All Things Environment

[CU88]

Anti federal government, anti-climate change science, red states putting their hands out for money

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/25/74420371 ... n2DKyyBUkM

[runrussellrun]

Anti federal government, anti-climate change science, red states putting their hands out for money

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/25/74420371 ... n2DKyyBUkM

what part of BI-partisan did you k=ot understand ?

[Trinity]

It’s 108 degrees in Paris.

US carmakers cut deal with California, ignore Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate- ... ge-freeze/

[HooDat]

It’s 108 degrees in Paris.

and it got into the 60's with highs in the 80's in Texas - that is called weather....

[holmes435]

And the weather is setting all kinds of heat records right now as part of a larger trend of warming due to humans.

[HooDat]

And the weather is setting all kinds of heat records right now as part of a larger trend of warming due to humans.

except they just missed a record LOW by 1 degree in Texas this week.....

[MDlaxfan76]

And the weather is setting all kinds of heat records right now as part of a larger trend of warming due to humans.

except they just missed a record LOW by 1 degree in Texas this week.....

Well, not actually just 'weather' when that 'weather' has dramatic increases in extremes, amidst an overall longer term warming trend. We're experiencing many more high extremes, as well as some low extremes, as well as increasing drought and storm conditions. Dry and wet extremes.

Extremes.

[HooDat]

manbearpig is real.jpg (101.59 KiB) Viewed 1986 times

[frmanfan]

https://www.investors.com/politics/edit ... e-extreme/

Oh, this is over a year old, so it must be out of date.

What is extreme is the 24 hour report everything in sight mentality we have.

Or pontificating on it.

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.investors.com/politics/edit ... e-extreme/

Oh, this is over a year old, so it must be out of date.

What is extreme is the 24 hour report everything in sight mentality we have.

Or pontificating on it.

Interesting...I like the use of data in their Editorial, but I'd sure like to see that data verified by a more neutral source.

I took a look to see what IBD's political bias might be, who funds them etc:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/investor ... ess-daily/

[runrussellrun]

And the weather is setting all kinds of heat records right now as part of a larger trend of warming due to humans.

geezz, another flat earther , science denier that thinks man has only been around for less than 200 years

(When did France start writing stuff down? //exactly )

[RedFromMI]

And the weather is setting all kinds of heat records right now as part of a larger trend of warming due to humans.

geezz, another flat earther , science denier that thinks man has only been around for less than 200 years

(When did France start writing stuff down? //exactly )

You keep referring to this as if we have absolutely no knowledge of the past before we "wrote it down." But how do we know that there were ice ages? Or warmer spells at other past time - we do because we use more than just a written record. If you actually bothered to understand how we know you might be more informed, but you just reject those methodologies as fiction.

You are the science denier...

Oh and by the way - the record in Paris (admittedly for only the past 150-200 years of accurate written records) was broken by 4 degrees F. Not a small amount. (Not the record for that day, but the all-time recorded high).

The fact is that scientist that actually know what they are doing (and spent years of education to get that way) can do more than you will ever give them credit for. And in doing so, they also have some idea of the level of error in their data analysis and predictions.

Those Exxon scientists who back 40 or so years ago predicted the CO2 level of the atmosphere based on their models of growth of energy production use were pretty much spot on...

[runrussellrun]

And the weather is setting all kinds of heat records right now as part of a larger trend of warming due to humans.

geezz, another flat earther , science denier that thinks man has only been around for less than 200 years

(When did France start writing stuff down? //exactly )

You keep referring to this as if we have absolutely no knowledge of the past before we "wrote it down." But how do we know that there were ice ages? Or warmer spells at other past time - we do because we use more than just a written record. If you actually bothered to understand how we know you might be more informed, but you just reject those methodologies as fiction.

You are the science denier...

Oh and by the way - the record in Paris (admittedly for only the past 150-200 years of accurate written records) was broken by 4 degrees F. Not a small amount. (Not the record for that day, but the all-time recorded high). Using the exact same locations as prior years? Oh, it matters. You k=ot knowing matters too.

The fact is that scientist that actually know what they are doing (and spent years of education to get that way) can do more than you will ever give them credit for. And in doing so, they also have some idea of the level of error in their data analysis and predictions.

