Speaking of Climate Change Data

[rushmc 23]

Changing Tides: Research Center Under Fire for 'Adjusted' Sea-Level Data

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/17/research-center-under-fire-for-adjusted-sea-level-data/

Quote

Is climate change raising sea levels, as Al Gore has argued -- or are climate scientists doctoring the data?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

"Gatekeepers of our sea level data are manufacturing a fictitious sea level rise that is not occurring," said James M. Taylor, a lawyer who focuses on environmental issues for the Heartland Institute.

Well, if you read the whole (very short) article, no one, including this lawyer, disputes the fact that the sea level is rising. They are quibbling over the rate of the rise.

As usual Fox News distorts the story to fit their agenda.

- Dan G

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Well, if you read the whole (very short) article, no one, including this lawyer, disputes the fact that the sea level is rising. They are quibbling over the rate of the rise.

but while once that rate was going to total 10s of feet, now we're quibbling over .3mm/year. Not quite so scary sounding.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Well, if you read the whole (very short) article, no one, including this lawyer, disputes the fact that the sea level is rising. They are quibbling over the rate of the rise.

but while once that rate was going to total 10s of feet, now we're quibbling over .3mm/year. Not quite so scary sounding.

....which is more to the point. The one ignored by DanG

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

You should reread the article. The "controversy" is over adding 0.3mm/year to the measured rate. The 0.3mm/year is not the total rate, it is the adjustment that this particular group is using. No one ever claimed that the rise was going to be tens of feet in a single year, I have no idea where you got that idea. Basically, one group of scientists are saying the oceans will rise X feet over a given period, and the other group is saying they will rise 0.85*X feet.

The point I was trying to make was that the difference in outcome is not that great. The overall point is that no one disputes that the oceans are rising, it is just a matter of a small difference in rate.

- Dan G

[quade 4]

Quote

The overall point is that no one disputes that the oceans are rising, it is just a matter of a small difference in rate.

I'd be careful with that "no one disputes" comment. There's almost always going to be some denier out there.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[winsor 236]

Quote

Quote

The overall point is that no one disputes that the oceans are rising, it is just a matter of a small difference in rate.

I'd be careful with that "no one disputes" comment. There's almost always going to be some denier out there.

When you use buzzwords like "deiner" you invalidate your standpoint.

Calling people heretics (or any variant thereof) is up there with Godwin's Law.

[kelpdiver 2]

on the sea rise issue, you have to expect the emotionalism, since 7" of rise is hard to reconcile with the more fantastic claims that had been made. now the doom scenario is down to 2-4 ft!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Well, if you read the whole (very short) article, no one, including this lawyer, disputes the fact that the sea level is rising. They are quibbling over the rate of the rise.

It has been rising for a few thousand years. The claim of the AGW proponents has been that the sea level rise is accelerating and will continue to accelerate as warming melts ice caps and adds thermal expansion to the oceans. Problem - it isn't. Sea level is rising, but in a miniscule fashion.

Those poor islands of Seychelles and Tuvalu are going to be there in 100 years, and will have to find other solutions to the problems of lack of fresh water and lack of resources because seeking refugee status due to global warming won't work anymore.

Global Warming proponents sank themselves. The extreme scenarios they painted aren't panning out. it's been over 1,000 days since a hurricane made landfall on US soil. The more severe, more frequent, more damaging hurricanes trumpeted by the media savvy proponents have stopped. We have to go back to at least the 1800s to find such a drought of "damaging" hurricanes.

IF it was science, we'd all agree that the predictions didn't pan out and something else must be thought out. But we know it isn't just science. It's politics. In politics people are allowed to be disastrously wrong and still have supporters because it was done for the right reasons. See "Iraq War." See "Harold Camping."

Now, Harold Camping predicted that the Rapture would occur on September 6, 1994. Didn't happen. So he then predicted May 21, 2011. Didn't happen. So he really meant October 21, 2011. IT's the, "Well, just because it didn't happen when I said it would doesn't mean it's not going to happen. It will and it'll be bad unless you repent" thing.

There is a not-so-shocking loss of credibility when predicted events don't happen. It is also not-so-shocking when credibility is further damaged by attributing EVERYTHING to climate change. EVERY WEATHER PHENOMENON EXCEPT "PLEASANT" IS BLAMED ON GLOBAL WARMING.

The people of the world aren't stupid. We know what's up. We gave them 25 years. We should have had hell on earth ten years ago.

This is not to say that there is not a scinetific basis for the proponency. There is. However, I do not find computer models to be "science" unless they can be validated. This won't happen until about 2090.

"Based on science" is the functional equivalent of "Based on a true story." THere's plenty of room for spin and we've got it here.

And - the rate of rise is VERY important. 3mm per year and accelerating has a much more profound impact than 1mm per year and stable.

Science is about quibbling over the small stuff. That's actually what climate forcings are about - smalll stuff happening in large amounts over a long time.

