patrick.net

The earth is currently getting colder due to a cyclic solar minimum. Sun spots are at an epic low.

Deal with it.

Not ridiculous, as life starts at conception. With abortions factored in, there is infinite fractional combinations of children possible.

marcus says

It's ridiculous to say that the average family has 2.4 children, because every family has an integer number of children

BlueSardine says

With abortions factored in, there is infinite fractional combinations of children possible.

Way to add confusion to the conversation. Few people can do it as well.

So 2 sentences, 19 words, one simple concept, confuses you.
Well judging from your handle I can see you have spelling issues...

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Way to add confusion to the conversation.

Quigley says

The earth is currently getting colder due to a cyclic solar minimum.

Not only that, but now the Alarmists are blaming the record COLD temps and the Blizzard on the East Coast on Global Warming, nope Climate Change and CO2.

LOL

Quigley says

The earth is currently getting colder due to a cyclic solar minimum.

What data shows earth is getting colder?

anon_1bd09 says

Silly denialists! There is no evidence, event, observation or experiment that would disprove Global Warming.

I understand your sarcastic point however cold weather extremes were predicted as a byproduct of global warming decades ago. A movie was even made about it. The fictional movie might have been silly but when scientists predict colder winters even in the middle of warming trends, you don't get to say record cold is a disproof of the theory. If anything it's a confirmation that scientists were right.

anon_7c0c9 says

anon_1bd09 says

Silly denialists! There is no evidence, event, observation or experiment that would disprove Global Warming.

I understand your sarcastic point however cold weather extremes were predicted as a byproduct of global warming decades ago. A movie was even made about it. The fictional movie might have been silly but when scientists predict colder winters even in the middle of warming trends, you don't get to say record cold is a disproof of the theory. If anything it's a confirmation that scientists were right.

That's just bullshit, pure and simple. "Decades ago" -- how long exactly? Hansen's testimony before Senate, the one that kicked off this whole Global Warming gravy train, was in 1988 -- thirty years ago. Before that, few scientists acknowledged the idea that Earth has a single unified climate, and those who did, were mostly the cooling alarmists. Later, in the 1990, the new generation of climate scientsts were too arrogant to cover their tracks and predict everything they could think of, no, they predicted accelerating rise in temps.

"The west side highway will be underwater by 2018". "Children are just not going to know what snow is" -- only after those have dramatically failed, only in late 2000s, climate "scientists" went back to their papers, found some fine print, and declared that "everything that we observe was predicted!". Well guess what -- the null hypothesis, the dumbest model that says "things will continue as they were" is much better and predictions and much simpler. So use the Occam's razor, use the scientific method for once.

The above example of prediction was from a newSpaper. As for official reports, IPCC fully admits in AR5 that their model ensemble runs hot.

Here is the wikipedia article on FAR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_First_Assessment_Report
" Based on current models, we predict: under BAU increase of global mean temperature during the 21st century of about 0.3o C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 to 0.5o C per decade)"

Over the past 30 years, it the increase was at 0.5 degrees, 0.17 per decade. It is outside their uncertainty range (lowest value of 0.2 Celsius).

" under the IPCC business as usual emissions scenario, an average rate of global mean sea level rise of about 6 cm per decade over the next century (with an uncertainty range of 3 – 10 cm per decade), mainly due to thermal expansion of the oceans and the melting of some land ice."

Actual sea level increase is 3.4 cm per decade, barely within the uncertainty lower bound.

I googled "The west side highway will be underwater by 2018", and found the following (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/ ):

Bob Reiss reports the conversation as follows:

"When I interviewe­­d James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2. I'd been trying to think of a way to discuss the greenhouse effect in a way that would make sense to average readers. I wasn't asking for hard scientific studies. It wasn't an academic interview. It was a discussion with a kind and thoughtful man who answered the question. You can find the descriptio­­n in two of my books, most recently The Coming Storm."

In a discussion (not a journal article) Hansen said that the west side highway would be under water in 40 yrs if the CO2 level had doubled. Now, we are 30 yrs out, and the CO2 level has not come close to doubling. How do the lying deniers translate that prediction into 30 yrs with no clause about CO2 level? WTF kind of pathology makes people lie their asses off to prove their POV in a discussion with no tangible reward for being correct?

anon_7c0c9 says

What data shows earth is getting colder?

