New report on climate change released today

[angelo]

Good grief, Bill Nye goes all woke and stuff;

Bill Nye driven to F-bomb rant by climate change. “By the end of this century, if emissions keep rising, the average temperature on Earth could go up another four to eight degrees,” Nye says, losing his patience. “What I’m saying is the planet is on fucking fire,” he says while taking a torch to a globe. “There are a lot of things we could do to put it out. Are any of them free? No, of course not. Nothing’s free, you idiots. Grow the fuck up. You’re not children any more. I didn’t mind explaining photosynthesis to you when you were 12. But you’re adults now, and this is an actual crisis, got it? Safety glasses off, motherfuckers.”

Teh Gruaniad

Word !

Science does not work by edict. There is a "scientific method." It works this way: A scientist makes a prediction about the results of an experiment. If, when the experiment is run, the experiment works as the scientist predicted it is said to support his hypothesis. When a prediction fails the theory is discarded or modified and run again.

Scientists make their name by showing a prior consensus/accepted theory is either wrong or is a special case of a more inclusive theory. It is never decided by peer review or consensus or public opinion.

What experiment does Nye propose to support his hypothesis? I don't see any.

Let us suppose, though, that the theory that man-caused generation of CO₂ will seriously/catastrophically affect the future climate is correct. One solution to burning fossil fuels in power plants is modern -- Gen IV -- nuclear. It is designed so it cannot melt-down. It even uses fuel from prior generation nuclear waste. It has the advantage of providing energy which would be useful no matter whether Nye's predictions are right or wrong. It is less polluting than coal. It would also be supported by the climate scientists who believe that the coming solar minimum would lead to an ice age.

Exactly. The scientific method is not used by IPCC, or the alarmist, but computer modelling! If your life depended on a decision of a scientific method or modeling, which decision would you take?

 

[repoman]

Computer modeling is not voodoo.

 

[TSwizzle]

What experiment does Nye propose to support his hypothesis? I don't see any.

Bill Nye is not a scientist, he has no hypothesis.


Rapture like cult.

 

[George S]

Computer modeling is not voodoo.

As a retired professor of computer science who taught computer modeling, please note that computer modeling is subject to two common errors: (1) GIGO and (2) oversimplification.

As recently reported by NASA the data set used as input to climate models contains data which does not correctly account for the urban heat island effect. The historical data for global temperatures is incomplete and much is estimated. The climate is influenced by much more complexity than what is in the models. Some of the satellite data is interpolated because that satellite cannot see through clouds. [data from wattsupwiththat.com, NASA, and others.]

 

[angelo]

Computer modeling is not voodoo.

So if your life depended on a vital decision originating from the scientific method or computer modeling, you'd go with the modeling? I hope you'd put all your affairs in order before doing so!

 

[George S]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05...m-lack-of-warming-and-a-recent-cooling-trend/

Figure 6: A graphical comparison of tree ring based temperature reconstructions from the southern Altai. June temperatures for the eastern Kazakhstan Altai since 1698 (a), mean May–September temperatures for the western Chinese Altai since 1639 (b), June temperatures for the middle Chinese Altai since 1570 (c), mean June–July temperatures for the eastern Chinese Altai since 1613 (d), mean June–July temperatures for the southern Mongolian Altai since 1402 (e, this study). Thin grey lines and thick black lines show the reconstructed temperature and 13‐year low‐pass‐filtered curve, respectively. (a–d) from Zhang et al. (2015). Dark and light grey bars show cold and warm periods. The cold periods of low solar activities are named by S, Spörer; M, Maunder, D, Dalton, and G, Gleissberg minima (Schwikowski et al., 2009) and triangles indicate volcanic eruptions (Briffa et al., 1998; Eichler et al., 2009)
The authors conclude that the past 5 centuries have been relatively cooler. They also find the 20th century to be slightly warmer, but the warming was discontinuous. However, the 20th century warming eventually collapsed due to late 20th century cooling, which they deem common across the mountains of China and Nepal. They also find that solar cycles and volcanic activity were the major reasons for temperature anomalies during the past 5 centuries—not carbon dioxide.

 

[repoman]

Well for the past five centuries before massive human caused release of carbon dioxide these were the main factors in short term anomalies.

