All Solar, Et Al, In 12 Years?

[Peter LeQuire]

Undoubtedly it's Constitutional to be tasteless. Perhaps I chuckled but I would have refused to further disseminate.

I recommend you grow a pair!

I'll try to grow a pair if you try to develop some civility.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

NOAA Determines U.S. Precipitation Unaffected By CO2, Extreme Climate Change Non-Existent

Depending on which climate alarmist "expert" you listen to, be it Al Gore, Tom Steyer, Obama, John Holdren or Michael Mann, each claims that the U.S. is suffering from CO2-caused extreme climate change...big problem though, NOAA empirical measurements of precipitation (snow and rainfall) prove those claims are nothing but blatant, political anti-science lies falsehoods exaggerations.....


http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/

The above link is to the NOAA web site Climate at a glance which you can plot average temperature, precipitation among other data on a time series.

 

[George Hatch]

Selective reading? Of course you want the BS to go on unchallenged and the propaganda to go unquestioned. I understand.

Apart from calling insulting people with whom you disagree I don't remember seeing you actually posting anything that challenges the materials they've been quoting or the reasoning they've been using. At the very most, all you've done is retreat to the appeal to authority. That's the weakest mode of discourse there is. You might was well be sitting in a madrassa, rocking back and forth while you memorize passages from religious scripture by rote.

Your disagreement *could* make the discussion a lot more interesting if you actually had anything of substance to discuss beyond your go-to position that (the hack in Australia falsely claims ) there's a 97% consensus.

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

Apart from calling insulting people with whom you disagree I don't remember seeing you actually posting anything that challenges the materials they've been quoting or the reasoning they've been using. At the very most, all you've done is retreat to the appeal to authority. That's the weakest mode of discourse there is. You might was well be sitting in a madrassa, rocking back and forth while you memorize passages from religious scripture by rote.

Your disagreement *could* make the discussion a lot more interesting if you actually had anything of substance to discuss beyond your go-to position that (the hack in Australia falsely claims ) there's a 97% consensus.

You obviously have also been selecting reading missing posts 1445, 1416 and others.

Nice Trumpian reference to Muslims as if being one were a sin against humanity. Mob mentality at its finest.

Your thoughts on the belittling of the President? Pot calling the kettle black?

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...e-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/

"And yet, the chain of events Cook mentioned, where people hear of the scientific consensus and call their lawmakers, has not happened. In fact, consensus messaging over the past decade has not convinced any more or any fewer Americans to believe in global warming.

Cook thinks the failure is partly because the consensus studies were not publicized enough. Another reason, he believes, is that American minds have been poisoned by climate contrarians like Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist under President George W. Bush, who advised skeptics to create an illusion of scientific discord and challenge established climate scientists. Such messaging has made people think the scientific consensus is much lower than it is in reality, Cook said. He calls this phenomenon the "consensus gap."

Ho hum!

 

[Bobby Bucks]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...e-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/

"And yet, the chain of events Cook mentioned, where people hear of the scientific consensus and call their lawmakers, has not happened. In fact, consensus messaging over the past decade has not convinced any more or any fewer Americans to believe in global warming.

Cook thinks the failure is partly because the consensus studies were not publicized enough. Another reason, he believes, is that American minds have been poisoned by climate contrarians like Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist under President George W. Bush, who advised skeptics to create an illusion of scientific discord and challenge established climate scientists. Such messaging has made people think the scientific consensus is much lower than it is in reality, Cook said. He calls this phenomenon the "consensus gap."

Ho hum!

While I respectfully disagree, I do like the kinder, gentler version of Pete. :- )

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Why the effective radiating level (ERL) is always located at the center of mass of the atmosphere & not controlled by greenhouse gas concentrations

Thus, we have determined the entire 33.15C greenhouse effect, the surface temperature, and the temperature of the troposphere at any height, and the height at which the equilibrium temperature with the Sun occurs at the ERL entirely on the basis of the Newton's 2nd law of motion, the 1st law of thermodynamics, and the ideal gas law, without use of radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, nor the concentrations of greenhouse gases, nor the emission/absorption spectra of greenhouse gases at any point in this derivation, demonstrating that the entire 33C greenhouse effect is dependent upon atmospheric mass/pressure/gravity, rather than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. Also note, it is absolutely impossible for the conventional radiative theory of the greenhouse effect to also be correct, since if that was the case, the Earth's greenhouse effect would be at least double (66C+ rather than 33C).

In essence, the radiative theory of the greenhouse effect confuses cause and effect. As we have shown, temperature is a function of pressure, and absorption/emission of IR from greenhouse gases is a function of temperature. The radiative theory tries to turn that around to claim IR emission from greenhouse gases controls the temperature, the heights of the ERL and tropopause, and thus the lapse rate, pressure, gravity, and heat capacity of the atmosphere, which is absurd and clearly disproven by basic thermodynamics and observations. The radiative greenhouse theory also makes the absurd assumption a cold body can make a hot body hotter, disproven by Pictet's experiment 214 years ago, the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the principle of maximum entropy production, Planck's law, the Pauli exclusion principle, and quantum mechanics. There is one and only one greenhouse effect theory compatible with all of these basic physical laws and millions of observations. Can you guess which one it is?

