[OT] NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures in 2015

Well of course. It's straight denialist propaganda which make James feel al l warm inside - not because it's true but because it's making the world saf e for the totally unrestricted free market. Not safe "from", which does hap pen to be a problem that James Arthur is unfortunately willing to ignore.

John Larkin's problem is that he doesn't understand much and gets his global warming narrative woven by the denialist propaganda machine.

The fabric has large holes in it, but John can't see clearly enough to notice. The important thing is that it makes him feel good. It won't work as well for his kids, but he'll be dead before the defects become glaring.

redicted

ed 45kT,

k-of-envelope

e's

They did, on Venus.

On earth, the interglacial/ice-age tipping point is when the ice sheets sli de off Canada and the other more northerly bits of the Northern Hemisphere, decreasing the earth's albedo. Once most of that ice and snow cover is gon e, the situation has tipped, so the progression to boiling the planet stops in it's tracks.

The ice-age to interglacial alternation has only been going on for the last 20 million years, and does seem to depend on the current arrangement of th e land masses. More ice on the Northern Hemisphere land masses and less CO2 in the atmosphere, and you've got an ice age, less ice and more CO2 and yo u've got an interglacial.

The Milakovitch Effect seems to be able to drive the world between the two states by slightly changing the intensity of summer sunlight in the the nor thern hemisphere to encourage or discourage persistent snow cover.

It's also complicated by the mechanical instability of really thick ice she ets. When they get thick enough they slide of into the ocean (about once ev ery eight thousand years)

which can mess up the ocean currents and create local warming and cooling.

There really are tipping points, but the processes involved don't go on for ever and mostly couldn't. Scribbling differential equations is a fun hobby , but you do have to understand what you modelling, and at a deeper level t han whether it's good for Exxon-Mobil's cash-flow.

I get all that and operate similarly, doing math constantly, mentally, gauging the relative import of things, making comparisons, deciding if something's solved / settled, or not. It's nearly a continuous internal conversation, so it's amusing to hear that I'm simple, or haven't thought about 'x.'

My bro started it when we were kids, posing problems and solving them in our heads.

Of course none of us know everything, and I'm a firm believer that everyone you meet has something to teach you. Sometimes especially when they're wrong--forcing you to either change, or unravel 'why.'

Cheers, James Arthur

rd

But not the kind of math mathematicians do. Mathematics is very much an art , and your capacity to learn it at college does depend on your talent for m athematics - there are child prodigies in mathematics, and some of them rem ain prodigiously talented throughout their careers.

That's not a mathematical instinct, and nobody with any grasp of mathematic s as an art would confuse it with mathematical perception.

Not an unknown skill, nor one that depends on any mathematical insight.

Sadly John hasn't got a clue about what might constitute a mathematical con cept.

's

he

it

hard

the

st

ear

Except that it isn't any kind of gain factor. Plant growth and plant decay do tie up and release a lot more carbon dioxide every year than we release by digging up fossil carbon and burning it as fuel, but the length of time that carbon stays tied up in the soil doesn't figure in anybody's climate m odel.

T.

The main reason that nobody checked it was that it didn't matter. James Art hur is exercising his rhetorical muscles in the hope of fooling his audienc e - as usual - but it's just more of his usual rubbish.

ent

John Larkin doesn't brainstorm about climate - every silly idea he presents comes from the denialist propaganda machine, and if he had any kind of clu e about the subject he'd recognise them as nonsense.

Actually "beterweter" aka "better knower".

So have most Dutch adults. They are great for gardening - water-proof, easy to hose off and warm. I've still got mine, though I haven't worn them since we sold the house with the half-acre garden.

One acquaintance used to wear them for field-hockey - good toe protection.

You have said publicly that you can't do much of the math needed to design your circuits and you don't care. You are happy twiddling simulation parameters and other trial and error approaches to measure what you can't calculate. Fine, but please don't denigrate the math that others do when you simply don't understand it.

Math can be fun too when you can use it to understand a circuit rather than poking and prodding it to get it to do what you wish.

But you don't understand the math used to analyze the issues being discussed here. If you did you wouldn't dismiss it so casually.

Is there anything specific in my rant with which you disagree or find questionable? Please note that I made no mention of global warming in my rant. My interest is in the accuracy of the data and methods of analysis used to infer the existence of AGW.

However, since you mentioned funding, I find it odd that you consider it unacceptable for an organization (mostly oil companies) to fund anti-AGW research, while it's perfectly acceptable for the tax payer to primarily fund pro-AGW research. Those that do not believe in AGW will only be funded once, at best, and then probably never again. In the interest of global harmony, the US government should enact a policy which requires organizations that fund research with tax dollars to equally fund both the pro and con researchers on any such important topic. This way, it won't be the money that talks the loudest. Should this happen, I suspect a substantial number of anti-AGW researchers might come out of the closet and produce a more balanced picture of the climate situation. Please note that the oil companies are not tax dollar funded and should not be required to fund both sides.

Perhaps I've missed something in what I wrote. Where in my rant did you find any "denialist propaganda"? Although Anthony Watts has a site showing photos of some obviously badly sited weather stations, I never mentioned him or his site. Most of what I wrote was from past personal experience running a network of local weather stations and having to deal with data accuracy, consistency, and collection. Most of the links are photos I took personally. There is no mention of AGW or climate anywhere, only short term weather. Please limit you imagination to the evidence presented.

