Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 123. (Read 636455 times)

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation and it's "el nino" phenomena have long been understood to dramatically affect rainfall and drought patterns from Oregon to California, therefore any discussion of "man made climate change" in those areas and with respect to rain and drought is a complete lie unless predicated on those patterns.

I have not bothered to check if the current California "drought" fits into this profile.  I guess I just assume, of course it does.....

As a youth I was commercial fishing for silvers (aka, coho salmon) off the Southern Oregon coast back in the early 80's.  Something my dad and I did for shits and giggles mostly to kill time.  The first year we paid for gas.  The second season we caught exactly one fish (though we didn't try real hard.)  It was an 'el-nino' year with warm waters which basically fucked everything up.

Back in those days el-nino was not totally understood (and never will be) but it was certainly not some unheard of event.

CNN has done a whole story giving this mystery even a scary movie name and not once mentioned the term 'el-nino'.  Amazing.  And totally not surprising.

Edit:  OK, I guess they did mention the term.  The ugly truth is that our record of historical observations are minimal even when history is not doctored and it entirely likely if not a near certainty that most systems have oscilated significantly.  Further, that different systems oscillate at different rates producing a fairly chaotic set of observations in ecosystems of which we've only noticed a tiny recent sliver.  These oscillations and shifts seem to me to be a very healthy thing as ecosystem bands shift around and different populations of organisms do likewise in response.  Were the planet completely stable I would expect massive extinctions as one organism fills an ecological niche and crowds out all others.  We likely have the diversity we do simply because the planet is not stable.

That said, the 'rate of change' really is something to monitor and understand because we as humans have the demonstrated ability to impact it (e.g., filling in all the estuaries to make shrimp farms.)  Unfortunately, by politicizing science we are turning it into junk science which taints even the most legitimate explorations.  I personally am now highly suspicious of all science since I've seen it sorely abused by the 'climate science' crowd.

Screw all that, I´m much more worried that The Blob may stir Godzilla.


Blob of warm Pacific water threatens ecosystem, may intensify drought

(CNN)Marine life seen swimming in unusual places. Water temperatures warmer than they should be. No snow where there should be feet of it.

Some scientists are saying "The Blob" could be playing a factor.

As monikers go, the blob doesn't sound very worrisome.

But if you're a salmon fisherman in Washington or a California resident hoping to see the end of the drought, the blob could become an enemy of top concern.

A University of Washington climate scientist and his associates have been studying the blob -- a huge area of unusually warm water in the Pacific -- for months. .... more

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/22/us/pacific-ocean-blob/

They MUST have a dominating positive feedback mechanism else their possition falls flat on it's face.  As the years go by with increasing CO2 and stable temperture it becomes more and more apperent that such a thing simply does not exist and very possibly the opposite (negative feedback aka dampening) does exist.

The last of dozens of excuses I heard is that someone found a hot spot in the middle atmosphere in the Indian ocean area where there is little monitoring and that finally validates the concept of a positive feedback loop somehow.  These people seemed to have had to run that data through a series of statistical analysis methods in a (possibly trial-and-error) effort to find one which worked.  As a non-scientist it seems kind of intuitive to me that 20 years of excess thermal energy would be less difficult to identify were it contained in a small part of the atmosphere.  Just saying.  Whatever the case I am confident that the brilliant scientist who made this breakthrough will find plenty of grant money and department chair positions in their future.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/14/claim-climate-scientists-find-elusive-tropospheric-hot-spot-over-the-southern-ocean/

I was surprised and delighted to see the figures for young people.  That said, it is clear to me that there is a massive push to influence very young minds and it ramped up significantly within the last 10 years.  I'll maintain some trepidation until this cohort is of an appropriate age to make the feelings which have been installed in them know.

A similar concern of mine is that it's the disposition of the 'outer party' which will largely dictate policy since it will be those who implement it.  The tools to select the individuals constituting this outer party are quite new.  These include the high precision dossiers mandated by the common core educational program.  Even if a fairly healthy contingent of the population had a dim awareness that they are being scammed it is far from clear to me that they would or could do much about it in future times.

