Climate continues to change.

[trysail]

..............................2017.................................................................................2018

http://www.climate4you.com/images/RecentSnowCoverAlaska.gif


Alaska-Canada snow cover (white) and sea ice (yellow) 16 December 2017 (left) and 2018 (right). Map source: National Ice Center (NIC).


​

 

[LupusDei]

..............................2017.................................................................................2018

http://www.climate4you.com/images/RecentSnowCoverAlaska.gif


Alaska-Canada snow cover (white) and sea ice (yellow) 16 December 2017 (left) and 2018 (right). Map source: National Ice Center (NIC).


​

And the point is?

Did you expect some massive change in subsequent years? Even if there was it would be irrelevant, as random fluctuations happen a lot. Now, if you had an agreggated median map of 1888-1918 compared to similar map of 1998-2018, we would have something to talk about.

 

[Dribble]

And the point is?

Did you expect some massive change in subsequent years? Even if there was it would be irrelevant, as random fluctuations happen a lot. Now, if you had an agreggated median map of 1888-1918 compared to similar map of 1998-2018, we would have something to talk about.

You need to understand trysail...he finds a chart filled w pretty colors and he is compelled to post it. Nine times out of ten, he doesnt even understand the chart shows the exact opposite of what he thinks it says. He has now decided to branch out and post similar pretty charts in the thread about why Republicans are no longer bragging about the market. Wanna impress him? Post something bright and shiny

 

[trysail]

"...Between 2005 and 2017, the global network of thousands of Argo floats have measured
an average temperature increase of the upper half of the ocean of 0.04 deg. C. That’s less
than 0.004 C/year, an inconceivably small number.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Fig05-Argo-floats-warming-0-2000m-since-2005-550x413.jpg​

Significantly, it represents an imbalance in energy flows in and out of the climate system
of only 1 part in 260. That’s less than 0.5%, and climate science does not know any of
the NATURAL flows of energy to that level of accuracy. The tiny energy imbalance causing
the warming is simply ASSUMED to be the fault of humans and not part of some natural
cycle in the climate system. Climate models are adjusted in a rather ad hoc manner until
their natural energy flows balance, then increasing CO2 from fossil fuels is used as the
forcing (imposed energy imbalance) causing warming.


That’s circular reasoning. Or, some might say, garbage in, garbage out..."​

-Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.​

​

 

[phrodeau]

Sure, Roy. Let us know when the surface temps start falling.

 

[trysail]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2018_v6-550x317.jpg


​

 

[trysail]

"Global Warming For The Two Cultures"
An Address by Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D.

"...At the heart of this nonsense is the failure to distinguish weather from climate. Thus, global warming refers to the welcome increase in temperature of about 1◦C since the end of the Little Ice Age about 200 years ago. On the other hand, weather extremes involve temperature changes of the order of 20◦C. Such large changes have a profoundly different origin from global warming. Crudely speaking, they result from winds carrying warm and cold air from distant regions that are very warm or very cold. These winds are in the form of waves. The strength of these waves depends on the temperature difference between the tropics and the Arctic (with larger differences leading to stronger waves). Now, the models used to project global warming all predict that this temperature difference will decrease rather than increase. Thus, the increase in temperature extremes would best support the idea of global cooling rather than global warming. However, scientifically illiterate people seem incapable of distinguishing global warming of climate from temperature extremes due to weather. In fact, as has already been noted, there doesn’t really seem to be any discernible trend in weather extremes. There is only the greater attention paid by the media to weather, and the exploitation of this ‘news’ coverage by people who realize that projections of catastrophe in the distant future are hardly compelling, and that they therefore need a way to convince the public that the danger is immediate, even if it isn’t.

This has also been the case with sea-level rise. Sea level has been increasing by about 8 inches per century for hundreds of years, and we have clearly been able to deal with it. In order to promote fear, however, those models that predict much larger increases are invoked. As a practical matter, it has long been known that at most coastal locations, changes in sea level, as measured by tide gauges, are primarily due to changes in land level associated with both tectonics and land use.

Moreover, the small change in global mean temperature (actually the change in temperature increase) is much smaller than what the computer models used by the IPCC have predicted. Even if all this change were due to man, it would be most consistent with low sensitivity to added carbon dioxide, and the IPCC only claims that most (not all) of the warming over the past 60 years is due to man’s activities. Thus, the issue of man-made climate change does not appear to be a serious problem. However, this hardly stops ignorant politicians from declaring that the IPCC’s claim of attribution is tantamount to unambiguous proof of coming disaster. Cherry picking is always an issue. Thus, there has been a recent claim that Greenland ice discharge has increased, and that warming will make it worse.2 Omitted from the report is the finding by both NOAA and the Danish Meteorological Institute that the ice mass of Greenland has actually been increasing.3 In fact both these observations can be true, and, indeed, ice build-up pushes peripheral ice into the sea. Misrepresentation, exaggeration, cherry picking, or outright lying pretty much covers all the so-called evidence.

