All Things Environment

[Typical Lax Dad]

What did you think of tld's LINK about Harvard destroying the rain forest? What kind of data are you willing to accept regarding funds to stay "afloat" book1

I posted many a link on the ole LP........often getting "timeouts" b/c that was NOT topical to the thread bang1 "oooww that smell....can't you smell that smell...that smell is all around you" Tough to debate with the master moderators, b/c after all, it's SETTLED icon_puke

Well, from the article: "It is hard to determine whether Harvard’s timber plantations are responsibly managed or not. Many are already certified by the Forest Stewardship Council, an independent nonprofit that purports to identify responsibly managed forests" - I didn't really see anything in there about Harvard contributing directly to destroying the rain forest.

It was interesting, I'd like to see what kind of impact those timber plantations actually have. If you have more information about it than a blog post, please share it with us. It looks like they've been selling some investments off due to poor fiscal performance. Old growth forests have been wiped out in vasts swaths around the US and aren't coming back anytime soon without major investment (see the long leaf pine debacle among others), but sustainable tree farming with fast growth slash pines and other wood is certainly necessary for many things.

What do you think of Brazil's new president? Or about Harvard's commitment to proper sustainable forest management and existing forest preservation? At least some institutions seem to be learning and growing.

Hopefully Harvard's investment committee has learned it's lesson. Good intentions but execution on the ground was loose.

[youthathletics]

The green and blue curves are obviously much more closely correlated than the red curve. Are the r^2's computed in any of those links of yours? I bet not.

And why is sunspot cycle length (the y-axis for the red curve) any sort of relevant variable in the first place??

I am still studying much of this stuff and found this on a link in the front page of the site I linked.


The IPCC relied heavily on this flawed study, where Peterson states "no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures." However, Steve McIntyre using Peterson's data shows that "actual cities have a very substantial trend of over 2 deg C per century relative to the rural network


An audit by researcher Steve McIntyre reveals that NASA has made urban adjustments of temperature data in its GISS temperature record in the wrong direction. NASA has applied a "negative urban adjustment" to 45% of the urban station measurements (where adjustments are made), meaning that the adjustments make the warming trends steeper.

[jhu72]

friendsofscience.org is a shill organization for "big oil".

Douglas Leahey founder of 'Friends of Science', 'FOS' or 'Full of beans' as it is better known. The money also comes from Robert Mercer and his daughter.

[youthathletics]

Imagine that, coming from a website called Desmog blog "CLEARING THE PR POLLUTION THAT CLOUDS CLIMATE SCIENCE" go figure.

Leahey has all the credentials required to back his claims and stats, just as all the other shills being funded by "pro CC groups". GMAB

[MDlaxfan76]

Seems to me that we need to be vigilant about watching the $ on both sides.

youth, big oil, like big tobacco did, funds only what they want us to believe, for as long as the can get away with it.
It's not actually validated science.

Gotta watch the $ on the other side as well.

[jhu72]

Leahey has nothing. He is a right wing "rat fooker", just like the big tobacco whores. Nothing less, nothing more.

[HooDat]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferra ... 37742b4dcf

let me introduce you to the British Met Office, stalwart of Global Warming “science,” such as it is, which has already publicly confessed that we are already three quarters through 20 years of No Global Warming!

Britain’s Met Office, an international cheerleading headquarters for global warming hysteria, did concede last December that there would be no further warming at least through 2017, which would make 20 years with no global warming. That reflects grudging recognition of the newly developing trends. But that reflects as well growing divergence between the reality of real world temperatures and the projections of the climate models at the foundation of the global warming alarmism of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Since those models have never been validated, they are not science at this point, but just made up fantasies. That is why, “In the 12 years to 2011, 11 out of 12 [global temperature]forecasts [of the Met Office] were too high — and… none were colder than [resulted],” as BBC climate correspondent Paul Hudson wrote in January.

Global warming was never going to be the problem that the Lysenkoists who have brought down western science made it out to be. Human emissions of CO2 are only 4 to 5% of total global emissions

[jhu72]

The suns measured output is decreasing. Why is it not getting colder??

Temp-sunspot-co2.jpeg (66.89 KiB) Viewed 1543 times

[HooDat]

The suns measured output is decreasing. Why is it not getting colder??

because we're fixing it???

[jhu72]

The green and blue curves are obviously much more closely correlated than the red curve. Are the r^2's computed in any of those links of yours? I bet not.

And why is sunspot cycle length (the y-axis for the red curve) any sort of relevant variable in the first place??

IT IS NOT. This graph is a perfect example of the intentional obfuscation of deniers like FOS. They show you a graph with three curves. All point up. Two wiggly ones and one smooth. The smooth one can't possibly explain the wiggly temperature curve. Smooth doesn't explain wiggly. Everyone knows that.

The second wiggly curve doesn't wiggle as much but it wiggles in the right place. See right there in the middle where both of the wiggly ones wiggle up a bunch and then come back down to something more normal. That second wiggly curve must be the answer, explaining the first wiggly curve (temperature). The second wiggly curve is length of solar cycle as determined by sunspot activity. Yup, that's the answer -- THE SUN DID IT!!