Totalitarian Liberals - Are Self Defined ADJUSTORS

Ferguson - the media can't "untell" all their adjustments of the facts

http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/media-cant-un-tell-their-ferguson-lies/

SAT scores - they "adjust them" to get their idea of political correctness

http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html

Trayon and Zimmerman 911 tape - they "adjust it" to make it say what they want

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRgbZFm2OgI

Climate temperature data bases....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc

I like to make stupid jokes as everyone can tell, sadly...

Although I have a bit of fun on this thread the core question is still: Is science settled on global warming?. . Reddit said yes. Gore and and all of the (future) carbon credit barons say yes.

The answer seems to be no.

And yes your link was a welcome read.

 

... a perpetual and infinite supply of horse manure from the mass media I guess. Let history always be our teacher.

Best of luck, g

This is some irony.  What's more, it seems like it sets up a feedback loop, more global warming means more need for ac, which means ...

Ironically, air conditioning could be the thing fueling future global warming

6:32 p.m. EDT May 20, 2015

There's a memorable episode of Comedy Central's Broad City in which our spunky (and in this instance, sweaty) protagonists Abby and Ilana go to great lengths to track down an air conditioning unit, traversing a sweltering New York City with schemes including sneaking into a NYU dorm and seducing college students to steal a window unit.

Maybe you haven't seen the show, but the message is universal: There is nothing more luxurious than being cold when it's hot outside. Air conditioning rules. It's what makes America, America. Dare we say it's worth compromising our morals for?

But like most things that make us happy, air conditioning comes with a big price. At a time where countries need to decrease their emissions of greenhouse gasses to combat our continuously heating globe, AC is on the precipice of becoming the world's big, global, chilly nemesis. .... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/05/20/air-conditioning-environment-statistics/27586469/

+1 makes me wonder who are the deniers now?!

Each doubling of CO2 concentration has a logarithmically DECREASING effect.  This is very basic science.  For example...

1x Co2 -   "A"  effect.  Say for example, 1 degree F
2x Co2 -   A/2 effect is 0.5F
4x Co2 -    A/4 effect is 0.25F
8x Co2 -   A/8  effect is 0.125F

This is utterly contrary to Warmers who persistently claim "points of no return" and "cap Co2 emissions at 400 ppm or face dire consequences" and on and on.

RE the bolded above, yes pretty much ALL the paragraphs of the IPCC reports can be thrown out, unless you want a handy reference to Warmer misrepresentations and omissions to support a government policy position.  I am not saying throw out the underlying basis of scientific articles, only the IPCC reports.  In many cases the underlying articles and knowledge base does not support the simplifications, generalizations, and politically correct conclusions in the report.

Further, the reports are strictly oriented to and for government policy makers.  Thus they don't even pretend to be unbiased summaries of work in specific technical fields of science.

I know the theme of this thread is funny ironic stories. But you guys have to admit the one I posted was great to read. 45% of young people skeptical of the dogma. Who here could have anticipated that? It's so easy to forget the extent of the disconnect between how the culture industry portrays the world is, and how it actually is. They would have us believe that we are some tiny fringe minority. "Everyone knows" that we are. But their best kept secret is that we actually aren't.

I don't think that Watts himself is a scientist, though he is reasonable well versed in the science due to immersion of nothing else.  Most of the stuff on his site (including the article quoted) seem to be written by others in what he often calls 'guest posts.'

Someone (I think Dr. Salby) made mention of a related concept that even pure CO2, for instance, approaches a point in terms of concentrations where it has no more effect.  The corresponding analogy would be if one is already behind an armor plate, more armor plates are not going to have much more of an effect.  This makes some sense qualitatively but I've not run across a quantitative exploration of this principle in the various plausible atmospheric conditions that we might see.