Quibble over the small stuff, for it paints the big picture.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,150]

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110620161215.htm

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110620161215.htm

AS IF



any of the usual suspects will believe that.... unless the Koch Brothers put it out... they stick their fingers in their ears.... close their eyes.... and go NANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANA

[lawrocket 3]

[Quote]
The team found that sea level was relatively stable from 200 B.C. to 1,000 A.D. During a warm climate period beginning in the 11th century known as the Medieval Climate Anomaly

According to the consensus the MWP never happened. Tjhe famed "hockey stick" graph had no MWP for the proponents said that it did not happen and if it did it was not global. Period. End oif story. End of discussionm. No way. No how.nope. Deniers and contrarians believe in it. Assholes.

So we know for certain that this study will be soundly trounced by Mann, Schmidt, and the like because it has lying lies.

[Quote]In addition to Horton and Kemp, the research was conducted by Jeffrey Donnelly of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, Martin Vermeer of Finland's Aalto University School of Engineering in Finland and Rahmstorf of Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

Holy freaking hell! Is Mann throwing the hockey stick under the bus? Mann has been the key contrarian regarding the MWP.

Wow. The ramifications of this are truly spectacular. Which one is it? Was the a MWP or wasn't there? Mann had spent the last 15 years denying that it ever happened.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,150]

You have a reading problem today?
Must be the wind

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Yep. Like this forecast for ice breakup in Barrow. They've never forecast such a late ice breakup.

http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_breakup

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[idrankwhat 0]

Here's the problem.

[lawrocket 3]

So, then, how do you suggest this problem get solved? Those who say that the earth is too populated point only to genocide as a solution. So whom do you think should be destroyed? It's a good exercise in whom you think is unworthy of continued existence.

There is but one solution. A final solution, shall we say...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

So, then, how do you suggest this problem get solved? Those who say that the earth is too populated point only to genocide as a solution. So whom do you think should be destroyed? It's a good exercise in whom you think is unworthy of continued existence.

There is but one solution. A final solution, shall we say...

One way to do it is to wait for the human population to reach the Earth's carrying capacity. The resultant population crash will be significant. The results will be ugly. It's been shown that educated women have fewer babies. I think a heavy emphasis on education promotion all around would help. It would also help if we imported diet and eating habits from Asia as opposed to exporting our non-sustainable, energy intensive lifestyle to the rest of the world. Those ideas won't solve the problem but it will likely delay the inevitable crash.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Here's the problem.

And here is the solution.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

Here's the problem.

And here is the solution.

Too expensive. We're trying it in Afghanistan to the tune of $20 billion/yr and it's still not enough.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Here's the problem.

And here is the solution.

Too expensive. We're trying it in Afghanistan to the tune of $20 billion/yr and it's still not enough.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Read "THe Population Bomb." See how the predictions match up.

The parallels between Ehrlich and climate science are, in my opinion, great. Ehrlich made a number or specific predictions about dire consequences that did not pan out. Still, Ehrlich has maintained that his book is valid, that the specific predictions that he made were merely illustrative, and that all we need to do is just wait. Sure, he predicted stuff to happen within a decade or two, and just because it's been over forty years, well, it doesn't mean he's wrong.

The same stuff has happened in climate science. Alarmism with its predictions have not unfolded. We find them now saying, "Well, just wait. We aren't wrong. What we are finding is entirely consistent with the science."

I has a special distaste for alarmism. It gets us into wars. It attributes blame to one thing and attacks it. It's a game of pickign winners and losers.

Alarmism got us the Iraq War, Patriot Act, and loads of other shit we deal with. I don't accept predictions that aren't tested. Climate "science" is riddled with them.

Population a problem? Could be.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Population a problem? Could be.

it's a lot easier to conclude that population is a problem. We have so many past examples of fallen civilizations, as well as examples in the animal kingdom.

The problem isn't readily apparent right now because the pain isn't shared equally. We're eating better than well. Africa remains Africa, as bad as ever. But the rising food prices correspond well to this recent upsurge in rebellions over there.

[jaybird18c 25]

What!? Climate changes!? Shocking!

[futuredivot 0]

Someone should go back and see how many of the same posters that were dogging Harold Camping for saying "I was right. It's just my timing was off" are selling the same line from the global warming alarmist. I guess it just depends what religion you choose

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The problem isn't readily apparent right now because the pain isn't shared equally. We're eating better than well. Africa remains Africa, as bad as ever. But the rising food prices correspond well to this recent upsurge in rebellions over there.

They are eating better everywhere EXCEPT for those places where there are political aims. Point out a famine in a western democracy. There are frequent famines in Africa caused by droughts (which happen) as well as by other political factors, land use, etc. Western Democracies weather droughts because the political structure allows preparation for droughts. We actually find the sort of situation in the California Central Valley, where environmental regulations have prevented water from being sent to the Western Valley and hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland have laid fallow. Yes, it's a desert but we've had systems to store water. These are now being cut back for political considerations.

Famines are always found in underdeveloped countries or command economies. (In underdeveloped, it often comes from warring factions either hoarding resouces or using the lack of resources as a weapon). They are seen in places like North Korea - where government policies help lead to it. Sure, they deal wih floods and the like - just like the US.

So famine may result but we'll see largest effects where oppression already exists.

My wife is hotter than your wife.