Ho hum, November was the warmest on record

[Jaskalas]

Lol

You have nothing that will overturn the theories of...

Climate Sensitivity - Climate sensitivity is a metric used to characterise the response of the global climate system to a given forcing. It is broadly defined as the equilibrium global mean surface temperature change following a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Under our theory you have Climate Sensitivity wrong. Plain and simple, but you continue to hide behind appeals to authority such as that bucket list of universally agreed upon principles or demands for credentials or peer review. Science follows the observations and if the pause continues then you will be following us.

You could save yourself a lot of trouble by sitting back and watching it unfold. You have nothing to worry about if you had confidence in your own position. The proof is occurring before our eyes and every Nino / Nina is a chance to bump up the baseline and prove us wrong.

There is nothing to do but wait for the next few years to pass.

 

[Moonbeam]

There is nothing to do but wait for the next few years to pass.

Said the frog to the pot.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I have seen nuclear advocates recommend launching our nuclear waste into the sun a stupidity so inconceivable as to be beyond belief. Technical people can be emotionally brain dead at a higher than average rate, in my opinion. I call them pin heads and they are generally engineers. Maybe because in the fourth grade I was designing systems to destroy the world, some of which haven't even been implemented yet, and many of which later came to fruition, I got some glimpse that the direction I was headed was insane.

You're a Luddite. Nuclear waste can be safely transported off this planet...especially as our technology evolves. NASA studied this as far back as 1978.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19780015628.pdf

China is going nuclear in a big way because they know that solar will never meet their energy needs in the foreseeable future. You need to be pragmatic if you genuinely want to solve the CO2 problem.

Here's an good article for those who are interested in such things.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco...how-to-build-nuclear-reactors-fast-and-cheap/

 

[disappoint]

Nuclear is a pipe dream that is morally reprehensible. Ask any child if they would like energy to produce deadly poisons or not. You just have to be a simple human to know the right answer.

Well if you want simple childlike humans in charge you can always vote for Trump.

 

[Moonbeam]

You're a Luddite. Nuclear waste can be safely transported off this planet...especially as our technology evolves. NASA studied this as far back as 1978.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19780015628.pdf

China is going nuclear in a big way because they know that solar will never meet their energy needs in the foreseeable future. You need to be pragmatic if you genuinely want to solve the CO2 problem.

Here's an good article for those who are interested in such things.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco...how-to-build-nuclear-reactors-fast-and-cheap/

I think you're the Luddite, you are, believing in an ancient worn out technology like nuclear energy. Sheesh! All the forward thinkers are putting their attention to solar and electrical storage.

 

[bshole]

You need to be pragmatic if you genuinely want to solve the CO2 problem.

Seriously disappointed in you Doc. WHAT CO2 PROBLEM?!?!?!!??! Jesus fucking Christ, you have to prove that there is a CO2 problem FIRST! Nobody has done that. Generally you have good posts on this topic but that line was a real stinker.

 

[Jaskalas]

Seriously disappointed in you Doc. WHAT CO2 PROBLEM?!?!?!!??! Jesus fucking Christ, you have to prove that there is a CO2 problem FIRST! Nobody has done that. Generally you have good posts on this topic but that line was a real stinker.

Well... among the skeptic side that could certainly be argued... however, we need to prove ourselves right first. If the Surface Station record is allowed to stand then the "problem" is self evident. That's not a record with any ambiguity as to what is happening.

So we first need to be right about that record being wrong. Then we would have room to discuss what that means.

 

[bshole]

Well... among the skeptic side that could certainly be argued... however, we need to prove ourselves right first. If the Surface Station record is allowed to stand then the "problem" is self evident. That's not a record with any ambiguity as to what is happening.

So we first need to be right about that record being wrong. Then we would have room to discuss what that means.

That PRESUMES that you think a warming planet is a BAD thing. Nobody has come close to proving that to me. In fact, I think the evidence quite decidedly points the other way.

 

[Paratus]

Seriously disappointed in you Doc. WHAT CO2 PROBLEM?!?!?!!??! Jesus fucking Christ, you have to prove that there is a CO2 problem FIRST! Nobody has done that. Generally you have good posts on this topic but that line was a real stinker.

It's time for you to put your money where your mouth is. Coal stocks are way down. You should invest.

I know that a lot of groups feel that rapidly increasing CO2 is a problem:

• 97%+ of climate scientists
• Basically every scientific organization across the planet
• Most economists
• The pentagon
• The insurance industry
• The governments of 195 countries on the planet

But I won't point that out because that would be appealing to authority.