Oh but wait a minute, the solar cycle curve is vertically inverted. Cycle period is shorter the higher the curve. Shorter solar cycles correlate with fewr sun spots, which correlates with decreased solar output. So the graph really says in the period where the temperature was bumped up (increased temperature), the solar output was really down (less solar output). So the major influencer of earths temperature was trying to drive the earths temperature down, but the earths temperature went up.

Why would anyone present you with a graph like this?? I know - BECAUSE THEY THINK YOU ARE STUPID!

Must be they see that Cornell degree and figure you for an easy mark.

[Typical Lax Dad]

The suns measured output is decreasing. Why is it not getting colder??

Temp-sunspot-co2.jpeg

Because the planet is going to do what the planet is going to do?

[jhu72]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferra ... 37742b4dcf

let me introduce you to the British Met Office, stalwart of Global Warming “science,” such as it is, which has already publicly confessed that we are already three quarters through 20 years of No Global Warming!

Britain’s Met Office, an international cheerleading headquarters for global warming hysteria, did concede last December that there would be no further warming at least through 2017, which would make 20 years with no global warming. That reflects grudging recognition of the newly developing trends. But that reflects as well growing divergence between the reality of real world temperatures and the projections of the climate models at the foundation of the global warming alarmism of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Since those models have never been validated, they are not science at this point, but just made up fantasies. That is why, “In the 12 years to 2011, 11 out of 12 [global temperature]forecasts [of the Met Office] were too high — and… none were colder than [resulted],” as BBC climate correspondent Paul Hudson wrote in January.

Global warming was never going to be the problem that the Lysenkoists who have brought down western science made it out to be. Human emissions of CO2 are only 4 to 5% of total global emissions

Did global warming really stop in 1998?

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferra ... 37742b4dcf

let me introduce you to the British Met Office, stalwart of Global Warming “science,” such as it is, which has already publicly confessed that we are already three quarters through 20 years of No Global Warming!

Britain’s Met Office, an international cheerleading headquarters for global warming hysteria, did concede last December that there would be no further warming at least through 2017, which would make 20 years with no global warming. That reflects grudging recognition of the newly developing trends. But that reflects as well growing divergence between the reality of real world temperatures and the projections of the climate models at the foundation of the global warming alarmism of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Since those models have never been validated, they are not science at this point, but just made up fantasies. That is why, “In the 12 years to 2011, 11 out of 12 [global temperature]forecasts [of the Met Office] were too high — and… none were colder than [resulted],” as BBC climate correspondent Paul Hudson wrote in January.

Global warming was never going to be the problem that the Lysenkoists who have brought down western science made it out to be. Human emissions of CO2 are only 4 to 5% of total global emissions

Did global warming really stop in 1998?

There you go confusing people with science!

[youthathletics]

jhu - if you spend some time and read through the website, and look at the rural vs (Urban) Major cities graph, it explains all your concerns. So, in your opinion, why then is the temperature of the Rural plot line not tracking Urban plot with the same exact Delta T/spread the entire time?

If on the timeline by year you compare Rural Temperature with solar radiance, you can see a stable correlation, with some expected lag. Which essentially means, temperature tracks true Sun influenced and Co2 is just that....Co2..the outlier in the equation.

It's like saying a study of 10,000 murders all drank red bull as a data plot, so therefor redbull makes you more apt to murder.

[jhu72]

Don't have to look at the site. UHI effect is a real phenomenon. Climate scientist have accounted for it in their temperature measurements.

It is a small correction, because as a % of earth's total surface it effects 1 part in 1 million (think Siberia, not the Bos-Wash corridor; think only 30% of earth's surface is even a candidate). The albedo effect of deforestation is just as big and in the other direction - has the effect of cooling the earth (doesn't include effect of loss of CO2 absorption by trees, just the reflectance of the surface). The effect of these albedo changes is linear. The effect of CO2 is a power law (integration over volume). A quick back of the envelop calculation would indicate it is nonsense that this effect explains warming of the earth to the degree we have observed.

Guys who have done detailed measurements and calculations --> Skeptical Science.

The only relevance of UHI is the observed effect, when the planet heats up, urban areas where people live, heat up more.

[Trinity]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/06/world/gr ... index.html

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/06/world/gr ... index.html

It is fake news! The earth has been warm before!

[Trinity]

Russsia has only oil to sell, so....

[runrussellrun]

for the smarter people icon_puke

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/201 ... ater-loss/


but....MAGNETIC north has shifted hundreds of miles................oh, just forget it bang1

Just spent $10k on carbon offsets. Santa thinks I am good

[jhu72]

The earth's magnetic field, its behavior in the current era, is interesting, but it is only one of the latest (past decade) denier "what about's". It's another one of those physical phenomenon where a correlation exists between some parameter of the phenomenon and the increase of CO2. Correlation is not causation. No one has identified a "coupling mechanism" that bares up to scrutiny. So your mission is - prove that the change in the earth's magnetic field are causing global warming. FInd the low altitude atmospheric coupling mechanism and explain it to the experts who don't see one (there are a number, but none are strong enough). So far all I see out of proponents is a lot of hand waving. They think they have a correlation but that is all. There is an equally good correlation between the rise of CO2 levels and the price of movie tickets.