Scientific American - 2019 - what to expect...

[Media_Truth]

Not that simple (or simple-minded).

[FONT="]". . . Rising temperatures with falling solar activity from the 1990's. The argument here is of course that the negative correlation over this period tells us that the sun cannot be the major climate driver. This too is wrong.[/FONT][FONT="]First, even if the sun was the only climate driver (which I never said is the case), this anti-correlation would not have contradicted it. Following this simple logic, we could have ruled out that the sun is warming us during the day because between noon and say 2pm, when it is typically warmest, the amount of solar radiation decreases while the temperature increases. Similarly, one could rule out the sun as our source of warmth because maximum radiation is obtained in June while July and August are typically warmer. Over the period of a month or more, solar radiation decreases but the temperature increases! The reason behind this behavior is of course the finite heat capacity of the climate system. If you heat the system for a given duration, it takes time for the system to reach equilibrium. If the heating starts to decrease while the temperature is still below equilibrium, then the temperature will continue rising as the forcing starts to decrease. Interestingly, since the late 1990’s (specifically the 1997 el Niño) the temperature has been increasing at a rate much lower than predicted by the models appearing in the IPCC reports (the so called “global warming hiatus”).[/FONT][FONT="]Having said that, it is possible to actually model the climate system while including the heat capacity, namely diffusion of heat into and out of the oceans, and include the solar and anthropogenic forcings and find out that by introducing the the solar forcing, one can get a much better fit to the 20th century warming, in which the climate sensitivity is much smaller. (Typically 1°C per CO2 doubling compared with the IPCC's canonical range of 1.5 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling). [/FONT][FONT="]You can read about it here: Ziskin, S. & Shaviv, N. J., Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century, Advances in Space Research 50 (2012) 762–776 . . . . " [/FONT]
[h=2]My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion[/h]

Thanks, but I'll stick with the IPCC reports. They are authored by thousands and thousands of the top climatologists in the world.

 

[Media_Truth]

The academia is not teaching the full story. There are other variables that have changed not spoken much about. Over 99.5% of the research money granted is to show AGW is real, and a threat.

Follow the money. AGW gets overwhelming funding compared to any related funding of pure fact.

This has become such a huge political issue that you cannot trust any agency funded by governments.

Unless... you trust the politicians of the world...

A BIG Conspiracy. Can you show me one reputable article by one scientist who was on the inside, who now states that this is a BIG MASSIVE CONSPIRACY by the thousands and thousands of Climatologists around the world? Should be easy - after 20-30 years, one of these scientists should have stopped "living the lie"...

 

[Lord of Planar]

A BIG Conspiracy. Can you show me one reputable article by one scientist who was on the inside, who now states that this is a BIG MASSIVE CONSPIRACY by the thousands and thousands of Climatologists around the world? Should be easy - after 20-30 years, one of these scientists should have stopped "living the lie"...

I'm sorry that you are so uneducated that you misuse words so often. Then you wonder why we never take you serious.

WORDS HAVE MEANING!

This is not a conspiracy. It's human nature.

 

[Threegoofs]

The academia is not teaching the full story. There are other variables that have changed not spoken much about. Over 99.5% of the research money granted is to show AGW is real, and a threat.

Follow the money. AGW gets overwhelming funding compared to any related funding of pure fact.

This has become such a huge political issue that you cannot trust any agency funded by governments.

Unless... you trust the politicians of the world...

You know that politicians don’t select the science that’s funded, right?

Scientists themselves do.

But you wouldn’t know, because your exposure to actual science comes from...who knows where.

 

[Fenton]

A great article by Scientific American about Climate Change, and what to expect in 2019.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/major-missions-will-probe-the-changing-climate-in-2019/

As urgency grows around the need for stronger climate action, so does demand for a deeper understanding of how the planet is already changing—and what to expect in the coming decades.

Climate scientists have published study after groundbreaking study in the past year. They’ve investigated the ways climate change has influenced extreme weather events, including everything from Hurricane Florence to record-breaking heat in Europe. They’ve documented accelerating ice loss in Greenland, new melting spots in Antarctica and alarming losses of Arctic sea ice. They’ve investigated changes in enormous ocean currents and major atmospheric patterns.

I'm getting so sick of this ****ing propaganda.