Instead just think all the money you'll make investing in coal when your " reality" wins out.

 

[desy]

http://mzconsultinginc.com/?p=778
A pro nuclear argument for you
I don't have a problem dumping nuclear waste into the Canadian sheild thats been geologically sound for billions of yrs. Even read a report by the CNSC in that regard http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/waste/cnsc-research/geologic-repositories/index.cfm
However the plants themselves are expensive and take a long time to get on stream which is why NG plants have taken over this area

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...w-solar-and-wind-got-so-cheap-so-fast/418257/
Heres the last I've read on solar and wind, dropping costs are dropping fast
http://c1cleantechnicacom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2015/12/Lazard-Solar-Wind-LCOE-2.png
There are storage technologies such as molten salts all it take is a little political will to ensure that it moves forward
http://judithcurry.com/2015/12/06/c...today-with-stored-energy-from-wind-and-solar/

 

[bshole]

It's time for you to put your money where your mouth is. Coal stocks are way down. You should invest.



I know that a lot of groups feel that rapidly increasing CO2 is a problem:

• 97%+ of climate scientists
• Basically every scientific organization across the planet
• Most economists
• The pentagon
• The insurance industry
• The governments of 195 countries on the planet

But I won't point that out because that would be appealing to authority.

Instead just think all the money you'll make investing in coal when your " reality" wins out.

Um right, I lost $15k on coal stocks already. I wouldn't touch coal again with a 10 foot pole. Natural gas is eating its lunch. Perhaps when the natural gas runs out....

Models do not prove anything. They are the HYPOTHESIS to be tested. You come up with a model and then you test it. When you are working with something mammoth and slow acting as climate, the test BY DEFINITION must last CENTURIES. Almost all global warming theorists that I have spoken with cannot even define predictions for crop yields, human population growth, extinction events, etc.... they are reduced to hockey stick temperature predictions and photos of New York underwater.

 

[Paratus]

Climate Sensitivity - Climate sensitivity is a metric used to characterise the response of the global climate system to a given forcing. It is broadly defined as the equilibrium global mean surface temperature change following a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Under our theory you have Climate Sensitivity wrong. Plain and simple, but you continue to hide behind appeals to authority such as that bucket list of universally agreed upon principles or demands for credentials or peer review. Science follows the observations and if the pause continues then you will be following us.

You could save yourself a lot of trouble by sitting back and watching it unfold. You have nothing to worry about if you had confidence in your own position. The proof is occurring before our eyes and every Nino / Nina is a chance to bump up the baseline and prove us wrong.

There is nothing to do but wait for the next few years to pass.

Under your hypothesis there has been no increase in global temperatures during the "pause". That implies no effects from increasing temperatures that don't exist.

So care to describe how the "pause" explains this new study characterizing ice loss in Greenland?

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/measuring-greenlands-increasing-weight-loss-using-aerial-photos/

Past performance may not always predict future results in the stock market, but in the Earth sciences, it can tell us a hell of a lot. Since we only have the one planet, examples of some processes can only be found in the past. That’s why so much effort goes into studying the past behavior of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. We need context for what we’re currently seeing and some ideas about what’s likely to happen next.

While many studies look tens of thousands or even millions of years into the past, much more recent histories can also be of interest. We’ve only had satellites measuring changes in the Greenland ice sheet since the early 1990s, so what happened over the preceding century is much less clear. That makes it difficult to answer questions about Greenland’s contribution to the full century's sea level rise or the ice sheet’s natural short-term variability.

But in a new study, a team led by Kristian Kjeldsen and Niels Korsgaard of the University of Copenhagen has managed to fill in this gap through some clever, if tedious, research. They took advantage of a trove of stereo aerial photos taken in the late 1970s and 1980s as part of a survey of Greenland.

Luckily, there’s also an older reference point visible in these images. During the “Little Ice Age," the outlet glaciers that ring the great ice sheet reached their greatest size in recent time. They began to shrink back by around 1900 but, like the ring of foam that marks how full your cup of hot chocolate used to be, their mark on the landscape remains. That includes jumbles of rocks deposited at the edges of glaciers, as well as clean-scraped valley walls.

By overlaying these photos on a digital model of Greenland’s coastal topography, the researchers could carefully calculate how much ice had disappeared between about 1900 and the time the aerial photos were taken. From there, they could rely on various satellite datasets to bring us up to the current day.

