Another NEW study on Climate Change

[billvon 3,116]

>I thought you didn't trust climate models. I guess you trust them when they
>say something you agree with.

Of course. Then they are indisputable facts. Remember - always check to see if a study's conclusion aligns with your political beliefs before deciding whether they represent indisputable facts, or whether they are looney liberal ivory tower lies.

[DanG 1]

Quote

you really are not up to speed with the claims are you......
Not surprising i guess

You're really not up to speed on what this paper is about, are you?

It's another model, not new measurements.

- Dan G

[SkyDekker 1,465]

DanG

Quote

you really are not up to speed with the claims are you......
Not surprising i guess

You're really not up to speed on what this paper is about, are you?

It's another model, not new measurements.

Surprise...another marc standard...post without any clue of what it actually says. But the scientists are the idiots. lol

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

***

Quote

you really are not up to speed with the claims are you......
Not surprising i guess

You're really not up to speed on what this paper is about, are you?

It's another model, not new measurements.

Surprise...another marc standard...post without any clue of what it actually says. But the scientists are the idiots. lol

Ah
From the link

Quote

And contrary to climate models:
“

Furthermore the ocean, far from being a passive reservoir filled and emptied by the atmosphere, is a dynamically active, turbulent element of a coupled system.

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

[rushmc 23]

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/03/Shortguide.pdf

Quote

About this briefing
In December 2014 the Royal Society published A Short Guide to Climate Science, a layman’s
introduction to the key issues in the subject. The guide was accompanied by a
video and was widely reported in the media.
The authors who wrote the guide were not identified. Nor were the members of
the Royal Society asked whether they endorsed it or not. So in referring to it herein as
the ‘Royal Society’ guide we only mean to indicate who published it. We have no way
of knowing how many Royal Society Fellows actually agree with it.
Many commentators were concerned that the guide was profoundly misleading,
misrepresenting major points while overlooking some of the key issues and question
marks over the science, glossing over them as if they were of little consequence. As
an example, when the Royal Society addresses the long-term rise in Antarctic sea ice
it says that ‘changes in winds and in the ocean seem to be dominating the patterns
of sea ice change in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica’. In reality, what is being
described in these words is a recently proposed hypothesis, so while a reader of the
Short Guide might come away with the impression that science had a broad understanding
of whatwas happening in the Southern Ocean, what they should have been
told was that the changes in Antarctic sea ice are not understood. In a time of universal
overconfidence, to be willing to state what is not known is an essential, albeit
controversial, duty of scientists.
This report attempts to give a more accurate picture of climate science and to add
in the caveats and to explain the gaps in our knowledge over which the Royal Society
guide drew a veil.
The Royal Society, quite properly, does not draw policy conclusions fromthe meager
science they present (and misrepresent), but they, most assuredly, know that others
will.

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

[rushmc 23]

I am going to post this one again with differnt quotes

I am sure the mesenger will get attacked causet the content cant be

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/03/Shortguide.pdf

Quote

7 Is the current level of atmospheric CO2
concentration unprecedented in Earth’s
history?
Royal Society: The present level of atmospheric CO2 concentration is almost certainly
unprecedented in the past million years, during which time modern humans
evolved and societies developed. The atmospheric CO2 concentration was
however higher many millions of years ago, at which time temperatures and sea
levels were also higher than they are today.
A fuller picture: While carbon dioxide levels appear to be higher than they have been
for hundreds of thousands of years, they are relatively low compared to most of the
last 600 million years (when most lifeforms evolved), during which time levels were
often from 2–20 times greater than today. Counter to the Royal Society, there were
periods during which the carbon dioxide level was as much as 10 times higher than
today but the climate was colder, for example the Silurian Period (about 443–420 million
years ago). The fact that most plant life evolved during these periods is because
plants thrive when carbon dioxide is increased. Moreover, our present estimates of
carbon dioxide variations over the past 700,000 years are based on the analysis of ice
cores, and these analyses may have inadequately dealt with diffusion, which could
cause major adjustments to our estimates of early carbon dioxide levels.

Quote

10 Does the recent slowdown of warming mean
that climate change is no longer happening?
Royal Society: No. Since the very warm surface temperatures of 1998 which followed
the strong 1997–98 El Niño, the increase in average surface temperature
has slowed relative to the previous decade of rapid temperature increases, with
more of the excess heat being stored in the oceans. Despite the slower rate of
warming, the surface temperatures in the 2000s were on average warmer than
the 1990s.
A fuller picture: Surface temperatures have exhibited no warming since the start of
the century. Weather satellite records suggest the pause has been going on even
longer. The reasons for the pause are unknown. Numerous explanations have been
proposed, the most high profile being a suggestion that the missing heat has found
its way to the deep ocean. However, this is simply an obscure way of blaming natural
internal variability, for which the ocean circulations (which are always exchanging
heat between surface and deep water) are a major cause. There is no known way to
distinguish these natural exchanges from the notion that ‘heat is hiding in the ocean’.
What we do know is that these major ocean circulations are not correctly captured in
the current climate models.

Quote

16 How confident are scientists that Earth will
warm further over the coming century?
Royal Society: Very confident. If emissions continue on their present trajectory,
then warming of 2.6 to 4.8◦C (4.7 to 8.6◦F), in addition to that which has already
occurred, would be expected by the end of the 21st century. The range of values
accounts for the fact that there are open questions as to howexactly some natural
processes such as cloud formation amplify or reduce the direct warming effect of
increasing levels of CO2.
A fuller picture: Increasing carbon dioxide levels are likely to bring some warming.
Climate models predict 0.6–1.8◦C by mid-century, but observational evidence indicates
that they substantially overestimate how sensitive the climate system is to increasing
carbon dioxide levels, and maywell also overestimate howmuch of the emitted
greenhouse gases will remain in the atmosphere. The failure of models to make
correct predictions over the recent period diminishes our confidence in their ability
to make correct predictions of the far distant future.