Conclusion
So there you have it. An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization. What we will be leaving our grandchildren is not a planet damaged by industrial progress, but a record of unfathomable silliness as well as a landscape degraded by rusting wind farms and decaying solar panel arrays. False claims about 97% agreement will not spare us, but the willingness of scientists to keep mum is likely to much reduce trust in and support for science. Perhaps this won’t be such a bad thing after all – certainly as concerns ‘official’ science.

There is at least one positive aspect to the present situation. None of the proposed policies will have much impact on greenhouse gases. Thus we will continue to benefit from the one thing that can be clearly attributed to elevated carbon dioxide: namely, its effective role as a plant fertilizer, and reducer of the drought vulnerability of plants. Meanwhile, the IPCC is claiming that we need to prevent another 0.5◦C of warming, although the 1◦C that has occurred so far has been accompanied by the greatest increase in human welfare in history. As we used to say in my childhood home of the Bronx: ‘Go figure’."

​

-Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D.
Professor of Meteorology (emeritus)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology​

​

 

[phrodeau]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2018_v6-550x317.jpg


​

Compare and contrast. It's fun.

From your post of 2014: http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=54076327&postcount=269
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_November_2013_v5.6.png

What on earth happened to your data? The last decade is all changed to lower numbers. Who could have changed it?

Oh look, your graph is even more wrong than it was before.

 

[Kirkrapine]

. . . and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization.

 

[OldJourno]

You're smug and uninformed. You haven't read AOC's manifesto.

 

[Kirkrapine]

You're smug and uninformed. You haven't read AOC's manifesto.

I very much doubt there's anything in it about overturning industrial civilization. The most radical solutions proposed to climate change wouldn't do that.

 

[OldJourno]

I very much doubt there's anything in it about overturning industrial civilization. The most radical solutions proposed to climate change wouldn't do that.

Actually they would. Idiot AOC sees a total switch to green energy in less than 20 years. Idiot voters in Nevada, where I live, said half of our electricity has to come from green sources by 2030, and that doesn't include Hoover Dam or nuclear.
There is no way you will be able to provide half the power for the Las Vegas Strip with green energy by 2030.

 

[Hal9000_]

Actually they would. Idiot AOC sees a total switch to green energy in less than 20 years. Idiot voters in Nevada, where I live, said half of our electricity has to come from green sources by 2030, and that doesn't include Hoover Dam or nuclear.
There is no way you will be able to provide half the power for the Las Vegas Strip with green energy by 2030.

Jeebus. Breitbart and Drudge are not reliable sources of information.

And why do we care what AOC says? She is ONE person.

NEWSFLASH! Most people are actually reasonable.

 

[phrodeau]

Actually they would. Idiot AOC sees a total switch to green energy in less than 20 years. Idiot voters in Nevada, where I live, said half of our electricity has to come from green sources by 2030, and that doesn't include Hoover Dam or nuclear.
There is no way you will be able to provide half the power for the Las Vegas Strip with green energy by 2030.

Just connect a hand-crank generator to every slot machine.

 

[Kirkrapine]

Actually they would. Idiot AOC sees a total switch to green energy in less than 20 years. Idiot voters in Nevada, where I live, said half of our electricity has to come from green sources by 2030, and that doesn't include Hoover Dam or nuclear.
There is no way you will be able to provide half the power for the Las Vegas Strip with green energy by 2030.

Unrealistic goals != overturning industrial civilization.

 

[Hal9000_]

Unrealistic goals != overturning industrial civilization.

She is dangerous! Her MANIFESTO! says we should all go 1000% GREEN by April!

BY FORCE IF NECESSARY!

 

[OldJourno]

Jeebus. Breitbart and Drudge are not reliable sources of information.

And why do we care what AOC says? She is ONE person.

NEWSFLASH! Most people are actually reasonable.

Has nothing to do with Breitbart or Drudge. This is straight from OAC's platform.

Mobilizing Against Climate Change

In order to address runaway global climate change, Alexandria strongly supports transitioning the United States to a carbon-free, 100% renewable energy system and a fully modernized electrical grid by 2035. She believes renewable fuels must be produced in a way that achieves our environmental and energy security goals, so we can move beyond oil responsibly in the fight against climate change. By encouraging the electrification of vehicles, sustainable home heating, distributed rooftop solar generation, and the conversion of the power grid to zero-emissions energy sources, Alexandria believes we can be 100% free of fossil fuels by 2035.

Furthermore, Alex believes in recognizing the relationship between economic stability and environmental sustainability. It’s time to shift course and implement a Green New Deal – a transformation that implements structural changes to our political and financial systems in order to alter the trajectory of our environment. Right now, the economy is controlled by big corporations whose profits are dependent on the continuation of climate change. This arrangement benefits few, but comes at the detriment of our planet and all its inhabitants. Its effects are life-threatening, and are especially already felt by low-income communities, both in the U.S. and globally. Even in NY-14, areas like Throgs Neck, College Point, and City Island are being affected by erosion and rising sea levels. Rather than continue a dependency on this system that posits climate change as inherent to economic life, the Green New Deal believes that radically addressing climate change is a potential path towards a more equitable economy with increased employment and widespread financial security for all.