Apparently, the data from the east coast in late December/early January do. If you throw out all of the other data, the case is clear. Ignore the recent temps in the pacific NW and Australia. You have to ignore the fact that random variation is expected to produce lows and highs in specific places and times, as it has always done.
What you really need to do is construct a straw man and claim that the AGW theory predicts that the whole world will be at the average temperature all the time, and that the average temperature will be on a smooth exponential curve upwards. If you do that, it is SUPER easy to show that the theory is wrong. SUPER easy.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

TwoScoopsPlissken says

First, I don't believe the Earth has a "Steady State",

The real question is 'How long would it take to achieve a new steady state if their was a sudden change to the CO2 level'?

He said there is no steady state.
Or are you one of those people that don't BELIEVE in the MWP, the little ice age, natural variation in climate, and history?

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Note that there were no self congratulatory smug posts from people who believe in AGW based on these heat events. It's ridiculous, just like your post about FL.

It's storms caused by climate change not global warming. The new narrative is storms since warming did not happen fast enough. The snow in Florida is caused by climate change.
Get the story straight.

anon_25c83 says

Wind on earth is driven by a heat engine. A hotter earth will create a stronger jet stream which will move polar weather further south.

This has been explained to the denialists about a billion times yet for the next billion years they will continue to point to cold weather as some sort of disproof of global warming.

See, it's storms and warming.

marcus says

Exactly what does the .8 degree variation in measurement mean. What does the range of accuracy mean ? Can you explain it to me broken down all the way so I can please understand what I'm missing.

I think he was talking about noaa's report where they stated 2016 was the hottest year ever. When you get into the data you will find that 2016 was 0.04. Degrees hotter than 2015 with a margin of +/- 0.08. Statistically insignificant.

marcus says

Btw, is it not safe to assume that for measurements of temperature, say if you measured temperatures thousands of times, that the amount you are off from the true measure each time would form a normal distribution, with a mean of zero ?

Not when measuring temperature. It is changing as we measure it.
I still don't understand how they can measure worldwide average temperature down to hundredths of a degree.

anon_7c0c9 says

you don't get to say record cold is a disproof of the theory. If anything it's a confirmation that scientists were right.

Record cold is proof of global warming? If it gets warm can we call that proof of cooling?

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

WTF kind of pathology makes people lie their asses off to prove their POV in a discussion with no tangible reward for being correct?

Indeed!

Onvacation says

How much did the temp rise between 2015 (2nd hottest year) and 2016 ( hottest year EVER)?

The answer is 4/100 of one degree plus or minus 8/100 of one degree.
Onvacation says

How can they measure such a small increase over the entire globe?

Still waiting for an answer.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

In a discussion (not a journal article) Hansen said that the west side highway would be under water in 40 yrs if the CO2 level had doubled. Now, we are 30 yrs out, and the CO2 level has not come close to doubling. How do the lying deniers translate that prediction into 30 yrs with no clause about CO2 level?

First, discussions don't mean crap, anyone can say stuff off the record.

Second, in published articles, Hanson said the West Side highway would be under water, because of CO2 and GW, but he never said it would double. This is a lie.

Can you please post the article where he specifically said it will double?

Onvacation says

He said there is no steady state.

His comments regarding steady state had to do with fluctuations over huge time scales. He didn't specify the scales, but you can infer from his comments about being ice free and an ice ball that he is talking about millions of years. I'm discussing the time constant to achieve steady state when one perturbs one particular variable. So, his comment didn't address my point, which is why I elaborated. Onvacation says

don't BELIEVE in the MWP, the little ice age, natural variation in climate, and history?

No. I'm not, and have never med someone like you describe. That, however, has nothing to do with the question of how long it would take to warm the globe if the CO2 concentration were suddenly doubled.
I do think that the best estimate of the magnitude and slope of warming in the MWP is subject to revision as new data and new techniques are discovered. Do you BELIEVE that the previous estimates were correct and that the newer statistical measures started by Hansen and repeated by others are all wrong? Why do you BELIEVE that?
You have attacked what others have called the 'hockey stick' graph. The controversy is detailed here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy): People have often commented that the method produced hockey stick results from random data. This is from McIntyre and McKitrick, who ran the code on 10,000 samples, and used a computer to select the 100 results that most resembled a hockey stick. That's fucking ridiculous. If you take 10,000 random data samples and fit a linear line to it, you will get an average slope of nearly zero. If you take the 100 results with the highest slopes, they will be quite high (way outside of the expected result and well above the normal error of the mean). That's how statistics work.

