Just another small indicator

On Alaska, they’ve had a game called the Nenana Ice Classic, where they set up a tripod on a frozen river and people gamble on the date the ice melts and tips the tripod over. Been going on almost a century.

The winning date is clearly trending.... this year was the all tone record for early breakup.

Shh, don't tell the deniers. It might be cathartic. Bubbles is fragile.
/

What else would you expect to see in a warming climate?

"This is really scarey! From now on I'm taking the bus and cutting back on AC this winter" -no boojey phoney liberal.

The noble corruption of climate science

By Larry Kummer. From
Continue reading →

longview said:

What else would you expect to see in a warming climate?

Click to expand...

It's a bait and switch con game that alternates between demonstrating that there's
been a warm-up and predicting disaster because of it. Good cop bad cop interrogation.

longview said:

What else would you expect to see in a warming climate?

Click to expand...

Obviously.

You might want to check out the glaciers and sea ice threads.

Apparently, people seem to be confused about this basic fact there.

Threegoofs said:

Obviously.

You might want to check out the glaciers and sea ice threads.

Apparently, people seem to be confused about this basic fact there.

Click to expand...

Please see #5:

Papers to generate alarmist news!

Threegoofs said:

Obviously.

You might want to check out the glaciers and sea ice threads.

Apparently, people seem to be confused about this basic fact there.

Click to expand...

You say it like an earlier ice break up date is unexpected!
The climate has been warming since ~1850, and what you described is expected.

longview said:

You say it like an earlier ice break up date is unexpected!
The climate has been warming since ~1850, and what you described is expected.

Click to expand...

‘Like’ it was unexpected?

Denier guilt is getting to you, eh?

longview said:

You say it like an earlier ice break up date is unexpected!
The climate has been warming since ~1850, and what you described is expected.

Click to expand...

The fact is, so far as I can determine from those who are experts in this field say, that the overall trend once the ice age reaches its maximum low point is warming until we reach a tipping point in which we go back to north America being encased in ice. The warming and cooling is not constant but consists of a lot of anomalies along the way. We are technically in an ice age now but in the upward warming trend of it and some climatologists suggest we may be overdue for the next really cold spell.

The period of time that humankind has been keeping records of temperatures, ice coverage etc. is so short a time in the overall big picture--barely an eye blink--that we honestly can't know what 'normal' is over a period of 5, 10, 20 thousand years. The best they can do are educated guesses based on what evidence they can extrapolate from tree rings, ice cores, etc. and it is not an exact science.

What we do know is that plant and animal life most prosper during the warmest periods.

But if human kind is affecting the climate, and it is possible that activities of almost 8 billion people on Earth do have some effect, that effect could just as easily be for the common good as could be to its detriment.

That is something I think must be considered in the equation. When ALL the emphasis is on controlling human activity lest some catastrophic effect be imminent, I think we are missing much of the science that should be explored.

And when focusing on only one possibility becomes almost a religion is our present day reality, you have to consider an underlying motive of increasing the power, influence, and/or personal wealth of those promoting it.

Threegoofs said:

On Alaska, they’ve had a game called the Nenana Ice Classic, where they set up a tripod on a frozen river and people gamble on the date the ice melts and tips the tripod over. Been going on almost a century.

The winning date is clearly trending.... this year was the all tone record for early breakup.

Click to expand...

Fox News Headline:
2014 Was the second latest ice break up date this century, is the planet cooling too fast?

Threegoofs said:

‘Like’ it was unexpected?

Denier guilt is getting to you, eh?

Click to expand...

No Guilt, I acknowledge what most of the scientific consensus agrees with,
That global temperatures have increased over the last century.
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia

Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s.

Click to expand...

If that the earth has warmed since the late 1800's is accepted, why
would you show that a river thawing earlier is something unusual, it is not, it is expected.

AlbqOwl said:

The fact is, so far as I can determine from those who are experts in this field say, that the overall trend once the ice age reaches its maximum low point is warming until we reach a tipping point in which we go back to north America being encased in ice. The warming and cooling is not constant but consists of a lot of anomalies along the way. We are technically in an ice age now but in the upward warming trend of it and some climatologists suggest we may be overdue for the next really cold spell.