Climate change is the single biggest national security threat for the United States and the single biggest threat to worldwide industrialized civilization, and the effects of warming can be hard to predict and self-reinforcing. We need to avoid a worldwide refugee crisis by waging a war for climate justice through the mobilization of our population and our government. This starts with the United States being a leader on the actions we take both globally and locally.

 

[Hal9000_]

Mobilizing Against Climate Change

Speaking in the 3rd person does not equate to horse's mouth.

 

[Kirkrapine]

Has nothing to do with Breitbart or Drudge. This is straight from OAC's platform.

Mobilizing Against Climate Change

In order to address runaway global climate change, Alexandria strongly supports transitioning the United States to a carbon-free, 100% renewable energy system and a fully modernized electrical grid by 2035. She believes renewable fuels must be produced in a way that achieves our environmental and energy security goals, so we can move beyond oil responsibly in the fight against climate change. By encouraging the electrification of vehicles, sustainable home heating, distributed rooftop solar generation, and the conversion of the power grid to zero-emissions energy sources, Alexandria believes we can be 100% free of fossil fuels by 2035.

Furthermore, Alex believes in recognizing the relationship between economic stability and environmental sustainability. It’s time to shift course and implement a Green New Deal – a transformation that implements structural changes to our political and financial systems in order to alter the trajectory of our environment. Right now, the economy is controlled by big corporations whose profits are dependent on the continuation of climate change. This arrangement benefits few, but comes at the detriment of our planet and all its inhabitants. Its effects are life-threatening, and are especially already felt by low-income communities, both in the U.S. and globally. Even in NY-14, areas like Throgs Neck, College Point, and City Island are being affected by erosion and rising sea levels. Rather than continue a dependency on this system that posits climate change as inherent to economic life, the Green New Deal believes that radically addressing climate change is a potential path towards a more equitable economy with increased employment and widespread financial security for all.

Climate change is the single biggest national security threat for the United States and the single biggest threat to worldwide industrialized civilization, and the effects of warming can be hard to predict and self-reinforcing. We need to avoid a worldwide refugee crisis by waging a war for climate justice through the mobilization of our population and our government. This starts with the United States being a leader on the actions we take both globally and locally.

None of that means overturning industrial civilization.

 

[trysail]

Originally titled by the author: "Will Somebody Actually Start A Serious Climate Program in 2019."


As re-titled by trysail:

A Carnival of Buncombe
(with apologies and a bow in the direction of the sainted Mencken)



by Francis Menton
("Manhattan Contrarian")

...What are going to be your priorities, Nancy? From her speech:

We must . . . face the existential threat of our time: the climate crisis – a crisis manifested in natural disasters of epic proportions. The American people understand the urgency. The people are ahead of the Congress. The Congress must join them. That is why we have created the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis. The entire Congress must work to put an end to the inaction and denial of science that threaten the planet and the future.​

It’s an “existential threat”! Does she even know what China, India, et al., are up to? Apparently not. And what exactly is this new committee on the “climate crisis” going to do? Pelosi hasn’t spoken to that yet, but we do have a detailed proposal from (of course) new “it” Congressperson Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has been named as a member of the new committee. According to this document, the fundamental mission of the committee will be to create the “Green New Deal.” And what will that consist of...

...To me, Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortez look like complete fools, but what do I know...

more...

​

​

 

[Kirkrapine]

Does she even know what China, India, et al., are up to?

What's that got to do with anything?

 

[trysail]

National Climate Assessment A Crisis Of Epistemic Overconfidence

by Judith Curry, Ph.D.

"...Since the NCA4 is guiding the U.S. federal government in its decision making, not to mention local/state governments and businesses, it is important to point out the problems in the NCA4 Reports and the assessment process, with two objectives:

-provide a more rational assessment of the confidence that should be placed in these findings
-provide motivation and a framework for doing a better job on the next assessment report.​

...“Assessment of confidence based on evidence and agreement, including short description of nature of evidence and level of agreement
: There is high confidence for current temperatures to be higher than they have been in at least 1,700 years and perhaps much longer.

I read all this with acute cognitive dissonance. Apart from Steve McIntyre’s takedown of Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2K Consortium (for the latest, see PAGES2K: North American Tree Ring Proxies), how can you ‘square’ high confidence with “there are still many uncertainties in understanding the hemispheric and global changes in climate over Earth’s history, including that of the last few millennia”?

...“data are still sparse in the tropics, SH and over the oceans”

“Limitations in proxy data and reconstruction methods suggest that published uncertainties will underestimate the full range of uncertainties of large-scale temperature reconstructions.”

Heck, does all this even justify the AR5’s ‘medium’ confidence level?..."



(much) more...

​

​

 

[thør]

The problem is real, but the news is fake.

No, these glacier photos were not taken 10 years apart! Hell, they weren't even taken in the same place.

 

[thør]

Climate change may be to blame.

Great tits are killing birds and eating their brains.

 

[von_Bismarck]

Great tits are killing birds and eating their brains.

I've seen this before. I believe it was with a woodpecker. When a bird is stressing for certain nutrition, they'll resort to carnivorous habits. It's actually fairly disturbing to watch, as the woodpecker was feeding on a nest of hatchlings.