Small scale stuff? Did you look at a full-globe satellite picture yet? Desert-like conditions span most of the earth in wide bands at both northern and southern latitudes, apparently since almost nine millennia. Small scale stuff indeed! Your so-very-important CO2- induced global warming problem is imperceptible, except in purposefully doctored statistical treatment of dubious data, tainted by financial/political interests and with the raw measurements carefully hidden from the general public.
So what? The planet isn't organised to provide us with loads of well-watere d farm land. We exploit what we can, and have to live with the fact the exp loitable areas move around. Australia has depressingly large areas that can look like good farm land for a couple of decades, then don't get anything like enough rain for the next few decades. This is probably why the Australian aborigines never really got into agriculture.
You've been reading the wrong web-sites.
"Statistically doctored" was McIntyre's claim to refute Mann's "hockey stic k" curve. It wasn't all that persuasive at the time, and since Mann there h ave been about a dozen papers that independently replicate Mann's basic pro position, using a wide variety of temperature proxies. McIntyre might not h ave been dishonest, but he was certainly wrong in claiming that Mann's conc lusions didn't stand up.
Global warming is perceptible, and statistically significant. The CO2 conce ntration in the atmosphere is the major driver - water vapour is a more eff ective greenhouse gas, but it's atmospheric concentration equilibrates in a bout three weeks, so it works as a positive feedback on the CO2 levels whic h take about 800 years to equilibrate (because most of the CO2 ends up in t he depths of the ocean which don't turn over all that fast).
It's impossible to explain the ice age to interglacial alternation without taking atmospheric CO2 levels into account - CO2 levels sit around 180ppm i n an ice age and at about 270 ppm in an interglacial.
The current level of 400ppm is hasn't been seen for some 3 million years.
We don't know exactly what this will do in the long term. The last time we had something like this was in the Eocene-Paleocene Thermal Maximum, some 6
5 million years ago, where the greenhouse gas seems to have been methane (f rom the isotope excursion).
formatting link
The "purposefully doctored statistical treatment of dubious data, tainted b y financial/political interests and with the raw measurements carefully hid den from the general public" show up on denialist web sites, paid for by th e fossil carbon extraction industry.
formatting link
They do keep posting links to hopeful papers that would have liked to have demonstrated that there was another explanation for global warming. The lin ks to the critical papers that have so far shown that every last one of the would-be iconoclasts was wrong don't show up on the denialist web-sites (t hough Google seems to be able find them very quickly).
You are a physicist and should be able to follow the real story at
formatting link
The American Institutes of Physics put it together a few years ago, and it' s worth plowing through.
Another incoherent rant from a village idiot follower of the Democrat Party. ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Why are Democrats such sore losers?
I can understand the losers part, they are, by nature, losers.
But where does the "sore" come from?
Improper use of posterior orifice ?>:-}
I like this page. Sea-level rise is shown as two separate graphs, land-based observations, then satellite.
If plotted on one graph, you'd see a sharp inflection point at the transition from roughly 2mm/year per the land-based measurements, to suddenly >3mm/year on the satellite-based measurements.
I discovered that accidentally--it's very obvious when you plot them on together. One assumes this is why NASA has broken the plots into two graphs. It's for 'science.'
The land-based observations contain interesting segments. o Rise was recorded as about 60mm from 1870-1930 (1mm/yr), a trend that persisted until ~1938. o Rise from 1938 to 1962 was about 70mm, or 2.9mm/yr o The rate falls sharply from 1962 to 2000, rising about 65mm in those 38 years, or 1.7mm/year, even as atmospheric CO2 'soared.'
The satellite data then show ~71mm from 1995 to 2016, or 3.4mm/yr. It's magic.
formatting link
"The Great Lakes" formed when the mile-thick glacier that was the Laurentide Ice Sheet scraped them out, then melted millennia ago. Obviously man-caused--Fred Flintstone and his stone-age car did that.
Not to worry James, Donald will make it all go away. :^) The data I remember from tide charts on the east coast (of US) was that sea levels have been going up at about 1 ft (~300mm)/ century for the few hundred years we have data for. (Not everything is a conspiracy.) George H.
On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 4:50:20 AM UTC+11, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com w rote:
e:
It's not exactly magic. Land-based sea level measurements aren't exactly me asuring the same data, and sea level rise is - at the moment - mainly due t o the thermal expansion of the water in the oceans. Global temperature have been rising faster recently, because atmospheric CO2 levels have been goin g up faster.
The loss of low albedo sea ice in the Arctic and the Antarctic is also cont ributing.
formatting link
Why would you want to claim that? We now know enough about climate modellin g to be able to follow what actually happened at the end of the last ice ag e.
When the Laurentian ice sheet last slid off into the North Atlantic - a Hei nrich event, which happens about every eight thousand years in an ice age, it dumped enough fresh water into the North Atlantic to stop the Gulf Strea m for 1300 years (the Younger Dryas) so all the heat that had been going no rth went south instead and warmed up enough of the Southern Ocean to dump e nough CO2 into the ocean to warm up the planet enough to switch us into an interglacial - the Milankovich cycle was in the right phase for this to wor k, so the Laurentian ice sheet didn't rebuild itself (as it had after every previous Heinrich event for the preceding 100,000 years.
No Fred Flintstone necessary. The ice age to interglacial alternation, that has been a feature of the planets climate for the past few million years, does reflect a transient bistable situation, which depends on having the co ntinents in the right places.
