lawrocket 3 #26 February 28, 2015 DanGProjections are not data. Data is what is used to build the models. It is observations of past and current events. Language matters, counselor. Absolutely. Which is why I have insisted for years that climate models are, at best, hypotheses to be tested. However, they are portrayed as all objectively truthful sciencey science from objective and truth uos sciencey scientists. And if a person says, "hey! We don't know that the temperature will rise two degrees Celsius by 2100" then that person is an anti science denier who takes orders from tobacco companies and thinks That people were formed 6k years ago. Welcome to being an anti-science denier, Dan. Language matters. Uncertainty matters. And objective truth that is denied is no worse that subjective belief that is couched as objective truth. I think that you and I agree on a lot more than you or I may realize. That is, science is science regardless of what it said about it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #27 March 3, 2015 billvon>Does climate model data demonstrate objective truth? Yes. >Can you imagine a world where people are enlightened by objective truth and >know the difference between objective truth and subjective wish? Yes. There would be no science deniers in such a world, which would be cool. There would be no truth if left to the warmists QuoteClimate FAIL: Antarctic Sea Ice Did The Exact Opposite Of What Models Predicted QuoteThe study found that most climate models predicted Antarctic sea ice coverage would shrink as the world warmed and greenhouse gas levels increased. The opposite happened. Most climate models analyzed in the study predicted Antarctica would shrink between 1979 and 2005, but instead south pole sea ice levels increased during that time. Going a step further, sea ice levels have only increased since 2006, hitting all-time highs for sea ice coverage in September of last year. “For the Antarctic, the main problem of the [climate] models is their inability to reproduce the observed slight increase of sea ice extent,” researchers wrote in their study. “Both satellite-observed Antarctic [sea ice extent] and [satellite measured] Antarctic [sea ice volume] show increasing trends over the period of 1979–2005, but [climate models’] Antarctic [sea ice extent] and [sea ice volume] have decreasing trends,” researchers added. “Only eight models’ [sea ice extent] and eight models’ [sea ice volume] show increasing trends.” http://www.the-cryosphere.net/9/399/2015/tc-9-399-2015.pdf http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/03/climate-fail-antarctic-sea-ice-did-the-exact-opposite-of-what-models-predicted/"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #28 March 7, 2015 Article on how well paid shills for the energy industry have bamboozled people like you, Marc. www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-win-friends-and-bamboozle-people-about-climate-change/ Oh, I nearly forgot, YOU get your salary from the energy industry. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #29 March 7, 2015 QuoteHow to Win Friends and Bamboozle People about Climate Change An illuminating new documentary reveals deliberate efforts to obfuscate global warming Glad to see this from a publication called "Scientific American." Because, damn, this is what science in America is now. Remember when Scientific American was about science and never would use a term like bamboozled? This is science reporting. This actually constitutes science reporting that would be linked by a pretty distinguished scientist and academic. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #30 March 9, 2015 QuoteBy Bloomberg News Sunday, March 8, 2015, 9:00 p.m. Florida's government may have figured out a way to beat climate change: Ignore it. A report by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting published Sunday details the claims by employees of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, who said that they were ordered to refrain from using the terms “climate change” and “global warming” in official communications. “We were told not to use the terms ‘climate change,' ‘global warming' or ‘sustainability,' ” Christopher Byrd, an attorney with the DEP's Office of General Counsel in Tallahassee from 2008 to 2013, told FCIR. “That message was communicated to me and my colleagues by our superiors in the Office of General Counsel.” The unwritten policy went into effect shortly after Gov. Rick Scott, a global warming skeptic, took office.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #31 March 9, 2015 >Florida's government may have figured out a way to beat climate change: Ignore it. Unfortunately climate change may not ignore them. I suppose they can blame Obama if climate change results in negative effects for them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #32 March 9, 2015 kallendQuoteBy Bloomberg News Sunday, March 8, 2015, 9:00 p.m. Florida's government may have figured out a way to beat climate change: Ignore it. A report by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting published Sunday details the claims by employees of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, who said that they were ordered to refrain from using the terms “climate change” and “global warming” in official communications. “We were told not to use the terms ‘climate change,' ‘global warming' or ‘sustainability,' ” Christopher Byrd, an attorney with the DEP's Office of General Counsel in Tallahassee from 2008 to 2013, told FCIR. “That message was communicated to me and my colleagues by our superiors in the Office of General Counsel.” The unwritten policy went into effect shortly after Gov. Rick Scott, a global warming skeptic, took office. Wow. These terms are political? You don't say! What's weird is how much climate change is already affecting Florida. Think the drought in Cali is bad? It's been ten years since a hurricane made landfall on Florida shores, a drought which doubles the previous record. A hurricane hasn't made a direct hit on southern Florida since Andrew. Florida is the face of climate change. Of course, natural variability will occur. When it does, Florida will be clobbered. Simply due to inflation and the increase of electronics, damage dollar totals will be tremendous. Add to that the complacency of a population who thinks that man made climate change has meant that hurricanes are no longer a threat and we've got some worries. Florida is no doubt the crucible of climate change in the US. It has reared its ugly head the last decade and will show that it is two faced. On the other hand, there exists the possibility that hurricanes happen and don't happen outside of human influence. And perhaps preparing for a hurricane is easier than preparing for a climate change hurricane. