Al_U_Card Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 Start again... oops we did it again... A new data set of middle- and upper-stratospheric temperatures based on reprocessing of satellite radiances provides a view of stratospheric climate change during the period 1979–2005 that is strikingly different from that provided by earlier data sets. The new data call into question our understanding of observed stratospheric temperature trends and our ability to test simulations of the stratospheric response to emissions of greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances. What once was settled is now, well as they say, a mystery....sheesh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 Start again... oops we did it again... A new data set of middle- and upper-stratospheric temperatures based on reprocessing of satellite radiances provides a view of stratospheric climate change during the period 1979–2005 that is strikingly different from that provided by earlier data sets. The new data call into question our understanding of observed stratospheric temperature trends and our ability to test simulations of the stratospheric response to emissions of greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances. What once was settled is now, well as they say, a mystery....sheesh. Al none of this answers the main question that I think is the most important one...how urgent is the problem or what is the rate of change? I dont know. I do understand we need to worry about iatrongenics but I also understand climate change/warming is a real agency problem. Hopefully a solution will have optionality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 Al none of this answers the main question that I think is the most important one...how urgent is the problem or what is the rate of change? Mike, what it shows is that: a) their results are all verkakta b) their models, which proposed the crisis in the first place, are inaccurate c) their agenda is more about getting you to pay for what they want to do. So, natural variation covers the entire range of global climate change since forever. If you think that that is urgent then, you send them a cheque. I will keep my money for heating bills tyvm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 I think we all are starting to write that check..My local power company raising rates roughly 14%, more much more than inflation or the rate of energy growth. btw I hope next time you address my entire post not just a portion. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 I think we all are starting to write that check..My local power company raising rates roughly 14%, more much more than inflation or the rate of energy growth. btw I hope next time you address my entire post not just a portion. :) Every time I looked at it, another line was added.... still, that the illness is a symptom of the treatment seems more than appropriate in this case. My expertise in these areas is limited to what I can glean from various sources and also depends on what those sources will admit (the recent Science story about their refusal to publish the work on the lack of merit of mouse-studies on sepsis and other diseases is an indication). Filtering and weighing is not that easy considering the vast amounts of data being produced and tortured. :blink: Your bills certainly have something to do with the subsidies accorded to inefficient and ineffective energy sources. Imagine that the met office data massaging goes the other way and means that things are "worse than we thought"? (Registered trademark of the Church of climatology :ph34r: ) This means that the models are even poorer (worse than WE thought!) and that the earth will just have to buckle down and start producing more heat... As far as options go, policy is driven by $$$ availability and direction. That is the politics part. As for the science, perhaps we might be better off with more and more efficient energy R&D? Fracking safely and the development of LFTRs would be a start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 Mike, what it shows is that: a) their results are all verkakta b) their models, which proposed the crisis in the first place, are inaccurate c) their agenda is more about getting you to pay for what they want to do. So, natural variation covers the entire range of global climate change since forever. If you think that that is urgent then, you send them a cheque. I will keep my money for heating bills tyvm. Given that Nature charges a $32 to read the article, I question whether Al has done anything other than hastily skim the abstract.(Especially given the rigorous in depth analysis he devoted to his previous exemplar) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 Mike, what it shows is that: a) their results are all verkaktaI believe that this is the first recorded instance of verkakta in these Fora (pronounced "fair-kahk-tah") Yiddish is a great language to express an opinion, even if it is transliterated into English. For those unfamiliar, verkakta translates roughly into BS. Congrats! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel1960 Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 I believe that this is the first recorded instance of verkakta in these Fora (pronounced "fair-kahk-tah") Yiddish is a great language to express an opinion, even if it is transliterated into English. For those unfamiliar, verkakta translates roughly into BS. Congrats!While I cannot verify or refute their results, this graphic was posted over at RC today. http://troyca.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/fig2-scenario2basic.png I wonder how many of the models predicted this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel1960 Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 I will file this one under, "stupid question of the week." CNN anchor Deb Feyerick asks Bill Nye if global warming is to blame for the close approach of asteroid D2012 DA14. Then again, maybe it will be the latest dumb blonde joke. http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/02/12/CNN-anchor-asks-if-global-warming-caused-asteroid-fly-by-VIDEO/6711360683868/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 I will file this one under, "stupid question of the week." CNN anchor Deb Feyerick asks Bill Nye if global warming is to blame for the close approach of asteroid D2012 DA14. Then again, maybe it will be the latest dumb blonde joke. http://www.upi.com/b.../6711360683868/The video is removed. I haven't seen it, so cannot be sure, but it is reasonable to suspect she was joking. It could be a joke of simple absurdity, or a more subtle one jabbing at the tendency to blame almost anything on global warming. Or is it possible she is just that stupid? In addition, we have to consider who is actually behind these alternatives, since the on-air personality is often just reading from a prompter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwar0123 Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 The video is removed. I haven't seen it, so cannot be sure, but it is reasonable to suspect she was joking. It could be a joke of simple absurdity, or a more subtle one jabbing at the tendency to blame almost anything on global warming. Or is it possible she is just that stupid? In addition, we have to consider who is actually behind these alternatives, since the on-air personality is often just reading from a prompter.Which opens up another possibility, someone was trying to make her look stupid! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel1960 Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Which opens up another possibility, someone was trying to make her look stupid!I suspect either that, or as bill said, the tendency to blame everything on global warming.Then again, someone might be confused as to what a METEORologist actual studies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted February 15, 2013 Report Share Posted February 15, 2013 Meanwhile, back at an interesting exchange between concerned parties... The site is partisan but the debate was even-handed and revealing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 And more of the consensus...what consensus? contempt of congress? Dr. Pielke states: In a nutshell here is the state of the science (here I focus on the US as Shepherd did):US floods have not increased over a century or longer (same globally).US hurricane landfall frequency or intensity have not increased (in US for over a century or longer).US intense hurricane landfalls are currently in the longest drought (7 years+) ever documented.US tornadoes, especially the strongest ones, have not increased since at least 1950.US drought has decreased since the middle of the past century.US East Coast Winter Storms show no trends (here also).Disaster losses normalized for societal changes show no residual trends (US, other regions or globally).Trends in the costs of disasters are not a proxy for trends in climate phenomena. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Pretty much what it is all about... A video that explains the problem... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 the latest dumb blonde joke.Or: Now that you mention it, Chicken Little Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel1960 Posted February 22, 2013 Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 The video is removed. I haven't seen it, so cannot be sure, but it is reasonable to suspect she was joking. It could be a joke of simple absurdity, or a more subtle one jabbing at the tendency to blame almost anything on global warming. Or is it possible she is just that stupid? In addition, we have to consider who is actually behind these alternatives, since the on-air personality is often just reading from a prompter.I suspect she was reading from a prompter, and may not have realized what she said. This could be the absurd idea of blaming every event on global warming, like the recent northeast blizzard. More likely, it was someone jabbing fun at those who do blame everything on global warming, similar to Michael Scott and J.K. Rpwlings did in their novels. Although, one cannot rule out the stupid idea. You never can tell with these media types. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted February 22, 2013 Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 “Circle Jerk” is a slang term referring to the positive feedback loop that can occur when ideas and beliefs are reinforced within a group or subculture’s enclosed space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted February 22, 2013 Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 “Circle Jerk” is a slang term referring to the positive feedback loop that can occur when ideas and beliefs are reinforced within a group or subculture’s enclosed space. That's not my understanding of the expression 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted February 22, 2013 Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 That's not my understanding of the expression The correct expression may be "echo chamber circle jerk". Echo Chamber EffectThe echo chamber effect refers to a phenomenon that occurs when people are isolated in social circles that confirm personal biases, beliefs and ideologies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted February 22, 2013 Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 That's not my understanding of the expression Nor mine. And I first heard the expression maybe sixty years ago. But expressions evolve. I guess.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted February 22, 2013 Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 Nor mine. And I first heard the expression maybe sixty years ago. But expressions evolve. I guess..Perhaps folks today speak more metaphorically than we did then. B-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 Global Temperatures Highest in 4,000 Years Though the paper is the most complete reconstruction of global temperature, it is roughly consistent with previous work on a regional scale. It suggests that changes in the amount and distribution of incoming sunlight, caused by wobbles in the earth’s orbit, contributed to a sharp temperature rise in the early Holocene. The climate then stabilized at relatively warm temperatures about 10,000 years ago, hitting a plateau that lasted for roughly 5,000 years, the paper shows. After that, shifts of incoming sunshine prompted a long, slow cooling trend. The cooling was interrupted, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, by a fairly brief spike during the Middle Ages, known as the Medieval Warm Period. (It was then that the Vikings settled Greenland, dying out there when the climate cooled again.) Scientists say that if natural factors were still governing the climate, the Northern Hemisphere would probably be destined to freeze over again in several thousand years. “We were on this downward slope, presumably going back toward another ice age,” Dr. Marcott said. Instead, scientists believe the enormous increase in greenhouse gases caused by industrialization will almost certainly prevent that.And then some... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 So I guess the choices area. There is a vast conspiracy of scientists to scam the publicorb. There is something to this global warming stuff. Not just hot air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 So I guess the choices area. There is a vast conspiracy of scientists to scam the publicorb. There is something to this global warming stuff. Not just hot air.No.a. there is a small group of people who call themselves scientists but who are more interested in ensuring their livelihood than in science.b. there is another group of people, probably larger, who are in fact scientists. Some of them believe that there is "something" to AGW, some believe it may become a problem, some (perhap) believe it already has.c. None of the second group are saying the sky is falling. 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.