I just scanned around the 2015 London Salby vid.  Around the one hour mark he does some exploration of the impacts of burning every bit of fossil fuels that we can find, and he talks a little about the opacity curves calculated for increased CO2 concentrations.  Interesting stuff (to me.)  There seems to be very little love lost for Salby even among some of the most prolific of Watts's guest posters.  I personally appreciate the guy's presentations though.  It seems to me that his constructs line up with observation better than most.  He seems to be willing to throw out ALL of the 'science' produced under IIPC 'scientists.'  (He also seems to be one pissed-off MF'r.)  I wonder if some people are worried that such a giant disposal of current climate understandings might be a pill to big for almost anyone to swallow and thus he is as big a threat to the 'deniers' as he is to the 'warmanistas.'

Good point.

I have always found Anthony Watts to be credible.

Yes, instead on this incessant "we must do less of x to reduce greenhouse gas emissions" we should focus on decreasing the number of human sapiens doing all those supposedly bad things. Makes sense to me.

Doubtful number unless it is as a percentage of bovids.

Some theories say that the Indian culture evolved to dis-favor beef because cow manure is helpful for agriculture.  I kind of doubt that because they burn the stuff without inducing the wrath of whatever-gods-they-have.  OTOH, when people are starved for energy they will burn fuckin' near anything which will burn.  This rather obvious observation undercut's the idea that somehow cutting fossil fuel consumption rates to 1800's levels (per-capita) is going to have some sort of a positive impact on the environment.  On the contrary it is an almost sure-fire (no pun intended) way to ensure nearly complete denudation of most plant life.  Killing most humans makes a lot more sense but most greenies not willing and/or able to think for themselves.  Their leaderships OTOH...

As for methane, my understanding is that at least a significant fraction of it comes from termites which are comparable in biomass and similar in that the host microorganisms which are actually responsible for converting cellulose into methane.

Let's also not forget that methane, although a 'potent greenhouse gas', is not a big cause for concern in the atmosphere because water vapor will absorb electromagnetic radiation on it's spectrum of interest anyway.  This is kind of like the principle that if one is already behind an armor plate, putting up some bullet-proof glass in front of it has little effect.  See:  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/11/methane-the-irrelevant-greenhouse-gas/

Hmm, I just read that about 18% of world methane emissions is caused by Indian cattle. A very very few of which are actually used for anything except mobile traffic hazards. Weird, huh?

My mind seems to be good at generating conspiracy hypotheses for some reason.  I did wonder of the unusual failure of the OCO (Orbiting Carbon Observatory) satellite in 2009 was a complete accident of fate or whether there was something undesirable about what the satellite was likely to find.

Along this train of thought, I notice that the Japanese launched a satellite (Ibuki) which did the same thing (measured CO2 levels around the globe) at about the same time.  That one did not fail.

It does seem to me that one of the main drivers of the catastrophic global climate change program is to induce transfers of wealth from wealthy developed nations to their less wealthy counterparts.  Some say this is an attempt to 'synchronize' the nations of the earth in order to foster a less cumbersome shift to global govt in more or less the same way one double-clutches a non-synchro transmission in order to execute a gear change.  (I don't know about that but do find the hypothesis viable.)  At any rate Japan is a wealthy nation, and due to it's demographics one which should have plenty of money they are not using to cough up in order to 'save the earth.'

I do wonder if an incentive for Japanese to incur the expense of developing and launching their own carbon observatory was to make sure they did not get rolled by whatever data NASA choose to put out.  And with a monopoly on data they could produce whatever results were politically expedient.  I'd not put it past them, and especially not now after seeing how they (and NOAA and various other entities around the world) are 'homogenizing' old time mercury readings in order to produce a politically desirable temperature trend.

Illegal aliens cause global warming, study says
 
Lynchburg, VA - Illegal aliens coming into the US may significantly affect global warming, warns a new study out this week in the journal Scientific Republican.
“We started looking at all of the current models of Carbon flux in the ecosphere and global change, and realized that all of these models had neglected something important.” says John Guerrero, senior scientist in geology department at Liberty University. “We asked: what is the impact of illegal immigration on global climate change?” .............

http://tracysfeldman.com/IllegalAliensCauseGlobalWarming.htm