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #33 March 9, 2015 lawrocket***QuoteBy Bloomberg News Sunday, March 8, 2015, 9:00 p.m. Florida's government may have figured out a way to beat climate change: Ignore it. A report by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting published Sunday details the claims by employees of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, who said that they were ordered to refrain from using the terms “climate change” and “global warming” in official communications. “We were told not to use the terms ‘climate change,' ‘global warming' or ‘sustainability,' ” Christopher Byrd, an attorney with the DEP's Office of General Counsel in Tallahassee from 2008 to 2013, told FCIR. “That message was communicated to me and my colleagues by our superiors in the Office of General Counsel.” The unwritten policy went into effect shortly after Gov. Rick Scott, a global warming skeptic, took office. Wow. These terms are political? You don't say! What's weird is how much climate change is already affecting Florida. Think the drought in Cali is bad? It's been ten years since a hurricane made landfall on Florida shores, a drought which doubles the previous record. A hurricane hasn't made a direct hit on southern Florida since Andrew. Florida is the face of climate change. Of course, natural variability will occur. When it does, Florida will be clobbered. Simply due to inflation and the increase of electronics, damage dollar totals will be tremendous. Add to that the complacency of a population who thinks that man made climate change has meant that hurricanes are no longer a threat and we've got some worries. Florida is no doubt the crucible of climate change in the US. It has reared its ugly head the last decade and will show that it is two faced. On the other hand, there exists the possibility that hurricanes happen and don't happen outside of human influence. And perhaps preparing for a hurricane is easier than preparing for a climate change hurricane. No, no, no, climate change huuricanes are much scarier. Let's publicise those so we can fear monger a little bit more. Oh, God I wanna be an alarmist.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #34 March 10, 2015 This is what informed people do http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/09/green-fiasco-92-of-swiss-voters-reject-carbon-tax-in-referendum/ QuoteGreen Fiasco: 92% Of Swiss Voters Reject Carbon Tax In Referendum"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #35 March 10, 2015 More clues (and yes kallend, I did read it) Quote Our results suggest weak to moderate coupling between CR and year-to-year changes of GT,” they write. “However, we find that the realized effect is modest at best, and only recoverable when the secular trend in GT is removed.” This “secular trend” is the warming widely believed to be caused by excess carbon in the atmosphere, an effect the researchers accounted for by first-differencing. “We show specifically that CR cannot explain secular warming, a trend that the consensus attributes to anthropogenic forcing. Nonetheless, the results verify the presence of a nontraditional forcing in the climate system, an effect that represents another interesting piece of the puzzle in our understanding of factors influencing climate variability, bolding is mine The more we truly study, the more we learn and this is a good thing http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/09/link-between-cosmic-ray-flux-and-global-temperature-found/"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #36 March 10, 2015 This is what we are dealing with folks! Truly shocking! http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/09/epa-chief-doesnt-know-whether-climate-model-projections-are-accurate/ Quote“Would you acknowledge that over the last 18 years,” Sessions asked, “that the increase in temperature has been very little, and that it is well below, matter of fact 90 percent below most of the environmental models that showed how fast temperature would increase?” “I do not know what the models actually are predicting that you are referring to,” McCarthy responded. “This is a stunning development,” Sessions shot back, “that the head of the Environmental Protection Agency—who should know more than anybody else in the world, who is imposing hundreds of billions of dollars in cost to prevent this climate temperature increase—doesn’t know whether their projections have been right or wrong.”"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #37 March 10, 2015 Part of the problem the alarmist live with is that they look at a changing climate in the context of just a little over a life time. I have asked many times on this site what is a normal temp when viewed in the life of the planet. No answers as of yet that I can remember. So, with this in mind, consider the following. http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2015/03/06/proof-recent-temperature-trends-are-not-abnormal/ QuoteThe hypothesis I wish to test was whether there is any trends within the Central England Temperature series is inconsistent with natural variation. Within this analysis one of 50 years ending in 2009 was sufficiently high to be considered as possibly showing abnormality. However when assessed statistically I found that the chance of this being abnormal climate variation was only 42.2%. Therefore the data does reject the null hypothesis which is that the dataset is due to natural variation. However, if instead of “climate variation”, we only consider “warming”, there is a 65% probability that the single 50 year period ending in 2009 should be lower in a normal distribution. But, if the hypothesis of “current warming” is to be supported, it must not only be true in 2009 but also true in all later periods including the latest in 2014. Therefore the probability that the current 50 year trend (to 2014) is abnormal is only 27.8% which means that current warming is not supported from the CET dataset. Given the correlation between CET and global temperatures, I can therefore conclude that it is unlikely that either current “global warming” or “climate change” is abnormal or departs significantly from what we expect of normal natural climatic variation. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #38 March 10, 2015 Your point?