 

[George S]

There is a "Climate Crisis" that is definitely man-caused. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/17/our-urban-climate-crisis/ However, it has nothing to do with CO2.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05...m-lack-of-warming-and-a-recent-cooling-trend/

Figure 6: A graphical comparison of tree ring based temperature reconstructions from the southern Altai. June temperatures for the eastern Kazakhstan Altai since 1698 (a), mean May–September temperatures for the western Chinese Altai since 1639 (b), June temperatures for the middle Chinese Altai since 1570 (c), mean June–July temperatures for the eastern Chinese Altai since 1613 (d), mean June–July temperatures for the southern Mongolian Altai since 1402 (e, this study). Thin grey lines and thick black lines show the reconstructed temperature and 13‐year low‐pass‐filtered curve, respectively. (a–d) from Zhang et al. (2015). Dark and light grey bars show cold and warm periods. The cold periods of low solar activities are named by S, Spörer; M, Maunder, D, Dalton, and G, Gleissberg minima (Schwikowski et al., 2009) and triangles indicate volcanic eruptions (Briffa et al., 1998; Eichler et al., 2009)
The authors conclude that the past 5 centuries have been relatively cooler. They also find the 20th century to be slightly warmer, but the warming was discontinuous. However, the 20th century warming eventually collapsed due to late 20th century cooling, which they deem common across the mountains of China and Nepal. They also find that solar cycles and volcanic activity were the major reasons for temperature anomalies during the past 5 centuries—not carbon dioxide.

Okay... so global warming isn't real, because a few authors took average temperatures from one part of the globe.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is a "Climate Crisis" that is definitely man-caused. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/17/our-urban-climate-crisis/ However, it has nothing to do with CO2.

So urban issues in oceans as well, which are warming? Coral reefs bleaching across the globe because of locations for weather monitors being near cities?

The trouble I have with climate change deniers, isn't their questioning where the changes are leading us, but there insistence that scientists are too damn stupid to know how data can be impacted by non-related causes. That scientists hinge climate change on one or two thermometers located near ovens in Buddy's cake shop.

 

[scombrid]

Urban heat island doesn't affect my climate. Our climate is dominated by maritime subtropical air masses for most of the year, especially during the season when we have seen the most increase in temperatures. Warmer nearshore water and warmer temperatures at the 500 mb level that suppress diurnal convection have made the last 10 summers the top 10 warmest on record in the 100 year period of measurement at Titusville and Melbourne. That's a big local climate change. Some other place has cooled enough to offset that?

That map of blue circles and red plus signs has a couple of major flaws. There is no magnitude indicated. A 9 degree plus gets the same weight as a 0.5 degree minus on that map. How about putting precipitation trends and dewpoint up there too.

Also, a hell of the lot of the red plus signs are nowhere near sites that have been urbanized. Look as you go north and west. Many of the plus sings are in areas that have had an increase in forest cover (like parts of the Appalachians) in the last 100 years. They ought to extend that map further up into Canada. That runs counter to the theory that the warming signal in the global average is just due to land cover.

I know I'm still waiting for the late 20th century cooling to kick in.

 

[scombrid]

You know how they like to say "Well warming is a net benefit because CO2 is plant food"?

There is a massive overgrowth of Sargassum in the Caribbean. It is becoming a huge nuisance from the east coast of Florida down to the Yuc and all through the Caribbean. It is a nuisance to the point of having various negative economic and ecological consequences where it is piling up. It is harming tourism, blocking fishermen from getting their boats out, causing mortality of turtles and dolphins that get trapped under the mats, etc... Folks that study algae blame the blooms that started in 2011 and have gotten progressively worse on warmer water plus and increase in nitrogen and dissolved CO2.

People have been living in these places for a long time. None has ever documented the sargassum piling up like this prior to 2011.

Some of the papers have interesting figures on oceanic heat content too. I'm trying to figure out which solar cycle is causing the increase in oceanic heat content along with the increase in dissolved CO2 in the water. Maybe somebody can help me out.

 

[TSwizzle]

After a brief meeting in Nicaea, journalists at Teh Gruaniad have ratified the wording for the coming Rapture;

The Guardian has updated its style guide to introduce terms that more accurately describe the environmental crises facing the world. Instead of “climate change” the preferred terms are “climate emergency, crisis or breakdown” and “global heating” is favoured over “global warming”, although the original terms are not banned.

Teh Gruaniad

So we have gone from "global warming" to "climate change" to "global heating".

the real reason they are changing the terms is that the old terms are just not scaring enough people.

And of course, Teh Gruaniad must include a quote from the messiah;

Earlier in May, Greta Thunberg, the Swedish teenager who has inspired school strikes for climate around the globe, said: “It’s 2019. Can we all now call it what it is: climate breakdown, climate crisis, climate emergency, ecological breakdown, ecological crisis and ecological emergency?”

Why any adult would listen to this little girl is beyond me. But that's the mystery of religion I guess.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You know how they like to say "Well warming is a net benefit because CO2 is plant food"?