To demonstrate that some simulations using their persistent red noise "bore a quite remarkable similarity to the actual MBH98 temperature reconstruction", McIntyre and McKitrick produced illustrations for comparison.[120] Figure 4.4 of the Wegman Report showed 12 of these pre-selected simulations. It called this "One of the most compelling illustrations that McIntyre and McKitrick have produced", and said that the "MBH98 algorithm found ‘hockey stick’ trend in each of the independent replications".[132] McIntyre and McKitrick's code selected 100 simulations with the highest "hockey stick index" from the 10,000 simulations they had carried out, and their illustrations were taken from this pre-selected 1%.[133]

Onvacation says

I still don't understand how they can measure worldwide average temperature down to hundredths of a degree.

Nobody claims that the worldwide average temperature is known to the 1/100 of a degree. There are several widely known estimates, and they all differ. They all report results in percent change, so that they can be comparable to each other, because the absolute measurements disagree. The percent change is known better then the absolute temperature, because it relies on precision rather than accuracy. Others have pointed this out in this thread, and you have not addressed it for some reason.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

WTF kind of pathology makes people lie their asses off to prove their POV in a discussion with no tangible reward for being correct?

The former NASA climate scientist who predicted parts of New York City would soon be underwater, now says he’s not a global warming “alarmist.”

Hansen, dubbed the “godfather” of global warming, was interviewed about a study he co-authored last month, which claimed future global warming would be worse than predicted. The study found global warming would cause massive sea level rise, flooding of major cities such as New York and enormous super storms. But that’s not the first time Hansen made dire sea level rise predictions.

In 1988, a Washington Post reporter asked Hansen what a warming Earth would look like in 20 or 40 years in the future. Hansen reportedly looked out a window and said New York City’s “West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.”

“And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change,” he said.

Hansen also predicted that global warming would cause a drastic rise in crime in the Big Apple, because “you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

Hansen may have been talking about a sea-level rise 40 years from 1998, but that wouldn’t make any difference as the level of rise Hansen was predicting still hasn’t happened.

Other climate scientists claim that the mechanisms Hansen uses to explain extreme global warming are “pure speculation.”

http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/12/scientist-who-predicted-ny-city-would-be-underwater-says-hes-not-an-alarmist/
So, how much has the sea level risen in Mannhattan since his prediction. Is the West Side highway in any danger of going underwater today?

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Onvacation says

I still don't understand how they can measure worldwide average temperature down to hundredths of a degree.

Nobody claims that the worldwide average temperature is known to the 1/100 of a degree.

hundredths not hundredth. Noaa claims to be able to measure the worldwide average temperature from year to year down to +/- 8/100s of one degree.
How do they calculate that?
It's ok to say you don't know.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

The percent change is known better then the absolute temperature, because it relies on precision rather than accuracy. Others have pointed this out in this thread, and you have not addressed it for some reason.

So what was the percent change in temperature between 2015 and 2016?

Well, the result was shown to two significant figures. Clearly, there are not really two significant figures, and that is my point.

Why do you think it is relevant whether 2016 was warmer than 2015? Someone should be able to quantify how likely it is that 2016 was warmer than 2015. If it were important, it would be easy to find that out, but it's not relevant, is it? If you think it is, for some reason, please explain it. Nobody can figure out why you keep writing about this.

Anybody can look up how each group calculates it. For example, here is a faq by NASA: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/#q101. If you think you can do it better, go ahead and tell us how. Since you are giving error bars 0.04 plus minus 0.08, why not explain what the error range means. It's OK to say that you do not know. Also, you should reference who is saying 0.04 plus minus 0.08.

anon_343ae says

So, how much has the sea level risen in Mannhattan since his prediction. Is the West Side highway in any danger of going underwater today?

Nope, not even close. Since 1988, in 30 years, it's up approx. 2.7 inches.

NASA’s top climate expert, James Hansen, predicted that by 2018 the Arctic would be ice-free, and Lower Manhattan would be underwater. Democrats call him a “climate prophet.” Only six weeks left to go!


Sea level at Lower Manhattan is barely higher than 20 years ago, and the Arctic is full of thick ice.


Democrats continue to view these idiots, like Hansen, known as “climate scientists” as prophets, and their word is never allowed to be questioned.

https://realclimatescience.com/2017/11/nasa-arctic-ice-free-and-manhattan-underwater-in-six-weeks/

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Anybody can look up how each group calculates it. For example, here is a faq by NASA: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/#q101.