The period of time that humankind has been keeping records of temperatures, ice coverage etc. is so short a time in the overall big picture--barely an eye blink--that we honestly can't know what 'normal' is over a period of 5, 10, 20 thousand years. The best they can do are educated guesses based on what evidence they can extrapolate from tree rings, ice cores, etc. and it is not an exact science.

What we do know is that plant and animal life most prosper during the warmest periods.

But if human kind is affecting the climate, and it is possible that activities of almost 8 billion people on Earth do have some effect, that effect could just as easily be for the common good as could be to its detriment.

That is something I think must be considered in the equation. When ALL the emphasis is on controlling human activity lest some catastrophic effect be imminent, I think we are missing much of the science that should be explored.

And when focusing on only one possibility becomes almost a religion is our present day reality, you have to consider an underlying motive of increasing the power, influence, and/or personal wealth of those promoting it.

Click to expand...

If only changing climate left detailed records in things like ice layers, tree rings, and sediment deposits. Then scientists could measure how fast the climate typically changes :doh


Take your own advice.
Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago - Scientific American
Exxon is a 1/4 Trillion dollar company. Most climate scientists squeak by on 100k grants.

For perspective you can fit 100k of 100$ bills in a few pockets.
This is what 1 Trillion worth of $100s looks like...

Threegoofs said:

On Alaska, they’ve had a game called the Nenana Ice Classic, where they set up a tripod on a frozen river and people gamble on the date the ice melts and tips the tripod over. Been going on almost a century.

The winning date is clearly trending.... this year was the all tone record for early breakup.

Click to expand...

Sun spots!

Volcanoes!

Fake News!

The earth is cooling!

longview said:

No Guilt, I acknowledge what most of the scientific consensus agrees with,
That global temperatures have increased over the last century.
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia

If that the earth has warmed since the late 1800's is accepted, why
would you show that a river thawing earlier is something unusual, it is not, it is expected.

Click to expand...

:roll:

Mithros said:

If only changing climate left detailed records in things like ice layers, tree rings, and sediment deposits. Then scientists could measure how fast the climate typically changes :doh


Take your own advice.
Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago - Scientific American
Exxon is a 1/4 Trillion dollar company. Most climate scientists squeak by on 100k grants.

For perspective you can fit 100k of 100$ bills in a few pockets.
This is what 1 Trillion worth of $100s looks like...

Click to expand...

Almost all climate scientists paid to study global warming/climate change depend on soft money via government grants for their salaries. If the government reaches a conclusion that we are not in imminent danger from climate change, a lot of those grants cannot be justified and could stop. Climate scientists receiving those grants--and no AGW skeptics are getting them--have a very strong motive NOT to find or report anything that would indicate AGW is not a problem.

As for the oil companies, they have been making out like bandits accommodating 'green energy', and if you were paying attention, all have been advertising support for green energy initiatives. They also have been getting very lucrative government grants to work on biofuels, reformulate petroleum based fuels and such. One member of my immediate family is a design and mechanical/petroleum engineer with a major oil company spent most of a year designing and building a government funded facility that would render beef fat into bio fuels. Partnered with Tyson Inc. who also was subsidized, Tyson would deliver the beef fat and it would be processed into fuel. Extremely cost inefficient and impractical for we the taxpayers, and a tiny drop in the bucket oveall, but what the heck. It was combating AGW or climate change as they prefer to call it now.

The oil companies, just like the climate scientists, have absolutely zero incentive to interfere with the politically correct position on this issue.

Mithros said:

If only changing climate left detailed records in things like ice layers, tree rings, and sediment deposits. Then scientists could measure how fast the climate typically changes :doh


Take your own advice.
Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago - Scientific American
Exxon is a 1/4 Trillion dollar company. Most climate scientists squeak by on 100k grants.

Click to expand...

Exxon shared everything they learned and knew.