...and then I think about the clear cutting of the rain forests in South America. So all that bonus food is for forested areas that don't exist anymore.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

After a brief meeting in Nicaea, journalists at Teh Gruaniad have ratified the wording for the coming Rapture;

The Guardian has updated its style guide to introduce terms that more accurately describe the environmental crises facing the world. Instead of “climate change” the preferred terms are “climate emergency, crisis or breakdown” and “global heating” is favoured over “global warming”, although the original terms are not banned.

Teh Gruaniad

So we have gone from "global warming" to "climate change" to "global heating".

Not to be pedantic, but the 'global warming' to 'climate change' occurred because a subset of the population was too stupid to understand what a global and annual average meant, and were concerned that it still got cold in the winter, hence, global warming was a lie. The globe, on average is still warming.

the real reason they are changing the terms is that the old terms are just not scaring enough people.

From 'climate change' to 'global heating' would seem to be a reasonable conclusion that the label isn't affecting the minds of people that want to politicize climate.

And of course, Teh Gruaniad must include a quote from the messiah;

Earlier in May, Greta Thunberg, the Swedish teenager who has inspired school strikes for climate around the globe, said: “It’s 2019. Can we all now call it what it is: climate breakdown, climate crisis, climate emergency, ecological breakdown, ecological crisis and ecological emergency?”

Why any adult would listen to this little girl is beyond me. But that's the mystery of religion I guess.

IF, we are on a bad course due to our influence on the environment, the kids are the ones that have to live with the consequences. Why anyone would listen to Rush Limbaugh about climate is beyond me. Ultimately, dealing with climate change would include a much more sustainable energy policy... which would be in our civilization's best interest.

 

[George S]

If you want to understand why Global Warming deniers deny, there is a 9-part series (about 3 hours) that explains it.

Here is part 1:
[YOUTUBE]wpFdX-kw_vM[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If you want to understand why Global Warming deniers deny, there is a 9-part series (about 3 hours) that explains it.

Higgins Law IV indicates the likelihood of something contrary being true is inversely proportional to the number of YouTube videos posted to demonstrate said point.

Also, it becomes a bigger issue when the goalposts keep shifting because the arguments are unsustainable.

A: Earth isn't warming, the temperature gauges are just close to cities which are warmer now because of pavement, glass, etc...
B1: How does this address oceans warming and coral reefs dying?
B2: The Largest changes due to temperature have been further from populated areas
A: Look at this YouTube video on solar activity!

 

[TSwizzle]

Not to be pedantic, but the 'global warming' to 'climate change' occurred because a subset of the population was too stupid to understand what a global and annual average meant, and were concerned that it still got cold in the winter, hence, global warming was a lie. The globe, on average is still warming.

Male bovine excrement.

IF, we are on a bad course due to our influence on the environment, the kids are the ones that have to live with the consequences.

Which would make sense IF there was any actual evidence to suggest we are on a "bad course". And I notice the sleight of hand to change "climate change" to "environment". Different things fella. Not unrelated but different all the same.

Why anyone would listen to Rush Limbaugh about climate is beyond me.

Agreed but irrelevant. (Why anyone listens to Limbaugh at all is beyond me.)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Male bovine excrement.

Yes, their inability to understand it was based solely on bullshit. Kind of like when a guy brings a snowball into the House and uses that as evidence that there is no warming.

Which would make sense IF there was any actual evidence to suggest we are on a "bad course".

There is evidence. There is no proof.

And I notice the sleight of hand to change "climate change" to "environment". Different things fella. Not unrelated but different all the same.

What? The climate is part of the environment. Affecting the climate, affects the environment.

Why anyone would listen to Rush Limbaugh about climate is beyond me.

Agreed but irrelevant. (Why anyone listens to Limbaugh at all is beyond me.)

It reminds of 9/11 CT'ers. They'll link to a whole of professionals who sign onto a statement that the towers couldn't have collapsed naturally. The professionals on the list are typically not in fields even tertiarily related to structural engineering. So that gets scoffed.

Yet, the same thing happens with climate change... and being a denier doesn't mean you are in a cult like state. The contrary... they say people that see the evidence of continued global temperature increases and the higher CO2 levels along with significant deforestation and see a connection, they are the ones in the cult. Hey look, watch this YouTube video about sunspots. It totally disproves human caused climate change.

 

[scombrid]

I like when they find some long retired physicist that can make the thermal budget work out without radiative heat flux. He can get the math to work if they just tweak convection here and there. Therefore greenhouse gasses are irrelevant for the climate.

The 'skeptics' use that as an "argument from authority" because he is a big PhD physicist that did some great theoretical work about planetary movement or something some time ago.

You point out to them direct observations of temperature in the atmosphere that are a result of measurable radiative heat flux and they just call you name and Gish Gallop their way on down the road.