PassedOut Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 To no one's surprise: U.S. scientists officially declare 2016 the hottest year on record. That makes three in a row. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAce Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 Could you send us some of your weather than please? Here it has been horribly cold this week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAce Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 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. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gifWhere do you live? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted January 26, 2017 Report Share Posted January 26, 2017 Where do you live?I am in Nuremberg (Bavaria). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted February 8, 2017 Report Share Posted February 8, 2017 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 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted February 8, 2017 Report Share Posted February 8, 2017 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted February 8, 2017 Report Share Posted February 8, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted February 8, 2017 Report Share Posted February 8, 2017 A group of Republican elder statesmen is calling for a tax on carbon emissions to fight climate change.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. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/science/a-conservative-climate-solution-republican-group-calls-for-carbon-tax.html Couple of ideas to start the discussion 1) START at roughly 40$/ton and gradually increase2) return money to Americans in the form of a dividend. at 40$=2,000$ per year for a family of 43)eliminate many regulations4) some sort of border regulations regarding carbon to influence other countries Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted February 9, 2017 Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 The weakened polar vortex has made the weather here in Upper Michigan much more erratic also. It was in the mid 50s here in Boston todayWe are expecting 6-10 inches of snow tomorrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted February 9, 2017 Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 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. Are you fundamentally dishonest, profoundly stupid, utterly deranged or some combination thereof? take a look at http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/new-official-wall-map-of-canada-expands-arctic-sea-ice/49511 try to read the article. try...really hard...to figure out what it means. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 Are you fundamentally dishonest, profoundly stupid, utterly deranged or some combination thereof? take a look at http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/new-official-wall-map-of-canada-expands-arctic-sea-ice/49511 try to read the article. try...really hard...to figure out what it means.It means that depending on when you choose to start the study, you get different results. Doh! Another canard has to do with those cuddly polar bears Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted March 4, 2017 Report Share Posted March 4, 2017 A group of Republican elder statesmen is calling for a tax on carbon emissions to fight climate change.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. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/science/a-conservative-climate-solution-republican-group-calls-for-carbon-tax.html Couple of ideas to start the discussion 1) START at roughly 40$/ton and gradually increase2) return money to Americans in the form of a dividend. at 40$=2,000$ per year for a family of 43)eliminate many regulations4) some sort of border regulations regarding carbon to influence other countriesWell, CO2 certainly has a value AND it in rare supply (historically) but to restrict it is more fool's errand because of its beneficial nature viz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted March 12, 2017 Report Share Posted March 12, 2017 Well, CO2 certainly has a value AND it in rare supply (historically) but to restrict it is more fool's errand because of its beneficial nature viz And then there was the aftermath of 8 years of EPAhttps://info.mrc.org/COLLATERAL-DAMAGE.htmlClimate change, like many other things, never changes... ;( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted March 13, 2017 Report Share Posted March 13, 2017 Are you fundamentally dishonest, profoundly stupid, utterly deranged or some combination thereof? take a look at http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/new-official-wall-map-of-canada-expands-arctic-sea-ice/49511 try to read the article. try...really hard...to figure out what it means.Then there is Rutgers University to add to the dishonest, stupid and deranged info http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/images/nhland_season1.png If you take this as the same as the arctic ice extent from the max in the late seventies then the next ice age is not far off... but, the climate change crisis is not a falsifiable hypothesis so more snow, less ice or any condition is proof of? The climate does change. Can we really be responsible for less ice and more snow because CO2 has gone from 350 to 400 ppm?. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 Then there is Rutgers University to add to the dishonest, stupid and deranged infoOr people could just go to the real data and come to the correct conclusion. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 Or people could just go to the real data and come to the correct conclusion.His words, not mine. Is the data from Rutgers not valid? Is it possible that the NCDC data is differently presented and for what reason? They themselves use the Rutgers data, (from the NCDC site) the settled science is anything but and since a lot is on the line, these are questions that need to be asked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 His words, not mine. Is the data from Rutgers not valid? Is it possible that the NCDC data is differently presented and for what reason? They themselves use the Rutgers data, (from the NCDC site) the settled science is anything but and since a lot is on the line, these are questions that need to be asked.We can play this game a little further if you like. Here are the Rutgers figures in full. It is just about possible to draw a line with a positive gradiant on this graph but it is a challenge and it is quite clear that the overall trend is down. Notice that my link provides a commentary as to what the graph is actually showing whereas AIU's does not. Without seeing the origin of the data, it is difficult to show just which smoke and mirrors trick he is using this time to present an impression contrary to what the data shows when taken as a whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 Update: I think I might have found his trick. In the previous link you can show the data for each month individually. If you do this and take out specifically January you get this graph. Notice the strong anomaly in 1981 matched in AIU's graph. In other words, he took all of the datasets and managed to find one that could just about be represented as showing a positive trend, then posted it as representative of the entire data set. But this is simply not the case. Anyone can page through the data and see that the real trend is negative, as pointed out in the combined graph I posted previously. Just another example of AIU posting obvious misinformation that is easy to disprove when given all of the information but presented without any background to try and make it appear to be based on something more concrete. Sad. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted March 15, 2017 Report Share Posted March 15, 2017 Update: I think I might have found his trick. In the previous link you can show the data for each month individually. If you do this and take out specifically January you get this graph. Notice the strong anomaly in 1981 matched in AIU's graph. In other words, he took all of the datasets and managed to find one that could just about be represented as showing a positive trend, then posted it as representative of the entire data set. But this is simply not the case. Anyone can page through the data and see that the real trend is negative, as pointed out in the combined graph I posted previously. Just another example of AIU posting obvious misinformation that is easy to disprove when given all of the information but presented without any background to try and make it appear to be based on something more concrete. Sad.I just copied it from one of several sites that referenced it to show that precip has been increasing over the last several decades. Mostly due to the doom and gloomers claims that the western US snow-pack was declining and that California was in permanent drought...except maybe the Oroville watershed....Don't hyperventilate over my posts. I just pass on what I find to show that all the hysteria and alarmism is unwarranted. Too bad if you wasted any time on your fabulations but at least you appear to have some spare time.... :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 I just copied it from one of several sites that referenced it to show that precip has been increasing over the last several decades. Mostly due to the doom and gloomers claims that the western US snow-pack was declining and that California was in permanent drought...except maybe the Oroville watershed....Don't hyperventilate over my posts. I just pass on what I find to show that all the hysteria and alarmism is unwarranted. Too bad if you wasted any time on your fabulations but at least you appear to have some spare time.... :)Good, then you will obviously acknowledge now that you have seen all of the data that the trend is indeed down and that the graph you posted is in fact misleading. Perhaps you will also point this out on the site you got this from so as to make sure they improve their data collection. After all, you want to get to the real truth as much as anyone else, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 Good, then you will obviously acknowledge now that you have seen all of the data that the trend is indeed down and that the graph you posted is in fact misleading. Perhaps you will also point this out on the site you got this from so as to make sure they improve their data collection. After all, you want to get to the real truth as much as anyone else, right?Ansolutely right. First I will have to go back to your presentation and verify its contents and propositions and then take a look at your analysis of the supposed alterations to the Rutgers data/graph that you discovered and then look into what the blowback is to date on those sites where it appeared (lots of folks looked at it so perhaps they, too, discovered the scurrilous subterfuge). I'll get back to you then. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 I'll get back to you then. :)Great, I will read it with interest. Perhaps you will even surprise me! B-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.