The results showed that Greenland lost a fair amount of ice over the 20th century. Between 1900 and 1983, an average of 75 billion tons (±29 billion) of ice disappeared each year. That’s similar to what happened from 1983 to 2003, which saw a loss of 74 ±41 billion tons per year. Recent years stand out, however, as Greenland doubled that pace, losing 186 ±19 billion tons per year between 2003 and 2010.....

So how could Greenlands rate of ice loss double during the "pause" when there were no temperature changes? Where did that energy come from Jasklas?

Now when we use current climate theory it would predict increasing ice loss from Greenland during the 00's since surface temperatures and ocean heat content have risen unabated, providing the necessary energy to melt ice.

But I'm sure you have a "scientific" explanation based on your hypothesis.

 

[bshole]

What I find ever sooo precious is when Global Warming theorists flatly deny that rising CO2 levels will not impact crop yields positively. This despite every single study that proves beyond any scientific uncertainty that Co2 has a huge positive fertilizing effect on plant life and greatly increases yields. I constantly have to remind myself that these people are not stupid, they are not evil, they are simply blinded by a world view that is divorced from the scientific method. Every time I discuss this issue, I have to choke down the murderous rage that blossoms in my heart and try to get in touch with the empathetic part of my nature.... it is hard though.

 

[Jaskalas]

So how could Greenlands rate of ice loss double during the "pause" when there were no temperature changes? Where did that energy come from Jasklas?

And I thought you were smart.
Does Greenland equal the globe when it suits your purposes?

If you want to make that claim...

 

[Paratus]

And I thought you were smart.
Does Greenland equal the globe when it suits your purposes?

If you want to make that claim...

Deflect and deny. I never said Greeland was the globe. I said its rate of melting doubled during the pause.

If your hypothesis was true then that shouldn't have happened or it should have been offset by ice gains elsewhere.

Climate change theory says that in general we would expect increasing rates of ice loss globally. Greenland has one of the largest ice sheets on the planet and is a another data point that supports that theory.

Instead you posted a temperature plot of what, a surface station in Greenland? From which I'm supposed to draw what conclusion?

We are arguing the science. Since you have such a firm conviction in your hypothesis being right you should be able to describe the observered data better than the accepted theory if you want it to be accepted over said theory.

Care to try again?

 

[bshole]

Deflect and deny. I never said Greeland was the globe. I said its rate of melting doubled during the pause.

If your hypothesis was true then that shouldn't have happened or it should have been offset by ice gains elsewhere.

Climate change theory says that in general we would expect increasing rates of ice loss globally. Greenland has one of the largest ice sheets on the planet and is a another data point that supports that theory.

Instead you posted a temperature plot of what, a surface station in Greenland? From which I'm supposed to draw what conclusion?

We are arguing the science. Since you have such a firm conviction in your hypothesis being right you should be able to describe the observered data better than the accepted theory if you want it to be accepted over said theory.

Care to try again?

What the fuck is up with you guys and global ice loss? You really think global ice loss is a BAD thing? Why? Try global ice gain once.....

Can you define the optimal ice coverage or are you saying that we just happen to have the optimal ice coverage right now and we can't let it change? What evidence do you have that the current ice coverage is optimal?

I can't even tell what you are trying to prove with all this hand wringing and bed-wetting over ice loss that has gone on for thousands of years. Get a grip man.

It seems to me that you guys do nothing other than identify what is happening in the world, classify that happening as bad, blame it on humans, and go crying to governments around the world. It really doesn't matter a bit what is happening, it really really really really doesn't. If something happens, it is bad and it is man's fault for using carbon fuels. You guys have been playing this tune for half a century now.

 

[Paratus]

What the fuck is up with you guys and global ice loss? You really think global ice loss is a BAD thing? Why? Try global ice gain once.....

Can you define the optimal ice coverage or are you saying that we just happen to have the optimal ice coverage right now and we can't let it change? What evidence do you have that the current ice coverage is optimal?

I can't even tell what you are trying to prove with all this hand wringing and bed-wetting over ice loss that has gone on for thousands of years. Get a grip man.

It seems to me that you guys do nothing other than identify what is happening in the world, classify that happening as bad, blame it on humans, and go crying to governments around the world. It really doesn't matter a bit what is happening, it really really really really doesn't. If something happens, it is bad and it is man's fault for using carbon fuels. You guys have been playing this tune for half a century now.

The optimal rate of ice loss would average 0.

