa).
Source: The book was called ""Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein" (One hundred authors against Einstein)
Amazon Link for the original book: https://www.amazon.de/Hundert-Autoren-gegen-Einstein-Originalausgabe/dp/3226005375 Its ISBN: 9783226005370 Citation on Wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kritik_an_der_Relativit%C3%A4tstheorie
Hope that helps ;)
>64% of Americans worry the way I do though
Bullshit. If 64% of Americans worry the way you do (i.e., "we're fucked"), Jill Stein would be President Elect.
>I don't care who I sound silly to. These are my beliefs.
Carry on, then. Just know that you aren't persuading anyone by saying "we're fucked." You just turn people off.
>I think it sounds silly when someone says we aren't causing climate change.
Me too. I think people sound even sillier when they think climate change is binary.
>I get it, I know how I sound...
Then it clearly isn't your goal to persuade anyone that climate change is a problem.
>this issue of AGW will fuck us big time.
Like Ehrlich's hundreds of millions who were going to starve to death by 1980? I bring him up in particular because your reasoning is identical to his.
Look, I know I am coming off as harsh, but I think you are letting emotions disrupt your ability to think. Are you familiar with Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman?
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more often likely to be foolish than sensible."
– Bertrand Russell, in A History of Western Philosophy,
"For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are more often influenced by the things that ‘seem’ than by those that ‘are’."
– Machiavelli
When Einstein was told of the publication of a book entitled, '100 Authors Against Einstein', he replied: "Why one hundred? If I were wrong, one would have been enough." "It doesn’t take 100 scientists to prove me wrong, just one fact will do." – Albert Einstein
Like OP said, the part about not being able to change people's core world view is incredible considering she isn't going to change her leftist world view. It's really an incredible amount of hypocrisy that only a morally and culturally superior leftist could pull off.
It's fairly incredible that she simply will not debate a major aspect of her thesis.
The book is the next logical step in her work as a writer. She started with No Logo (Anti-Globalization), then The Shock Doctrine (Anti-Capitalism), and now the book that can tie it all together and blame AGW on capitalism and globalization.
She's a good writer and somewhat of a female Chomsky I suppose, if there can be one. She is a personality that a lot of people are attracted to, and they want to buy her books and agree with her because of that.
This book is a logical next step in her work as a writer. She started with No Logo (Anti-Globalization), then The Shock Doctrine (Anti-Capitalism), and now the AGW book that can blame it all on capitalism and globalization.
AGW ties in so well with her previous works that it would be prudent (profitable) for her to write about it and promote the idea regardless of her belief in it.
They are chatting shit when they say death valley record high will be broken as the forecast is for a high of 51c (120 F). The highest temperature ever recorded in Death Valley was 57c (134 F).
Here is Death Valley weather forecast on AccuWeather.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/us/death-valley/92384/daily-weather-forecast/2258469
> I believe those are pretty good indicators that I'm not interested in seeking a circle jerk.
FTFY
>We'll not have any more Einsteins. US schools have institutionalize mediocrity by teaching to the lowest common denominator
AMEN! Though if we stop looking for them, then we let those we despise win and we become part of the status quo we desperately wish to reject. On a total aside, this guy is doing some amazing work to do more than just complain about the problem (I mean that only as a compliment towards him). Just this year most every high school in my area has at least one teacher that is reshaping their curriculum around his work. I have been more optimistic recently than I have been in a very ling time.
> and dispensing ritalin to any student than shows any sign of being unique.
As convenient as it might be to blame the schools for this, parents must be given their fair share of the blame. The solution to THAT problem is one of the places where I think libertarians and progressives could not disagree more greatly or passionately than on any other issue when federal or global issues are set aside for a moment.
https://www.amazon.com.au/Greening-Environmentalists-Drive-Global-Power-ebook/dp/B017JL0KJS
Would you believe the environmental movement is a scam? That certain people are using "bad science" and big government to line their own pockets...and create a New World Order?
Larry H. Abraham (co-author of None Dare Call It Conspiracy) and Franklin Sanders prove that earth is not dying. We are not running out of clean air, trees, or even oil. There are plenty of animals on the endangered list that don't belong there. And all of this is scientifically proven.
> with no cited sources
Dr. Craig Loehle (2007) 'A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Treering Proxies' The source is right there on the graph if you'd like to look at it.
Your graph is a little disappointing. Zero trend from 1880 to 1920, positive trend from 1920 to 1940, negative trend from 1940 to 1970,... Your global warming "trend" is that unremarkable little bump at the very end of Loehle's temperature reconstruction.
Didn't sound fright, me bing a skeptic and all. A little searching and I quickly discovered that Kiribati is not sinking but growing and the pictures they show of an island sinking is an atoll at in its normal state. All of this apparently began with a journalists that had no idea what they were talking about that wrote an article for the Washington Post full of conjecture and no actual facts.
Weather.com of course ran with it because they are the marching band for global warming providing little if any facts themselves as this piece demonstrates.
