All Things Environment

[RedFromMI]

I'm a scientist !

NOAA buoy/station 44008 (track for tuna fishing )


July 16th, 1985

High water temp. of 18.7 c, low of 16.7, all within hours of each other

https://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/view_text_fil ... al/stdmet/

Thirty four years later.......

July 17th, 2019

Temp. at 13:40 UTC (Boston is 4 hours behind utc ) is 17.74 degrees celsius, it was 18 degrees C just 20 minutes ago.


Throw it into a computer model, and I manipulate the actual water temp to be 20 degrees C. (because, I can. I am a $cientist )

But, what's it all mean? We go thru this excercise, or rather, I do, every year.

In almost fourty years, the water temp. fluctuates 2-6 degrees in any given 24 hour time period. What dies? Also, and more importantly, the water was warmer in 1985 than it is today. Unless you don't value the NOAA buoy history and data.

So, where, exactly, is the water temp increasing ?

You are no more a scientist than I am President. Your data set is so far from incomplete that it is laughable. And your conclusion that the water was warmer in 1985 than today only applies to a single point on the Earth. So you show your ignorance of the scientific method, as well as your confusion of weather vs. climate. Not a surprise.

[runrussellrun]

So, help a guy out. WHERE .......do you get the data from?

You wanna speak of science? Do you ignore and NOT use scientific classification? Nomenclature? Taxonomy? It's a yes or no question.

Is Pangaea lumped in with the angel Maroni (mormons), Jesus turning us into alcholics, when water was fine........folk lore?

Simplistic talking points , insults, are SO right wing.

YES OR NOT?

[runrussellrun]

I'm a scientist !

NOAA buoy/station 44008 (track for tuna fishing )


July 16th, 1985

High water temp. of 18.7 c, low of 16.7, all within hours of each other

https://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/view_text_fil ... al/stdmet/

Thirty four years later.......

July 17th, 2019

Temp. at 13:40 UTC (Boston is 4 hours behind utc ) is 17.74 degrees celsius, it was 18 degrees C just 20 minutes ago.


Throw it into a computer model, and I manipulate the actual water temp to be 20 degrees C. (because, I can. I am a $cientist )

But, what's it all mean? We go thru this excercise, or rather, I do, every year.

In almost fourty years, the water temp. fluctuates 2-6 degrees in any given 24 hour time period. What dies? Also, and more importantly, the water was warmer in 1985 than it is today. Unless you don't value the NOAA buoy history and data.

So, where, exactly, is the water temp increasing ?

You are no more a scientist than I am President. Your data set is so far from incomplete that it is laughable. And your conclusion that the water was warmer in 1985 than today only applies to a single point on the Earth. So you show your ignorance of the scientific method, as well as your confusion of weather vs. climate. Not a surprise.

Yet, you salivate when a single data point is used in YOUR media to prove a point

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/ ... 7ea25c3e37

I am guessing that YOU think debate is closed? How very closed minded of you. I am sorry that you think the earth is only 150 years old (weather data started ) In Palin-aska, only 35 years old

[RedFromMI]

So, help a guy out. WHERE .......do you get the data from?

Just like the NOAA and other scientists do - if you desire to calculate average water temperature increase you have to use comprehensive data collections - some are satellite based, some from buoy data like you are referring to (but using all/most of them, not just one).
That is where the climate scientists get their data. If you wish to become a climate scientist you have to work like one.

You wanna speak of science? Do you ignore and NOT use scientific classification? Nomenclature? Taxonomy? It's a yes or no question.

Classification and taxonomy is mostly in reference to biology, not climate science. You sure you are a scientist?

Is Pangaea lumped in with the angel Maroni (mormons), Jesus turning us into alcholics, when water was fine........folk lore?

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China (to use an old adage)?

Simplistic talking points , insults, are SO right wing.

Then stop using them...

YES OR NOT?

No, you are clearly not a scientist, and do not appear to actually understand much science. So why try and argue it?

[RedFromMI]

Yet, you salivate when a single data point is used in YOUR media to prove a point

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/ ... 7ea25c3e37

I am guessing that YOU think debate is closed? How very closed minded of you. I am sorry that you think the earth is only 150 years old (weather data started ) In Palin-aska, only 35 years old

You are making assumptions about me that are not in evidence. I don't think the debate (scientifically) is closed, but I don't think the answer is far off the truth. I am open minded to science as that is my profession. And I am sure that the Earth is far older than that (and that there are reasonable numbers as to temperatures in the past (with somewhat higher error bars than current data). You clearly know nothing about me. And I have never said that a single data point proves something.