It doesn't matter anyway because terrestrial weather data has allegedly been removed from the AGW climate prediction data sets and replaced with various metrics and proxies. (Note that this is from a pro-AGW web pile). Instead we have: Satellite measurements of the upper and lower troposphere Weather balloons show very similar warming Borehole analysis Glacial melt observations Declining arctic sea ice Sea level rise Proxy Reconstructions Rising ocean temperature It's all very scientific. However, funding for terrestrial weather networks continues. Hmmm...

Oh, that's not odd at all. To a scientist, the existence of the phenomenon of global warming, and the cause, are science questions. Science can and should be brought to bear. Denialist lobbyists, lawyers hired as advocates, public relations flacks, advertisers, and the political rumormills, are hirelings acting as impediments to knowledge and understanding. They are impediments to science AND they are definitely pro- or anti- something.

Research in science means observations and analysis, with the goal of increasing knowledge. So, no science researcher is doing 'pro-AGW research' or 'anti-AGW research'. It's pro-knowledge, and pro-understanding. Science methods don't support other goals.

So, to a scientist, 'fund anti-AGW research' means promoting pseudoscience. Real research on global climate and its trends, isn't pro or anti anything.

James Arthur and John Larkin do share the delusion that they know enough about the stuff they talk about.

The excitement about Stevenson boxes seems to start and end with Anthony Wa tts. Serious meteorologists don't seem to take it seriously.

Outside of denialist propaganda there isn't any pro- or anti-AGW research. The research is all aimed at finding what's going on.

The oil companies aren't funding any "anti-AGW" research. They are funding a propaganda machine whose business is to make people doubt the results of peer-reviewed scientific research.

The technique was pioneeered by the tobacco companies and the "right-wing t hink tanks" set up by the tobacco comapnies have been spreading doubt about other inconvenient scientifc results ever since.

It would be generous of me to do so, but when I run into an Anthony Watt lo ok-alike, my naturally gullible nature barfs.

Terrestrial weather networks do collect data on short term weather incident s - like the unusually heavy snow-falls in the north-eastern US which took up several minutes of tonight's TV news in Sydney. Anthropogenic global war ming is more of a long term problem, though a one degree rise in sea-surfac e temperatures puts 7% more water vapour into the atmosphere - which is 7% more energy to drive extreme weather events.

Apparently the last time the north west US saw this much snow was in 1922

so short term weather does deserve some attention.

Let's look at this from another point of view:

-Atmospheric CO2 levels have been rapidly rising for decades. Not only doe s this nicely coincide with increased fossil fuel consumption, the ratios o f CO2 isotopes in the air point towards the source being primary of plant origin, i.e. coal and oil. All that CO2 released by burning fuel goes some where. Agree or disagree?

-Increased CO2 in the atmosphere traps more heat. This principle was prove n long ago, and can be shown by filling one clear tank with CO2, and the ot her with air, and pointing a heat lamp on both. Agree or disagree?

-Increased atmospheric CO2 causes acidification of oceans and lakes, which disrupts the ecology in those bodies of water. Agree or disagree?

What I wrote about was the similarity between the words, not the difference.

Me not that much, but are you sure?

Yes, of course you did (...think so)

I think the word applies perfectly to you. :)

joe

a low as 5%". The interesting question isn't what it might be, but what i t is.

surprised that Dan couldn't.

ommonplace depends on how many there are. If there is only one, then it is not commonplace. If there are hundreds , then it is commonplace. So if t here is 20 of something , then 5% is just 1 and that is not commonplace. B ut if there are thousands , then 5% is commonplace.

that there are about 5000 corporations in the U.S. And if there are 5000 c orporations, then 5% would be 250. And if there are 250 corporations that have a common characteristic , then that characteristic is commonplace.

he U.S. thinks he know more about it than those that live in the U.S. And why Bill thinks it is his duty to educate people about what the U.S. is lik e.

e and yet thinks they have insights that others can not perceive and are compelled to inform others of their perceived insights.

Perhaps. In this case I don't have an unrealistic opinion of my own experti se - though perhaps higher than Dan is prepared to credit, and if Dan feels humiliated by my reaction he deserves it.

To make a charge of hubris stick, you have to demonstrate that the gods hav e taken their revenge.

Donald Trump's claim that he could shoot somebody in public and still get e lected does sound like hubris, but it really wouldn't qualify until he trie d it, and it brought him down.

Displaying a rather poor grasp of English and Dutch phonemes in the process.

Ask the immigration department ...

Specialised knowledge in specific situations - it does make a difference, not that you'd know.

Of course you do. If the claim was made by somebody who might know what they were talking about, that might worry me.

For AGW disaster to simulate, there has to be a lot of positive feedback to increase CO2 sensitivity, just short of runaway.

Since the models don't work, it's just as likely that overall feedback is small, possibly negative.

On a sunny day (Mon, 25 Jan 2016 07:28:08 -0800 (PST)) it happened snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote in :

that put more greenhosue gas in the atmosphere than all of those coal plants together, and half killed the people, some polar bears, and caused massive glow ball worming and snow in Washinton DC.

The opinion of peepholes in the US is set by the media that are controlled by a rusty big IBM clone in NSA headquarters.

I am all for Trump, we need a change.

What are you talking about? So many of your sentences and paragraphs are half-thoughts.

Ummm, yeah.

Oh, you're one of those. That explains a lot.