The strongest storm on record was the 1979 Typhoon Tip. It had wind gust up to 190 mph, had the lowest barometric pressure ever recorded and was 1400 miles in diameter.
It's the largest storm ever recorded and it happened 40 years ago

The Great Galveston Storm was a massive Cat 4 hurricane that literally wiped the island of Galveston clean killing 6000 people

It is still the deadliest natural disaster in US history and it happened 119 years ago

 

[Jack Hays]

Thanks, but I'll stick with the IPCC reports. They are authored by thousands and thousands of the top climatologists in the world.

Actually, they're not.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You know that politicians don’t select the science that’s funded, right?

Scientists themselves do.

But you wouldn’t know, because your exposure to actual science comes from...who knows where.

Your ignorance in believing what I know and don't know is astounding.

What you say is mostly true, but still off target.

Scientists requests money for grants and give a synopsis of what they wish to accomplish. The money-holders then decide if it suits them to give money for that goal or not.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I'm getting so sick of this ****ing propaganda.

The strongest storm on record was the 1979 Typhoon Tip. It had wind gust up to 190 mph, had the lowest barometric pressure ever recorded and was 1400 miles in diameter.
It's the largest storm ever recorded and it happened 40 years ago

The Great Galveston Storm was a massive Cat 4 hurricane that literally wiped the island of Galveston clean killing 6000 people

It is still the deadliest natural disaster in US history and it happened 119 years ago

Don't forget Typhoon Freda in 1962. It was pretty large, especially for the region it was in. 960 hPa and 179 mph.

You have to remember. The priests of AGW never tell their followers any inconvenient truths.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Actually, they're not.

He thinks every name on every paper used is an author....

 

[Tim the plumber]

What's your denial this week? 2016 > 2017 > 2018? Oh wait - that would be a response that disputes warming.

No it is not.

You should try to use accuracte language.

Clearly Jack was talking about warming since 1970 or so.

 

[Threegoofs]

Your ignorance in believing what I know and don't know is astounding.

What you say is mostly true, but still off target.

Scientists requests money for grants and give a synopsis of what they wish to accomplish. The money-holders then decide if it suits them to give money for that goal or not.

Yeah... no.

That’s not how most grants (NSF, NIH) work.

Money is budgeted, grants are written, and other scientists review the grants for scientific viability. Because its almost by definition apolitical, since virtually all politicians dont have the foggiest idea of what actual science is being funded, since they couldn’t read a grant if they tried.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yeah... no.

That’s not how most grants (NSF, NIH) work.

Money is budgeted, grants are written, and other scientists review the grants for scientific viability. Because its almost by definition apolitical, since virtually all politicians dont have the foggiest idea of what actual science is being funded, since they couldn’t read a grant if they tried.

There is still a selection process. And if someone doesn't want to fund a particular type of research, it doesn't happen.

This is the key of what you left out. You can fool the other indoctrinated like yourself, but not those of us with intelligence.

Your strawman arguing politicians don't decide...

Typical. I never claimed they do directly, but they still have clout in who holds the positions that do decide.

 

[Tim the plumber]

This is what right wingers thing passes and as argument. A group of scientists that spend their lives focusing on particular topic, going to school, researching, reading tons of material, have an article with backing from numerous scientific studies. All a right winger needs to say is BS and that's it.


nd people wonder why right wingers are viewed as complete morons. And once again showing all opinions are not equal. just look at all the dumb one line post void of any intelligence what so ever from the right wingers

Any chance what so ever that you could address the science?

 

[Threegoofs]

There is still a selection process. And if someone doesn't want to fund a particular type of research, it doesn't happen.

This is the key of what you left out. You can fool the other indoctrinated like yourself, but not those of us with intelligence.

Your strawman arguing politicians don't decide...

Typical. I never claimed they do directly, but they still have clout in who holds the positions that do decide.

WTF?

The selection process is scientists who are generally senior and understand the state of the literature quite well giving grant awards to be best science proposed.

There’s no political angle. There’s also no predetermined outcome of the research- that’s why it’s funded.

And the money goes where the evidence goes.

You don’t see research calling vaccine efficacy and safer into question because... it’s not real.

You don’t see research claiming something other than CO2 is the major driver of current climate because the research repeatedly tells us it is.

 

[Jack Hays]

WTF?

The selection process is scientists who are generally senior and understand the state of the literature quite well giving grant awards to be best science proposed.

There’s no political angle. There’s also no predetermined outcome of the research- that’s why it’s funded.

And the money goes where the evidence goes.

You don’t see research calling vaccine efficacy and safer into question because... it’s not real.