But the article you reference describes extreme weather that is quite consistent with global climate change. However, it is weather, not climate, and only through changes in patterns can you demonstrate changing climate.

[RedFromMI]

Not specifically about climate science - but a great WaPo article about the continuing conspiracy theories about faking of the Moon Landing:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... f0609ad48e

Good discussion of why people believe such nonsense included. Similar things apply to why people think the climate change movement is a conspiracy...

[runrussellrun]

So, help a guy out. WHERE .......do you get the data from?

Just like the NOAA and other scientists do - if you desire to calculate average water temperature increase you have to use comprehensive data collections - some are satellite based, some from buoy data like you are referring to (but using all/most of them, not just one).
That is where the climate scientists get their data. If you wish to become a climate scientist you have to work like one.

You wanna speak of science? Do you ignore and NOT use scientific classification? Nomenclature? Taxonomy? It's a yes or no question.

Classification and taxonomy is mostly in reference to biology, not climate science. You sure you are a scientist?

Is Pangaea lumped in with the angel Maroni (mormons), Jesus turning us into alcholics, when water was fine........folk lore?

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China (to use an old adage)?

HA......what climate are we changing from? (what climate do YOU live in? what's it changing too, if indeed it's CLIMATE CHANGE exactly)

Simplistic talking points , insults, are SO right wing.

Then stop using them...

Right

YES OR NOT?

No, you are clearly not a scientist, and do not appear to actually understand much science. So why try and argue it?

Deciding the parameters and values of virtuous debate? Awesome arrogance.

[runrussellrun]

ONly $cientists should wright laws, NOT US Congress or your state rep. Because, they clearly are NOT $ciencetist$$$$$



Point is , how I describe a female pre-flower (detroit redwings) waving a thin banner..... how many bouys is enough? 10 ? 100? Been there, done that with EVERY noaa-bouy in the Atlantic ocean. Wanna see the results? Or, do I need to have AOC, or better yet my Senator Markey, both credentialed and peer reviewed scientist$$$

[RedFromMI]

ONly $cientists should wright laws, NOT US Congress or your state rep. Because, they clearly are NOT $ciencetist$$$$$



Point is , how I describe a female pre-flower (detroit redwings) waving a thin banner..... how many bouys is enough? 10 ? 100? Been there, done that with EVERY noaa-bouy in the Atlantic ocean. Wanna see the results? Or, do I need to have AOC, or better yet my Senator Markey, both credentialed and peer reviewed scientist$$$

You seem to be more of a name caller than a scientist. US Congress and State Representatives do write the laws, but they should do so in consultation with actual scientists when it comes to areas outside their expertise.

The number of Atlantic Ocean buoys monitored by NOAA are hardly enough to give you a comprehensive view of Atlantic Ocean temperatures (as they are mostly in estuaries/bays/inlets/rivers, or in near continental shelf areas). Not much in the way of open ocean temperatures represented for the Atlantic.

And no, I don't care to see your results until you get them published in a well-accepted and peer-reviewed journal that is part of the collection of typical publication points for reputable scientists. If you can get your information by them I will then assume you actually know something about science.

[runrussellrun]

ONly $cientists should wright laws, NOT US Congress or your state rep. Because, they clearly are NOT $ciencetist$$$$$



Point is , how I describe a female pre-flower (detroit redwings) waving a thin banner..... how many bouys is enough? 10 ? 100? Been there, done that with EVERY noaa-bouy in the Atlantic ocean. Wanna see the results? Or, do I need to have AOC, or better yet my Senator Markey, both credentialed and peer reviewed scientist$$$

You seem to be more of a name caller than a scientist. US Congress and State Representatives do write the laws, but they should do so in consultation with actual scientists when it comes to areas outside their expertise.

The number of Atlantic Ocean buoys monitored by NOAA are hardly enough to give you a comprehensive view of Atlantic Ocean temperatures (as they are mostly in estuaries/bays/inlets/rivers, or in near continental shelf areas). Not much in the way of open ocean temperatures represented for the Atlantic.

And no, I don't care to see your results until you get them published in a well-accepted and peer-reviewed journal that is part of the collection of typical publication points for reputable scientists. If you can get your information by them I will then assume you actually know something about science.