Since you are missing the impacts of ice loss here's a little experiment you can try at home:

We need to model the ocean, ice sheets and the land.

We'll use:

• a cup of water filled to the top as the ocean
• some ice cubes and metal mesh as land based ice sheets
• some really important to you piece of paper like a first edition signed book or the only copy of the title to your house as the land

Put your important paper on the counter. Next place your full glass of water on top of the paper. Finally place the mesh across the top of the glass and put your ice cubes on the mesh.

What do we think will happen?

As the ice melts the cup will catch the water and over flow dripping onto your important paper ruining it.

"But Paratus", you say, "A small rise won't damage real infrastructure and I don't live near the water anyway"

Well first off the small increase in sea level rise is the average across the ocean. It's much larger at the coasts. Plus it's a damage multiplier for things like hurricanes. Also since we are tied together by the global economy impacts in one area will affect you.

We can mod our experiment to show this.

Replace the important paper with one that's important to your wife. Then blow across the cup as the ice melts to simulate a hurricane.

Did more of the paper get damaged? Did you suffer even though it wasn't directly your property that was damaged?

Hopefully this illustrates why unrestrained sea level rise will be bad for the world.

 

[bshole]

The optimal rate of ice loss would average 0.

ROFLMFAO!!! Something that has literally never happened in the history of the earth. Not one fucking time. But PARATUS KNOWS that it is the OPTIMAL rate for REASONS. Good gawd, you can't make this shit up. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Pro-tip, if the ice is melting, perma-frost is melting and therefor MUCH MUCH MUCH more land becomes arable and habitable by humans and other fauna. It is a net GAIN! This isn't any great secret. You know it yourself but your worldview prevents you from admitting it. I would estimate your IQ in the 130 range so you are fully aware of the real facts. It is a sad thing to see such a fine intellect such as yours poisoned by religious fallacy.

 

[Paratus]

ROFLMFAO!!! Something that has literally never happened in the history of the earth. Not one fucking time. But PARATUS KNOWS that it is the OPTIMAL rate for REASONS. Good gawd, you can't make this shit up. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Pro-tip, if the ice is melting, perma-frost is melting and therefor MUCH MUCH MUCH more land becomes arable and habitable by humans and other fauna. It is a net GAIN! This isn't any great secret. You know it yourself but your worldview prevents you from admitting it. I would estimate your IQ in the 130 range so you are fully aware of the real facts. It is a sad thing to see such a fine intellect such as yours poisoned by religious fallacy.

Averaging 0 means negligible sea level rise.

But I think you've found another awesome investment opportunity. With all those people clambering to live in Siberia and Northern Canada as opposed to living on the coasts you could make a killing in buying permafrost real estate!

Get investing!

 

[bshole]

Averaging 0 means negligible sea level rise.

But I think you've found another awesome investment opportunity. With all those people clambering to live in Siberia and Northern Canada as opposed to living on the coasts you could make a killing in buying permafrost real estate!

Get investing!

TBH, I am looking to invest in renewables and carbon trading companies. I think there is a ton of money to be made in them. The AGW community is taking over Washington. Could you recommend any stocks in those two arenas?

I can't help but envy all those bastards who got rich on ethanol at the expense of America (all in the name of saving mother earth).

I am not a fool. All the pap about AGW is designed to do one thing. Divert TRILLIONS of dollars into the pockets of a handful of billionaire interests. This time I want to be in on the money train. Even though I know we are destroying America with this legislation, at least I will be taken care of. That is really the only person I give a fuck about.

AGW is not science, it is an apocalyptic political movement funded by billionaires. Remember this at all times.

 

[DrPizza]

ROFLMFAO!!! Something that has literally never happened in the history of the earth. Not one fucking time. But PARATUS KNOWS that it is the OPTIMAL rate for REASONS. Good gawd, you can't make this shit up. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Pro-tip, if the ice is melting, perma-frost is melting and therefor MUCH MUCH MUCH more land becomes arable and habitable by humans and other fauna. It is a net GAIN! This isn't any great secret. You know it yourself but your worldview prevents you from admitting it. I would estimate your IQ in the 130 range so you are fully aware of the real facts. It is a sad thing to see such a fine intellect such as yours poisoned by religious fallacy.

Are you simply trolling? Does the b need to be replaced with as? If much of the perma-frost melts will have disastrous consequences. The methane that would be released would increase global warming significantly. Do you have any idea what the financial impact is of a few feet of sea level rise? Further, yes, CO2 is good for plants, and plants with adequate nutrition/fertilization, and adequate water will grow better. Why are you assuming that they get enough water and not too much water or too little water?