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

[billvon 3,116]

>Must be a hoax, right, Sen. Inhofe?

And the latest denier who turns out to have an embarrassing funding source is - Jim Inhofe, chairman of the Senate environment and public works committee!

From the Guardian:
======================
Climate-sceptic US senator given funds by BP political action committee

Senator Jim Inhofe, who opposes climate change regulation, has received $10,000 from PAC funded by donations from US staff at oil group


Sunday 22 March 2015 13.14 EDT Last modified on Monday 23 March 2015 05.01 EDT

One of America’s most powerful and outspoken opponents of climate change regulation received election campaign contributions that can be traced back to senior BP staff, including chief executive Bob Dudley.

Jim Inhofe, a Republican senator from Oklahoma who has tirelessly campaigned against calls for a carbon tax and challenges the overwhelming consensus on climate change, received $10,000 (£6,700) from BP’s Political Action Committee (PAC).

Following his re-election, Inhofe became chair of the Senate’s environment and public works committee in January, and then a month later featured in news bulletins throwing a snowball across the Senate floor.

Before tossing it, the senator said: “In case we have forgotten – because we keep hearing that 2014 is the warmest year on record – it is very, very cold outside. Very unseasonal.”
============================

[Stumpy 284]

Anyone surprised by this?

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>Must be a hoax, right, Sen. Inhofe?

And the latest denier who turns out to have an embarrassing funding source is - Jim Inhofe, chairman of the Senate environment and public works committee!

From the Guardian:
======================
Climate-sceptic US senator given funds by BP political action committee

Senator Jim Inhofe, who opposes climate change regulation, has received $10,000 from PAC funded by donations from US staff at oil group


Sunday 22 March 2015 13.14 EDT Last modified on Monday 23 March 2015 05.01 EDT

One of America’s most powerful and outspoken opponents of climate change regulation received election campaign contributions that can be traced back to senior BP staff, including chief executive Bob Dudley.

Jim Inhofe, a Republican senator from Oklahoma who has tirelessly campaigned against calls for a carbon tax and challenges the overwhelming consensus on climate change, received $10,000 (£6,700) from BP’s Political Action Committee (PAC).

Following his re-election, Inhofe became chair of the Senate’s environment and public works committee in January, and then a month later featured in news bulletins throwing a snowball across the Senate floor.

Before tossing it, the senator said: “In case we have forgotten – because we keep hearing that 2014 is the warmest year on record – it is very, very cold outside. Very unseasonal.”
============================

Funny
Money from big oil is bad
Money from big green is good

And in the end
Nither means shit

"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]

What is big green?

- Dan G

[lawrocket 3]

California governor Moonbeams Brown is a firm supporter of AGW. He also is a very wealthy man in the basis of environmentalism. His father acquired rights tk sell Indonesian oil in California. Indonesian oil is the lowest sulfur oil out there. Coincidentally, California banned any oil for industrial use that was higher sulfur than Indonesian oil after Chevron built a refinery tk handle Alaskan crude.

Jerry Brown IS an oil Barron. But just called out Cruz and others as beig unfit for office for being climate change deniers. Probably like Inhofe. All the while supporting fracking and other such things.

If oil money means a person is my allowed to say anything in in support of AGW being horribly awful then what about Brown. He IS oil money.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

DanG

What is big green?

The loosely defined conglomeration of governmental and non governmental organizations dedicated to the limiting and/or destruction of the private petrochemical industry.

Sometimes referred to as watermelons (green on the outside but red tk the core) they are predicated on the idea that only they know how tk responsibly use fossil fuels/land/flora/fauna and seek to ban use of those things they think are bad.

Will blame hurricanes, floods, droughts, blizzards and any other perceived extreme weather events to SUVs in the same way that an antivaxxers will blame medical issues on vaccines.

Highly favored by big government advocates because banning shit and protecting people from themselves is the highest duty. Big Gren are highly invested in alternative technologies and are often green for greenbacks. Have large grass roots following who have no investment backed expectations but want to return to nature and maintain blogs decrying technology.

Notable for infighting. Fauna lovers will fight with flora lovers and petrochemical haters.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,116]

>What is big green?

All those evil, rich grad students, lighting their cigars with $100 bills, living in luxury and flying across the country in their private jets to play golf. Everyone knows those ivory tower academic types are obscenely rich, and like to spit on the penniless Exxon executives, who are just trying to support their families.

[Amazon 7]

rushmc

Linked from a favorite site but as you will see it but please pay attention and you will see it comes from “Climatic and biotic thresholds of coral-reef shutdown.” (Nature Climate Change, February 2015)

Quote

A new study has found that La Niña-like conditions in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Panamá were closely associated with an abrupt shutdown in coral reef growth that lasted 2,500 years. The study suggests that future changes in climate similar to those in the study could cause coral reefs to collapse in the future.

The study found cooler sea temperatures, greater precipitation and stronger upwelling — all indicators of La Niña-like conditions at the study site in Panama — during a period when coral reef accretion stopped in this region around 4,100 years ago. For the study, researchers traveled to Panama to collect a reef core, and then used the corals within the core to reconstruct what the environment was like as far back as 6,750 years ago.

Hmmm
So we were killing them over 4000 years ago
But wait!


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/23/inconvenient-study-la-nina-killed-coral-reefs-4100-years-ago-and-lasted-over-two-millenia/

Is this another wholly owned and funded subsidiary of Koch Industries with the link published in the company newsletters for the true believers?
It is always best to dig deeper and look for the "Men behind the curtain".