Great, give me the names of the publications (just two) and names of scientists (three )
Define
"reputable "

OTherwize....why are YOU chimming in? WHo consulted Markey of the US Senate on the GND "footnotes", with cow farts and people can't work, if they have to not want it. East Anglica emails are calling holmes, they want their manipulated data back.

[Typical Lax Dad]

ONly $cientists should wright laws, NOT US Congress or your state rep. Because, they clearly are NOT $ciencetist$$$$$



Point is , how I describe a female pre-flower (detroit redwings) waving a thin banner..... how many bouys is enough? 10 ? 100? Been there, done that with EVERY noaa-bouy in the Atlantic ocean. Wanna see the results? Or, do I need to have AOC, or better yet my Senator Markey, both credentialed and peer reviewed scientist$$$

You seem to be more of a name caller than a scientist. US Congress and State Representatives do write the laws, but they should do so in consultation with actual scientists when it comes to areas outside their expertise.

The number of Atlantic Ocean buoys monitored by NOAA are hardly enough to give you a comprehensive view of Atlantic Ocean temperatures (as they are mostly in estuaries/bays/inlets/rivers, or in near continental shelf areas). Not much in the way of open ocean temperatures represented for the Atlantic.

And no, I don't care to see your results until you get them published in a well-accepted and peer-reviewed journal that is part of the collection of typical publication points for reputable scientists. If you can get your information by them I will then assume you actually know something about science.

Great, give me the names of the publications (just two) and names of scientists (three )
Define
"reputable "

OTherwize....why are YOU chimming in?

When did Poli Sci become STEM?

[runrussellrun]

Why is it that $cientist$ can't answer what climate we are changing too, without the usual talking points of nonsense. More, less, extremes and "research" filled with predictions, if, possibly, could's , catastrophic, etc.

I am thinking of the future. Some strains prefer certain CLIMATES over other strains. Nay, some flourish in heat, others in cool moisture. I wanna know what to breed for the future. Latitude 42, New England, is changing to WHAT climate/USDA/burpee planting hardiness zones....

[RedFromMI]

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Journal of Climate
WIREs Climate Change
Journal of the Meterological Society of Japan
Global Biogeochemical Cycles

to name 5

There are many hundreds of scientists that could be named. Just for kicks - this is the editor list from the Journal of Climate:

Co-Chief Editors
John C. H. Chiang, University of California, Berkeley
Timothy DelSole, George Mason University and Center for Ocean–Land–Atmosphere Studies

Editors
Mathew Barlow, University of Massachusetts Lowell
Amy Clement, University of Miami
Matthew Collins, University of Exeter
Yi Deng, Georgia Institute of Technology
Jason Evans, University of New South Wales
Michael Neil Evans, University of Maryland, College Park
Pierre Friedlingstein, University of Exeter
Isaac Held, Princeton University
Xianglei Huang, University of Michigan
Tim Li, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
Wenhong Li, Duke University
Xin-Zhong Liang, Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center, University of Maryland
Benjamin R. Lintner, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Seung-Ki Min, Pohang University of Science and Technology
Hisashi Nakamura, University of Tokyo
Joel Norris, University of California, San Diego
Oleg A. Saenko, Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis
James Screen, University of Exeter
Karen Shell, Oregon State University
Mingfang Ting, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Darryn Waugh, The Johns Hopkins University
Baoqiang Xiang, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
Rong Zhang, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