Alternative translation:
What we have done is a conduct a study of our friends 1) In other words, we told our colleagues in advance what we wanted them to say 2) And we knew they’d comply because their past papers indicated they already shared our point of view 3) Indeed, to save time, we filled out the required responses in advance of the papers being distributed 4) Our friends simply signed their study paper and sent it back to us 5) We reviewed the responses, thus declaring it “peer reviewed” 6) Everyone agreed 7) We declared a “consensus” 8) We had the study published, which was endorsed by the IPCC. You can read the report here.
I new I would get called out. I should not post when waking up. But I did get up pour my coffee and am reviewing the graphs on this topic in this book. I will try to link later to specific graphs. But again, no trend. https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Glance-Teachers-Students-Prominent/dp/1934791938
> philanthropic leaders
The world's biggest and best-known "philanthropist", Billy Gates, would be shocked by this! He's pulling out all stops and giving all his money away to make the world a safer, more comfortable place for everyone. He's even written a book to help us all: 'How to Avoid a Climate Disaster' which he's ~~giving away for free~~ selling for only $14.79...
https://www.amazon.com/How-Avoid-Climate-Disaster-Breakthroughs/dp/059321577X
The dude wrote an exceptional book called "Inconvenient Facts"
Incredibly informative.
I was so impressed by it, I tracked down his email address, sent him a thank you for writing it. He responded back within a day or two.
Guy is super smart, incredibly informed.
I encourage everyone to read it:
https://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Facts-Science-That-Doesnt/dp/1538554356
Thank you for pointing out the issue of bogging down. Uncertainty can be extremely debilitating if not applied smartly—I couldn’t agree more. But I do not think the answer is to be selectively doubtful of only experts, as you seem to suggest. I don’t think Feynman would agree with that, either. I’d like to amend my above statements, though, to address this very important issue:
> As scientists, we should be simultaneously open to, and skeptical of, ourselves and the experts. Anything short of this is not true skepticism.
Note that the skepticism should be applied equally, not unevenly. But the openness should be applied equally, as well. That includes not dismissing people because you think they’re being paid off (which is a common tactic of alarmists).
The way I see it, universal openness and universal skepticism aren’t much use on their own. As you’ve pointed out, skepticism causes bogging down and openness causes confusion. But when you pair the two I really think you can make some great progress.
PS: This approach is supported by at least some philosophers of science. See for example the book The Scientific Attitude.
Looks like the WMO (UN) is erasing the older high temps to help support their AGW claims:
>In 2012 the WMO (World Meteorological Organization) disallowed what had long been considered the hottest air temperature ever measured on Earth: a 58.0°C (136.4°F) reading measured at El Azizia, Libya on September 13, 1922. As a result of this record being struck from the books, the temperature of 134°F (56.7°C) recorded at Greenland Ranch at Furnace Creek in Death Valley, California on July 10, 1913 became, by default, the new world’s hottest air temperature yet measured.
"The main reason for the recent stratospheric cooling is due to the destruction of ozone by human-emitted CFC gases. Ozone absorbs solar UV radiation, which heats the surrounding air in the stratosphere. Loss of ozone means that less UV light gets absorbed, resulting in cooling of the stratosphere." -- Dr. Jeff Masters
Yes, Dr. Masters also mentions GHGs as a secondary cause.
> The entire Middle East has been dealing with record breaking cold and snow over the past few weeks. Iran recently had to halt gas exports to Turkey after its own domestic power demand soared to record high levels, forcing Turkey to impose 3-days a week power outages to cope.
Iguanas fall from trees in Florida as cold snap hits
> A southward plunge of Arctic air reached all the way down to Florida Sunday, sending temperatures in the Sunshine State tumbling to the lowest levels in years and setting at least one daily record low.
November average high is Vostok is -37 for the entire month. Yea the past couple of days have being warmer but the rest of November has being highs of -40 which is normal.
You can't just look at one day of above average which means nothing.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/aq/vostok-station/2273742/november-weather/2273742
Don't let yourselves be fooled. Let's put this into context: These are historical record measurements at single days at single weather stations. This looks to be the source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records
Instead of color coding entire states and showing only the years it would have been more accurate (and more honest) if the chart showed differently coloured dots and pointed out that these refer to specific days of the respective year - not yearly averages.
Since data from NOAA is being acknowledged as fact: If you take the yearly and global average you get the whole picture: https://weather.com/news/climate/news/2019-06-18-may-2019-global-temperatures-nasa-noaa
" The first five months of 2019 place Earth on track for its third warmest year dating to 1880.
Four separate analyses found 2019 had among the top five warmest Mays.
Among areas most above average in May were Arctic Canada, Greenland, Russia, Brazil, and parts of Africa.
This was despite a notably chilly May in the western and central U.S. and in parts of Europe."
The models use averages, so the models use an average earth and that's flat. Just like that
They average the incoming flux to one number. And from this point they don't care about reality anymore, but averages. Climate models don't even use real circulation patterns but a simple simulation of an averaged atmosphere, based only on radiative heat transfer calculations. They ignore reality.