I got to three levels deep into your reference and still don't believe in the accuracy of the calculations.
Can you summarize how all that interpolation, extrapolation, adjustments to historical temperature records, and guesses can truly state worldwide average temperature down to 8/100s of one degree?

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

reference who is saying 0.04 plus minus 0.08.

I got my numbers from noaa. Do you have a better source? What are your numbers?

Will be back later to check for answers.
Gotta go sailing. Onvacation

Onvacation says

So what was the percent change in temperature between 2015 and 2016?

That depends on what temperature scale you use. Why do you repeatedly ask ill posed questions of other people?

anon_343ae says

In 1988, a Washington Post reporter asked Hansen what a warming Earth would look like in 20 or 40 years in the future. Hansen reportedly looked out a window and said New York City’s “West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.”

Why does the Daily Caller say it was either 20 or 40 yrs? Why not go to the source?
The source for the Salon article was a conversation with the reporter who fucked up and misquoted Hansen. Why does that reflect poorly on Hansen? I mentioned above that the question was based on a doubling of CO2 concentration. Why do people keep forgetting that part? I guess it is easier to propagate an error (lie) that supports your agenda than look for the truth.

Onvacation says

I got my numbers from noaa. Do you have a better source? What are your numbers?

So you trust the NOAA now? When did that start?

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

The source for the Salon article was a conversation with the reporter who fucked up and misquoted Hansen. Why does that reflect poorly on Hansen? I mentioned above that the question was based on a doubling of CO2 concentration. Why do people keep forgetting that part?

Because one was a conversation while the other was a posted prediction by him, which DIDN'T reference the doubling of CO2. There's a BIG difference.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

I guess it is easier to propagate an error (lie) that supports your agenda than look for the truth.

Is lower Manhattan underwater yet?

He has continued that lie for decades, even after proven wrong by miles? Why are you still believing him?

anon_b40bb says

He has continued that lie for decades, even after proven wrong by miles? Why are you still believing him?

Some people are really missing the forest for the tree.
No way? One guy was wrong? No warming then?

Then why do countries around the arctic have a massive amount of projects in the arctic based on the warming?
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-arctic/
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-arctic/the-political-arctic/
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-arctic/the-economic-arctic/



Some people can't see that they are fighting a rear guard battle.

Why are new shipping routes already planned?

We are not talking of scientists. These are business people. Are they lying too?

China wants its share too. Wonder why? It's all a scam right?

" China’s ambitions in these regions have not received due attention, in part, Brady says, because so few Western journalists speak and read Chinese. The country has deployed what she calls “two-track messaging,” sending alternative signals to domestic and international audiences. President Xi Jingping in November 2014, for example, spoke in Hobart, Australia, where for the first time he stated that his country will be “joining the ranks of the Polar great powers,” which Western media largely missed.

In June, the government broadened its ambitious Belt and Road Initiative for trade to include the Arctic.

China cannot physically claim Arctic territory, but it can buy stakes and influence wherever it seems wise.

“China’s thinking on the polar regions and global oceans demonstrates a level of ambition and forward planning that few, if any, modern industrial states can achieve,” Brady writes.

China has undertaken a soft-power campaign, first focused on scientific collaboration, with financial interests not too far behind. The nation struck a free-trade pact with Iceland in 2013, and it has held free-trade discussions with Norway since 2008. Finland has jointly called for greater cooperation with China, in the context of European Union trade policy. Canada and China in December extended exploratory free-trade talks after being unable to launch a formal round."

People who are so sure there is no warming should put their money where their mouth is and buy Florida properties right on the beach.
They are getting a discount from idiots panicking.
It's a sure bet, right?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-12-29/south-florida-s-real-estate-reckoning-could-be-closer-than-you-think
"In a working paper posted this month on Social Science Research Network, an online repository of academic research, professors from the University of Colorado at Boulder and Pennsylvania State University found that homes exposed to sea-level rise sell at a 7 percent discount compared with equivalent but unexposed properties.

“This discount has grown over time,” the authors wrote, “and is driven by sophisticated buyers and communities worried about global warming.” Properties along both coasts of Florida are at risk of sea-level rise, mapping in the paper shows.
"

Heraclitusstudent says

Why are new shipping routes already planned?

We are not talking of scientists. These are business people. Are they lying too?

No, they want to make money and lower shipping costs.... duh...