Associate Editors
Richard P. Allan, University of Reading
Elizabeth Barnes, Colorado State University
Greg Bodeker, Bodeker Scientific
Massimo Bollasina, University of Edinburgh
Suzana Camargo, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Robin Chadwick, Met Office
Andrew Charlton-Perez, University of Reading
Laura Ciasto, University of Bergen
Peter Clark, Oregon State University
Judah Cohen, Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc.
Benjamin Cook, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Kerry Cook, The University of Texas at Austin
Aiguo Dai, University at Albany, State University of New York
Qinghua Ding, University of California, Santa Barbara
Dietmar Dommenget, Monash University
Amato T. Evan, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego
Paul Field, Met Office
Peter Gent, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Dennis Hartmann, University of Washington
Gabriele Hegerl, University of Edinburgh
Andy Hoell, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Christian Jakob, Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre
Chris Jones, Met Office
Thomas Knutson, NOAA/Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
Yu Kosaka, University of Tokyo
Young-Oh Kwon, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
John Lanzante, NOAA/Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
David Lorenz, University of Wisconsin–Madison
Riyu Lu, LASG, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Brian Medeiros, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Gerald Meehl, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Vincent Moron, Centre Européen de Recherche et d'Enseignement des Géosciences de l'Environnement
Masamichi Ohba, Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry
Yuko Okumura, The University of Texas at Austin
Thomas Reichler, University of Utah
Ben Sanderson, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Agus Santoso, University of New South Wales
Isla Simpson, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Ryan Sriver, University of Ilinois at Urbana–Champaign
Ken Takahashi, Instituto Geofísico del Perú
Yukari Takayabu, University of Tokyo
David W. J. Thompson, Colorado State University
Tomoki Tozuka, University of Tokyo
Gabriele Villarini, The University of Iowa
Hans von Storch, GKSS Research Centre
Chunzai Wang, South China Sea Institute of Oceanology, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Rob Wood, University of Washington
Renguang Wu, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Song Yang, NOAA/NESDIS/Center for Satellite Applications and Research
Sang-Wook Yeh, Hanyang University
Jin-Ho Yoon, Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology
Chidong Zhang, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami
Renhe Zhang, Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences
Xuebin Zhang, Environment Canada
Tianjun Zhou, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Francis Zwiers, Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium

Is that enough of a start for you?

And as for reputable - those scientists who significantly publish in the field and whose work is considered world class by the large majority of the members of the profession. Some other indicators: if academic - are they tenured and promoted? Or on track to do so? Are their works cited often by other workers in their field?

[RedFromMI]

Why is it that $cientist$ can't answer what climate we are changing too, without the usual talking points of nonsense. More, less, extremes and "research" filled with predictions, if, possibly, could's , catastrophic, etc.

I am thinking of the future. Some strains prefer certain CLIMATES over other strains. Nay, some flourish in heat, others in cool moisture. I wanna know what to breed for the future. Latitude 42, New England, is changing to WHAT climate/USDA/burpee planting hardiness zones....

Can you predict who will win the NBA championship next year? Or over the next five years? Predictions of this sort don't come with certainty, only likelihoods. At least the climate scientists are trying to give estimates and ranges. (BTW, most current predictions are that the Lakers and Rockets have the best likelihood of winning the championship next year).

Like glaciers melting (check), sea levels rising (check), temperatures rising (check)...

[runrussellrun]

The American Meteorological society accepts non-$ciencetist$, why don't you holmes?

https://twitter.com/ametsoc/status/1151 ... cations%2F


I can pay off a ref or player to make my "prediction" come true. Besides "some" sciencetists who fake data/research, who you gonna pay off to make sure the NE aquarium entrance in under water.

Also, no one has to pay a basketball tax. Carbon tax? France is already doing it. Pissing anyone off in gay Pari? Flight tax to "fight" climate change. exactly

[Trinity]

“The federal government has blocked the publication of research by its scientists, part of a pattern of political interference that must stop,” write @kenkimmell and former gov. Christie Todd Whitman of the National Task Force on Rule of Law and Democracy.

[RedFromMI]

Great article in the Washington Post about why even smart people have trouble believing in certain aspects of science.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... b884e2100c

[ABV 8.3%]

From Holmes article:

We’re thinking: People like us believe this. People like that do not believe this.

Interesting that it has to be black and white. with us, against us. The solutions to climate change, everyone holds them equally? I don't think so.

Isn't there an ad on TV where a rapper feels he has to "call out" climate change, less his "peeps" call him out? Peer pressure to be people like us, not them?

12 years later.....very interesting predictions. Especially about the reduced chairlift days, hurting the ski/ride industry.

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1434/ML14345A554.pdf

[CU88]

ANy bets on how o d responds?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate- ... 44b0911b0a

[runrussellrun]

ANy bets on how o d responds?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate- ... 44b0911b0a

Will respond by saying everyone should be riding electric powered bikes, built in the USA, in California, in specific counties. There is NO reason, evah, to own a Toyota Land Cruiser living in Bel Air or Malibu.

This article is a complete waste of time. (what is Ford S series trucks ) more tRump trolling.

If there are 1 million more cars on the road in California by the time this "promise" kicks in, how will having a 50 mgh car emit less co2 than one getting 32 mpg today? If there are more of them. (cars) which , there will be. Based on the Census, the roads will be built to handle it though