James Arthur likes to make a virtue of his ignorance. The fact that he does n't learn, no matter how often he is exposed to real facts, is a bit depres sing, but he clearly has served time in some remarkably effective right-win g de-education camp.
Keynesians know better, but James Arthur doesn't believe in Keynes. Much better to do a Hoover and keep a balanced budget while the real economy shrinks by 6% per year.
With Trump's enthusiasm for driving organisations into bankruptcy, it may be irresistible - irresponsible too, but Trump *is* a right-winger.
That's an impressive number of errors and boneheaded assumptions for one sentence.
To consider just one, you're upside-down on Hoover. Hoover hiked tax rates and spending, just like you'd want. But you just said he did the opposite.
We've discussed it before, so I don't know why you'd keep repeating something you know isn't true.
1932 United States Budget Total Receipts: $25.3B Total Outlays: $61.3B
formatting link
'Balanced budget' Mr. Bill? Hoover spent 2.4x federal revenue. 'Stimulus.' Big spender. Big 'stimulus' guy. And then we had the Depression. When FDR did even more.
But it simply doesn't work.
Redistributing from A to B doesn't fix B's problems. It doesn't create more net wealth. It also doesn't encourage A to produce or hire more, nor B to work harder either.
It discourages production on all fronts ( = discourages the economy). Less production = less wealth = everyone worse off.
Borrowing the money to move the taking into the future doesn't change the outcome, it only adds expense; that's just to fool the usefuls.
Eight years of not working, eight years of the worst recovery ever, never blooming into the positive feedback you'd projected, still wallowing-- depending on daily support--and you're still crowing for it. Amazing.
The Donald's gearing up for another phony $1T 'stimulus', and Ivanka wants to create a giant new entitlement we can't afford, a federal paid family leave.
Not everything is a conspiracy, but the government sites are surely the definition of people conspiring, no?
They only ever cite benefits for their position and costs for the alternative, but never vice versa.
Citing only costs without disclosing benefits--or only benefits without disclosing costs--is politics, not science.
E.g., kindly show us NASA's balanced discussion of the benefits of a warmer climate. Or their disclosure of the economic and human costs of slashing CO2, per infinitesimal dT / century gained.
International scientific collaboration isn't usually described as a conspir acy. International fossil carbon extraction businesses getting together to lie a bout anthropogenic global warming - so they can keep on digging up fossil c arbon and selling it as cheap fuel - usually is.
James Arthur's double-think doesn't see it that way.
They tend not to be too specific about the damage inflicted by a warmer cli mate either, because it is quite difficult to predict in detail. They tend to be more specific about sea level rise, because the damage that it will d o is quite obvious.
Of course we don't know when the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are goi ng to get to be mechanically unstable enough to slide off into the oceans. Heinrich events happened every eight thousand years, but that was only duri ng ice ages, and to different ice sheets.
formatting link
Actually, they are scientists, delivering the kind of warning they responsi bly can, rather than irresponsibly claiming that nothing significant is goi ng on - which is what your bought-and-paid-for propagandists are doing.
h better to do a Hoover and keep a balanced budget while the real economy s hrinks by 6% per year.
.'
DR
The bone-headed part of James Arthur's response - and the bit he surely sho uld have known isn't true - is that Hoover ran a budget surplus in 1930, wh en he could have spent enough on stimulus to make a difference. By 1932 the US economy had shrunk by roughly 20%, and the tax take had shrunk even mor e, so he didn't have any choice about going into deficit. In 1933 FDR an ev en smaller tax take to work with, but still managed to create enough stimul us spending to turn the economy around.
James Arthur's posts here are object lessons in how to lie by omission.
Why not ask the researchers? There is the problem that every climate change denialist on the planet has been doing the same thing since Mann et al fir st published back in 1999.
formatting link
If you can route the request via mutual acquaintances you might not get tar red with the same brush - in other fields there has gotten to be a traditio n making the raw data available on publicly accessible web-sites (my wife d oes that in a completely different area).
Some of the data sets are a bit big.
formatting link
works for the UK MET office and a recent publication reported the simulatio n of a thousand years worth of monsoons well enough to roughly match the la st 1000 years of Chinese rainfall statistics.
Your chances of getting a sympathetic reception aren't high - there are too many Christopher Monktons around, giving climate change scepticism a bad n ame.
formatting link
f_Brenchley
The man himself
formatting link
The article that the American Physical Society was silly enough to publish
You answered your own question. The point is that I shouldn't *have* to ask any individual. The data should be publicly available without anyone having to ask for it.
What could be simpler than having a file of properties of measurement stations and associated files of time-temperature pairs? Every weather station produces these continuously and automatically!
There are many ways of making data effectively unavailable despite being 'public'. Some weather stations I consult from time to time only present web pages with graphs and pictures. The raw data is all but impossible to eke out of that. The web pages even have statements in them to the effect that I'm not supposed to use the data other than by viewing *their* web pages.
Why shouldn't Mr. Anyone be allowed to obtain a file of temperature readings from time 'x' to time 'y' from station 'z' and do with it as he pleases?
The solution to fudged data, _and_ to twisted politics foisted onto our youth: Stop ALL government (federal/state/local) funding of universities. Force them to survive on tuition and alumni donations... pissed alumni tend to cut off recalcitrant behavior... I cut MIT out of my estate nearly 20 years ago ;-) ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.