Those Exxon scientists who back 40 or so years ago predicted the CO2 level of the atmosphere based on their models of growth of energy production use were pretty much spot on... Links PLEASE

[RedFromMI]

And the weather is setting all kinds of heat records right now as part of a larger trend of warming due to humans.

geezz, another flat earther , science denier that thinks man has only been around for less than 200 years

(When did France start writing stuff down? //exactly )

You keep referring to this as if we have absolutely no knowledge of the past before we "wrote it down." But how do we know that there were ice ages? Or warmer spells at other past time - we do because we use more than just a written record. If you actually bothered to understand how we know you might be more informed, but you just reject those methodologies as fiction.

You are the science denier...

Oh and by the way - the record in Paris (admittedly for only the past 150-200 years of accurate written records) was broken by 4 degrees F. Not a small amount. (Not the record for that day, but the all-time recorded high). Using the exact same locations as prior years? Oh, it matters. You k=ot knowing matters too.

Same location is a red herring - development of the city can change the best locations to make the measurement. You keep changing the goalposts in order to appear to know more than you actually do...

The fact is that scientist that actually know what they are doing (and spent years of education to get that way) can do more than you will ever give them credit for. And in doing so, they also have some idea of the level of error in their data analysis and predictions.

Those Exxon scientists who back 40 or so years ago predicted the CO2 level of the atmosphere based on their models of growth of energy production use were pretty much spot on... Links PLEASE

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... years-ago/

One of many articles about the issue - which I did _already_ post about in this discussion some time ago...

Also - I have posted links to one of the best compilation of global mean temperature (actually a comic but one written/drawn by a science geek
and based on actual published data). This one goes back about 20000 years...

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Note that the author of the comic actually shows the likely possible deviations from the data as well as unlikely ones...

[runrussellrun]

...yeah, about that "data" that provided comic relief. (only ONE part of the graphs timeline was NOT 100 years. oh it matters )

also, I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to how ice core samples could provide specific weather data in places thousands of miles away. Especially when using "historic" temp data. What, no link on how they compiled this flawed graph? Who verified the data? exactly

[RedFromMI]

...yeah, about that "data" that provided comic relief. (only ONE part of the graphs timeline was NOT 100 years. oh it matters )

also, I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to how ice core samples could provide specific weather data in places thousands of miles away. Especially when using "historic" temp data. What, no link on how they compiled this flawed graph? Who verified the data? exactly

Yes it matters in that the modeling done to generate the data prior to the last century is smoothed over roughly a 100 year average because that makes sense for that data to do so. The solid line is more accurate so it does not have quite the same level of smoothing. For a discussion of the flaws of the graph (which do NOT make the conclusion of recent change go away) see: https://www.scpr.org/news/2016/09/15/64 ... s-one-key/

Sources of the actual data:

Sources
The image attributes climate data sources as "Shakun et al. (2012), Marcott et al. (2013), Annan and Hargreaves (2013), HadCRUT4, IPCC":

Shakun et al. (2012) - Nature, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 10915.html
Marcott et al. (2013) - Science, http://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198
Annan and Hargreaves (2013) - Climate of the Past http://www.clim-past.net/9/367/2013/cp-9-367-2013.html
HadCRUT4 - Official site http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/
IPCC -Official site http://www.ipcc.ch/

The citations to the authors are on the graph. The above links were taken from the site Explain XKCD: https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index. ... e_Timeline

There is also at the end of that site a discussion (which DOES contain trolls/non-scientists complaining about the data) as well.

[runrussellrun]

...yeah, about that "data" that provided comic relief. (only ONE part of the graphs timeline was NOT 100 years. oh it matters )

also, I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to how ice core samples could provide specific weather data in places thousands of miles away. Especially when using "historic" temp data. What, no link on how they compiled this flawed graph? Who verified the data? exactly

Yes it matters in that the modeling done to generate the data prior to the last century is smoothed over roughly a 100 year average because that makes sense for that data to do so. The solid line is more accurate so it does not have quite the same level of smoothing. For a discussion of the flaws of the graph (which do NOT make the conclusion of recent change go away) see: https://www.scpr.org/news/2016/09/15/64 ... s-one-key/

I just wrote IT MATTERS........why would I want to read more verification of my opinioin?