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #39 March 10, 2015 kallend Your point? Still relying on that misleading study Great Quote Nullius addictus iurare in verba magistri "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #40 March 10, 2015 kallend Your point? Here you defend what you regularly accuse me of But they gotta protect their incomes Quote Their 1090 forms reveal that, during the 2010-2012 period, six environmentalist groups received a whopping $332 million from six federal agencies! That is 270 times what Dr. Willie Soon and Harvard-Smithsonian’s Center for Astrophysics received from fossil fuel companies in a decade – the funding that supposedly triggered the lawmakers’ letters, mere days after Greenpeace launched its attack on Dr. Soon. The EPA, Fish & Wildlife Service, NOAA, USAID, Army and State Department transferred this taxpayer money to Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, Nature Conservancy, Natural Resource Defense Council, National Wildlife Fund and Clean Air Council, for research, reports, press releases and other activities that support and promote federal programs and agendas on air quality, climate change, climate impacts on wildlife, and many similar topics related to the Obama war on fossil fuels. The activists also testified before Congress and lobbied intensively behind the scenes on these issues. Between 2000 and 2013, EPA also paid the American Lung Association well over $20 million, and lavished over $180 million on its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee members, to support agency positions. Chesapeake energy gave the Sierra Club $26 million to advance its Beyond Coal campaign. Russia gave generously to anti-fracking, climate change and related “green” efforts. Government agencies and laboratories, universities and other organizations have received billions of taxpayer dollars, to develop computer models, data and reports confirming alarmist claims. Abundant corporate money has also flowed to researchers who promote climate alarms and keep any doubts to themselves. Hundreds of billions went to renewable energy companies, many of which went bankrupt. Wind and solar companies have been exempted from endangered species laws, to protect them against legal actions for destroying wildlife habitats, birds and bats. Full disclosure? Rarely, if ever. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #41 March 10, 2015 Just to further the point QuoteIn gratitude and to keep the money train on track, many of these recipients contribute hefty sums to congressional candidates. During his recent primary and general campaign, for example, Senator Markey received $3.8 million from Harvard and MIT professors, government unions, Tom Steyer and a dozen environmentalist groups (including recipients of some of that $332 million in taxpayer funds), in direct support and via advertisements opposing candidates running against the champion of disclosure."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #42 March 10, 2015 rushmc Just to further the point Quote In gratitude and to keep the money train on track, many of these recipients contribute hefty sums to congressional candidates. During his recent primary and general campaign, for example, Senator Markey received $3.8 million from Harvard and MIT professors, government unions, Tom Steyer and a dozen environmentalist groups (including recipients of some of that $332 million in taxpayer funds), in direct support and via advertisements opposing candidates running against the champion of disclosure. Harvard and MIT must be paying their professors too much. Either that, or a deliberately misleading clustering of faculty with various large organizations. Okham suggests the latter.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #43 March 10, 2015 kallend ***Just to further the point Quote In gratitude and to keep the money train on track, many of these recipients contribute hefty sums to congressional candidates. During his recent primary and general campaign, for example, Senator Markey received $3.8 million from Harvard and MIT professors, government unions, Tom Steyer and a dozen environmentalist groups (including recipients of some of that $332 million in taxpayer funds), in direct support and via advertisements opposing candidates running against the champion of disclosure. Harvard and MIT must be paying their professors too much. Either that, or a deliberately misleading clustering of faculty with various large organizations. Okham suggests the latter.Like protects like As seen by your reply"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #44 March 10, 2015 rushmc ******Just to further the point Quote In gratitude and to keep the money train on track, many of these recipients contribute hefty sums to congressional candidates. During his recent primary and general campaign, for example, Senator Markey received $3.8 million from Harvard and MIT professors, government unions, Tom Steyer and a dozen environmentalist groups (including recipients of some of that $332 million in taxpayer funds), in direct support and via advertisements opposing candidates running against the champion of disclosure. Harvard and MIT must be paying their professors too much. Either that, or a deliberately misleading clustering of faculty with various large organizations. Okham suggests the latter.Like protects like As seen by your reply How much of the $3.8M do you think a college professor can afford?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #45 March 10, 2015 Quoterunning against the champion of disclosure"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #46 March 10, 2015 How much of the $3.8M do you think a college professor can afford?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #47 March 11, 2015 kallendHow much of the $3.8M do you think a college professor can afford? How good is their credit?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #48 March 14, 2015 Oh no Another study Missing heat still not found http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/14/bad-news-for-trenberths-missing-heat-new-study-finds-the-deep-oceans-cooled-from-1992-to-2011-and/"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #49 March 14, 2015 QuoteOh no Another study Missing heat still not found Huh, I thought you didn't trust climate models. I guess you trust them when they say something you agree with. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #50 March 15, 2015 DanGQuoteOh no Another study Missing heat still not found Huh, I thought you didn't trust climate models. I guess you trust them when they say something you agree with. you really are not up to speed with the claims are you...... Not surprising i guess"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