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[h=1]The "Exxon Climate Papers" show what Exxon and climate science knew and shared[/h][FONT=&quot]If they withheld or suppressed climate research from the public or shareholders, it is not apparent in these documents. Guest essay by Andy May New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman has accused ExxonMobil of lying to the public and investors about the risks of climate change according to the NY Times and has launched…
[/FONT]

Mithros said:

If only changing climate left detailed records in things like ice layers, tree rings, and sediment deposits. Then scientists could measure how fast the climate typically changes :doh


Take your own advice.
Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago - Scientific American
Exxon is a 1/4 Trillion dollar company. Most climate scientists squeak by on 100k grants.

For perspective you can fit 100k of 100$ bills in a few pockets.
This is what 1 Trillion worth of $100s looks like...

Click to expand...

Do you know what the temporal resolution of those kind of proxies is?
Marcott says it right in his often cited paper.
A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years | Science

The 73 globally distributed temperature records used in our analysis are based on a variety of
paleotemperature proxies and have sampling resolutions ranging from 20 to 500 years, with a median resolution of 120 years (5)

Click to expand...

Weather recent warming would show up in the proxy record, is somewhat questionable, but it might cause the line to wiggle some.
Saying weather past wiggles are, or are not similar warming events, would require too much subjective assumption.

AlbqOwl said:

Almost all climate scientists paid to study global warming/climate change depend on soft money via government grants for their salaries. If the government reaches a conclusion that we are not in imminent danger from climate change, a lot of those grants cannot be justified and could stop. Climate scientists receiving those grants--and no AGW skeptics are getting them--have a very strong motive NOT to find or report anything that would indicate AGW is not a problem.

As for the oil companies, they have been making out like bandits accommodating 'green energy', and if you were paying attention, all have been advertising support for green energy initiatives. They also have been getting very lucrative government grants to work on biofuels, reformulate petroleum based fuels and such. One member of my immediate family is a design and mechanical/petroleum engineer with a major oil company spent most of a year designing and building a government funded facility that would render beef fat into bio fuels. Partnered with Tyson Inc. who also was subsidized, Tyson would deliver the beef fat and it would be processed into fuel. Extremely cost inefficient and impractical for we the taxpayers, and a tiny drop in the bucket oveall, but what the heck. It was combating AGW or climate change as they prefer to call it now.

The oil companies, just like the climate scientists, have absolutely zero incentive to interfere with the politically correct position on this issue.

Click to expand...

This is a fantastically stupid argument.

It shows abject ignorance of how science works, and how grants are awarded.
One does scientific studies to understand truth and reality, because if you don’t, your subsequent research on the faulty data will also fail, and then no one will award a grant for a failed concept.

Another thought to my Post #18, I doubt seriously that 'green energy' would exist or could operate without a lot of tax payer money. And so far, it seems we aren't getting our money's worth out of it.

Wind-power subsidies? No thanks. | Wind Energy News

Threegoofs said:

This is a fantastically stupid argument.

It shows abject ignorance of how science works, and how grants are awarded.
One does scientific studies to understand truth and reality, because if you don’t, your subsequent research on the faulty data will also fail, and then no one will award a grant for a failed concept.

Click to expand...

Well I've done my research plus know up close and personal how grants work and how they are awarded. You are entitled to your wrong opinion however so have a great day.

AlbqOwl said:

Well I've done my research plus know up close and personal how grants work and how they are awarded. You are entitled to your wrong opinion however so have a great day.

Click to expand...

As I said... it’s an unbelievably stupid opinion.

I know how grants are awarded because I’m not only received them, but I’ve sat on a committee that awards them.

Grants are given to the best projects- ones that will advance knowledge the best. If AGW was wrong, or a minimal issue, loads of grant monies would be available to disprove it or demonstrate its minor nature, so more monies will be available to study other, critical things.

Threegoofs said:

As I said... it’s an unbelievably stupid opinion.

I know how grants are awarded because I’m not only received them, but I’ve sat on a committee that awards them.

Grants are given to the best projects- ones that will advance knowledge the best. If AGW was wrong, or a minimal issue, loads of grant monies would be available to disprove it or demonstrate its minor nature, so more monies will be available to study other, critical things.

Click to expand...

Since when is AGW knowledge? Grants are political. They have little to do with science.