Sources of the actual data:

Sources
The image attributes climate data sources as "Shakun et al. (2012), Marcott et al. (2013), Annan and Hargreaves (2013), HadCRUT4, IPCC":

Shakun et al. (2012) - Nature, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 10915.html
Marcott et al. (2013) - Science, http://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198
Annan and Hargreaves (2013) - Climate of the Past http://www.clim-past.net/9/367/2013/cp-9-367-2013.html
HadCRUT4 - Official site http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/
IPCC -Official site http://www.ipcc.ch/

The citations to the authors are on the graph. The above links were taken from the site Explain XKCD: https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index. ... e_Timeline

There is also at the end of that site a discussion (which DOES contain trolls/non-scientists complaining about the data) as well.

Which source provided the comic attempt at comedy comic graphs? I can also find out which peer "reviewed" this comic graph, in your links? yes?

[RedFromMI]

...yeah, about that "data" that provided comic relief. (only ONE part of the graphs timeline was NOT 100 years. oh it matters )

also, I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to how ice core samples could provide specific weather data in places thousands of miles away. Especially when using "historic" temp data. What, no link on how they compiled this flawed graph? Who verified the data? exactly

Yes it matters in that the modeling done to generate the data prior to the last century is smoothed over roughly a 100 year average because that makes sense for that data to do so. The solid line is more accurate so it does not have quite the same level of smoothing. For a discussion of the flaws of the graph (which do NOT make the conclusion of recent change go away) see: https://www.scpr.org/news/2016/09/15/64 ... s-one-key/

I just wrote IT MATTERS........why would I want to read more verification of my opinioin?

Sources of the actual data:

Sources
The image attributes climate data sources as "Shakun et al. (2012), Marcott et al. (2013), Annan and Hargreaves (2013), HadCRUT4, IPCC":

Shakun et al. (2012) - Nature, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 10915.html
Marcott et al. (2013) - Science, http://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198
Annan and Hargreaves (2013) - Climate of the Past http://www.clim-past.net/9/367/2013/cp-9-367-2013.html
HadCRUT4 - Official site http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/
IPCC -Official site http://www.ipcc.ch/

The citations to the authors are on the graph. The above links were taken from the site Explain XKCD: https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index. ... e_Timeline

There is also at the end of that site a discussion (which DOES contain trolls/non-scientists complaining about the data) as well.

Which source provided the comic attempt at comedy comic graphs? I can also find out which peer "reviewed" this comic graph, in your links? yes?

I gave you the sources of the data, which in the first two cases are actual journals that are certainly peer reviewed (and in fact are the two most prestigious science journals in existence). So the DATA is peer reviewed.

But the comic strip actually just presents that data. So if you want to argue with the sources, you are certainly welcome to do your own research and get it into either Science or Nature.

But because the xkcd author did such a great job of presenting the actual data (and if you actually read the sources I posted) it does contain valuable information. Just because you are incapable of appreciating it does not invalidate it.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Saw one of Trump’s farmers with his hand out talking about climate change....Old Iowa Daren said he doesn’t “believe in the climate change”....but he “has noticed that the climate is changing but he doesn’t want to call it climate change”. Probably afraid Trump will stop cutting him a check.

[runrussellrun]

Just because you are incapable of appreciating it does not invalidate it.

Oh.....I appreciate it, what makes you say otherwise?

back to the scientific method of experimentation..........what method are all your linked studies replicating?

There's NOTHING that screams science more than the blank stares, insults and the moth eaten if you could destroy my sweater, usual pulled out talking points, especially the scary word EXTREME, just after being asked, "what climate are we now and what climate are we changing too? "

Any scientists that can't answer this question......ain't.

Besides......is HE wrong?

https://thefederalist.com/2016/09/30/xk ... ge-denial/

Bear in mind that the supposedly crazy upward swerve in temperatures over the last 50 years or so is actually well within the overall range of temperatures from the past 11,000 years. So it’s entirely likely that this kind of variation is totally normal but is just smoothed out of the pre-1880 estimates. And the Marcott authors were forced to admit that at the time, clarifying that “the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust” and “cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes.” In other words, their hockey stick has no blade. Yet here is XKCD, repeating exactly that mistake.