You don’t see research claiming something other than CO2 is the major driver of current climate because the research repeatedly tells us it is.

In the real world, selection of the topic and researcher often precede (that is to say cause) the identification of the grant.

 

[Quaestio]

By whom and where?

Some massage therapist or other layperson from one of Jack's favorite pseudoscience conspiracy blogs (WUWT) probably said it in a blog post Jack copied and pasted.

 

[Quaestio]

Here's an informative video from Tony Heller, who is a computer scientist who did work for NASA and NCAR on the climate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0l3tymEagc

Heller has a number of other videos you might want to check out. He uses data from NASA, NCAR, along with news accounts, etc., to make his case.

Tony Heller is the pseudoscience conspiracy blogger "Steve Goddard" who got outed a few years ago. He's a crank nutter who dishonestly misrepresents data from NASA GISS etc.

For example he will create dishonest 'blinkie' graphics comparing raw station data that had not yet been adjusted for time of observation changes, equipment changes or location changes etc to data that has been adjusted to correct for those non-climatic changes, and then scream hysterically that NASA scientists are "frauds" who are "faking the data!!!!".

Anyone who accepts anything "Steve Goddard" aka Tony Heller says at face value, is a gullible fool who wants to be deceived.

 

[Jack Hays]

Some massage therapist or other layperson from one of Jack's favorite pseudoscience conspiracy blogs (WUWT) probably said it in a blog post Jack copied and pasted.

Please see #20. The Royal Society Biological Sciences journal.

 

[Media_Truth]

WTF?

The selection process is scientists who are generally senior and understand the state of the literature quite well giving grant awards to be best science proposed.

There’s no political angle. There’s also no predetermined outcome of the research- that’s why it’s funded.

And the money goes where the evidence goes.

You don’t see research calling vaccine efficacy and safer into question because... it’s not real.

You don’t see research claiming something other than CO2 is the major driver of current climate because the research repeatedly tells us it is.

Instructing these guys on the complexities of science and scientific grants is like talking talking to a 2-year-old about Nietschke philosophy.

 

[Media_Truth]

I'm sorry that you are so uneducated that you misuse words so often. Then you wonder why we never take you serious.

WORDS HAVE MEANING!

This is not a conspiracy. It's human nature.

Sure it is :roll: It's human nature for thousands and thousands of the top scientists in the world to live a lie. Their entire careers in Climatology have been driven by lies. Not one, not two, not three, but a lot of them - ALL of them.:roll:

 

[Lord of Planar]

WTF?

The selection process is scientists who are generally senior and understand the state of the literature quite well giving grant awards to be best science proposed.

There’s no political angle. There’s also no predetermined outcome of the research- that’s why it’s funded.

And the money goes where the evidence goes.

You don’t see research calling vaccine efficacy and safer into question because... it’s not real.

You don’t see research claiming something other than CO2 is the major driver of current climate because the research repeatedly tells us it is.

You are speaking of how it should be. Not what is when it comes to the climate sciences.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Sure it is :roll: It's human nature for thousands and thousands of the top scientists in the world to live a lie. Their entire careers in Climatology have been driven by lies. Not one, not two, not three, but a lot of them - ALL of them.:roll:

They are good at presenting fact in their papers. That's why I insist you quote parts of papers, which you never do. Again, they write their papers in a manner that eludes to the idea the grant was for, but rarely support it as much as the pundits claim.

You need to stop listening to the pundits and read the actual science.

 

[Threegoofs]

You are speaking of how it should be. Not what is when it comes to the climate sciences.

You have an active imagination.

That’s pretty much how it happens in all fields.

Of course, you think climate science is different because of the giant conspiracy. Oh, wait. You really hate when I say that, even though you just outlined something consistent with a giant, worldwide conspiracy.

 

[Media_Truth]

They are good at presenting fact in their papers. That's why I insist you quote parts of papers, which you never do. Again, they write their papers in a manner that eludes to the idea the grant was for, but rarely support it as much as the pundits claim.

You need to stop listening to the pundits and read the actual science.

You have an active imagination. You never present any links, and then state that I don't quote parts of the papers. I've quoted plenty. Simply look at the first linked citation of this thread. Any links from you in this thread? Any quotes from scientific papers from you in this thread?

 

[Quaestio]

Please see #20.

Please see your tens of thousands of mindlessly copied and pasted blog posts from pseudoscience conspiracy blogs.