 

[bshole]

If much of the perma-frost melts will have disastrous consequences. The methane that would be released would increase global warming significantly. Do you have any idea what the financial impact is of a few feet of sea level rise? Further, yes, CO2 is good for plants, and plants with adequate nutrition/fertilization, and adequate water will grow better. Why are you assuming that they get enough water and not too much water or too little water?

Why do you assume the worst and only the worst. In every demonstrable way, living conditions for humanity have continued to improve at a steady rate. This improvement occurred during an entire century of AGW. You have the evidence right in front of you that humanity 's condition has been improved due to or in spite of AGW. You deny that objective reality and fear monger about things that MAY happen. There really is precious little difference between your apocalyptic visions and Revelations. It is an evolved trait for survival in humans to fear and worry what cannot be seen or proven. AGW==Religion, I am sorry but it really really does. It left science when it made predictions a century out and then declared the science settled before any fucking measurements could be taken to validate the predictions.

Dr Pizza, I am not trolling. This is one of my most passionate worldviews actually. It is one of few things that I am relatively confident in. I am sorry that you think so little of me to make that accusation. I certainly have a lot of respect for your opinion.

 

[DrPizza]

Why do you assume the worst and only the worst. In every demonstrable way, living conditions for humanity have continued to improve at a steady rate. This improvement occurred during an entire century of AGW. You have the evidence right in front of you that humanity 's condition has been improved due to or in spite of AGW. You deny that objective reality and fear monger about things that MAY happen. There really is precious little difference between your apocalyptic visions and Revelations. It is an evolved trait for survival in humans to fear and worry what cannot be seen or proven. AGW==Religion, I am sorry but it really really does. It left science when it made predictions a century out and then declared the science settled before any fucking measurements could be taken to validate the predictions.

Dr Pizza, I am not trolling. This is one of my most passionate worldviews actually. It is one of few things that I am relatively confident in. I am sorry that you think so little of me to make that accusation. I certainly have a lot of respect for your opinion.

I'm sorry, I guess I see your point, which is a lot different than that of the deniers. Are you aware of how much economic damage *will* be done along all the coasts of the world? How much land will eventually be lost as a result of rising sea level?

 

[chucky2]

All you Believers need to do is actually believe, and then put actions to your beliefs, and you'll start making a dent in what you fear. If you can just get more and more Believers to be believers, you don't need to wait on people on the fence or in opposition to your Beliefs.

I mean, live simply. How hard is it to not take that CO2 expensive trip you don't need to go on, buy all that merchandise you don't really need, eat the way you don't need to eat, clothe yourself in the manner you choose to, etc. etc. Just think of all the CO2 reduction Believers could actually accomplish if they'd just believe!

It's really depressing when even the Believers won't believe their own schtick...

 

[Paratus]

Why do you assume the worst and only the worst. In every demonstrable way, living conditions for humanity have continued to improve at a steady rate. This improvement occurred during an entire century of AGW. You have the evidence right in front of you that humanity 's condition has been improved due to or in spite of AGW. You deny that objective reality and fear monger about things that MAY happen. There really is precious little difference between your apocalyptic visions and Revelations. It is an evolved trait for survival in humans to fear and worry what cannot be seen or proven. AGW==Religion, I am sorry but it really really does. It left science when it made predictions a century out and then declared the science settled before any fucking measurements could be taken to validate the predictions.

Dr Pizza, I am not trolling. This is one of my most passionate worldviews actually. It is one of few things that I am relatively confident in. I am sorry that you think so little of me to make that accusation. I certainly have a lot of respect for your opinion.

I'm sorry, I guess I see your point, which is a lot different than that of the deniers. Are you aware of how much economic damage *will* be done along all the coasts of the world? How much land will eventually be lost as a result of rising sea level?

bshole the problem is you ignore the costs for every supposed benefit.

More biodiversity! Ignore the preceding extinction event
More tundra land! Ignore the loss of more valuable coastal land
More CO2 for plants! Ignore the cost of changing all those farms and crops over to the crops that benefit from the increased CO2 and that will grow better in the changing environment.

You come across as one of those financial guys in 00's. Real estate will only go up up up!

Till it doesn't. And then you'll pass the cost on to the poorest who can't move from the coast and can't change their substance level farm over to better crops.