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/09/why-effective-radiating-level-erl-is.html

For the details of the math and calculations, click the link.

 

[Cigar]

Interesting how many so-called scientists come out against AGW once they retire and their jobs are no-longer at stake, this Letter to the Editor in today's paper from the retired Senior Staff Scientist at Berkeley :

Measurements show no temperature rise

I am referring to the AP article in the Times, "World takes on warming," by Karl Ritter and Sylvie Corbet.

Referring to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, Ritter and Corbet wrote, "Since then, global temperatures and sea levels have continued to rise, and the Earth has seen an extraordinary run of extreme weather, including severe droughts and storms."

Inconvenient facts: Since 1997, satellite measurements show no temperature rise whatsoever. Records also show extreme weather events have decreased in intensity and frequency during this time. As well, sea level rise has not accelerated.

This is a clear example of willful ignorance on the part of the authors, or perhaps, just alarmist ideology. The scientific data are public for all to see.

Donald G. Eagling

Danville

Eagling is a retired director of facilities and senior staff scientist at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.¹

¹ http://www.contracostatimes.com/letters/ci_29220462/dec-10-letters-editor

 

[Meandering]

From Pete's article.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-determine-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/

"And yet, the chain of events Cook mentioned, where people hear of the scientific consensus and call their lawmakers, has not happened. In fact, consensus messaging over the past decade has not convinced any more or any fewer Americans to believe in global warming.

Cook thinks the failure is partly because the consensus studies were not publicized enough. Another reason, he believes, is that American minds have been poisoned by climate contrarians like Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist under President George W. Bush, who advised skeptics to create an illusion of scientific discord and challenge established climate scientists. Such messaging has made people think the scientific consensus is much lower than it is in reality, Cook said. He calls this phenomenon the "consensus gap."

Ho hum!

And did you even read the article?

By Gayathri Vaidyanathan, ClimateWire on July 24, 2014

The point of contention is a peer-reviewed study published last year by Green, a chemistry professor at Michigan Technological University; John Cook, a research fellow at the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland in Australia; and 10 other scientists who blog under the collective name of Skeptical Science. The scientists examined 4,014 abstracts on climate change and found 97.2 percent of the papers assumed humans play a role in global warming (ClimateWire, May 16, 2013).

That statement quickly got boiled down in the popular media to a much simpler message: that 97 percent of scientists believe climate change is caused by humans. President Obama tweeted the 97 percent consensus. Comedian John Oliver did a segment on it that went viral on the Internet.

Predictably, climate change skeptics challenged the study. The Skeptical Science group fended off their attacks. Then fame beckoned. The paper has been downloaded more than 200,000 times, making it among the most popular scientific studies of 2013.

Lately, the Skeptical Science researchers have been battling a rear guard attack from within the climate science community itself. Some social scientists, political scientists, climate change communicators—and Tol—question whether informing people of a scientific consensus serves any purpose.

To them, climate change is no longer a debate over science. The latest surveys show that 89 percent of Democrats, 79 percent of independents and 70 percent of Republicans already believe global warming is happening and is at least partly caused by human actions.

Rather, the climate debate is now ethical and political; it comes down to what Americans are willing to do today to address a problem that will largely affect their grandchildren. In this realm of moral choice, the 97 percent consensus can be polarizing, said Dan Kahan, a professor of psychology at Yale University.

He brandishes as proof a video by the group Organizing for Action (OFA), which was once Obama's re-election campaign. The implicit message is that the people who disagree with 97 percent of scientists must be very stupid, Kahan said.

"We live in a world where the people who make the videos like the OFA one have attached a meaning to this argument—97 percent of scientists [believe in human-caused global warming]," he said. "It's a bumper sticker, ...."

A road paved with good intentions and footnotes
Cook thinks that politicians are not acting because the public is not pressuring them enough. If people realize that the majority of scientists agree on human-caused climate change, they will absorb that knowledge like empty vessels and become more convinced of the threat, he said. They will then be more amenable to picking up their phones and calling their legislators.

"If the public think that climate scientists agree about what is causing global warming, then the public thinks we need to act on it," he said. "If the public thinks scientists disagree, then we might as well wait until the scientists work it out before we do anything about it."

The idea is not new; several studies over the past 10 years have found a scientific consensus on climate change. Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at Harvard University, in 2004 found that 75 percent of published studies supported anthropogenic global warming. Since then, six other studies have been published with widespread media attention.

And yet, the chain of events Cook mentioned, where people hear of the scientific consensus and call their lawmakers, has not happened. In fact, consensus messaging over the past decade has not convinced any more or any fewer Americans to believe in global warming.

Once results were in, Cook put together a publicity strategy.

"There's no point in doing scientific research if you are not looking to publicize it," he said. "A part of what we were doing was closing that consensus gap, and the consensus gap is delaying climate action. We wanted it to have a tangible impact."

Tol dislikes, in principle, the idea of a consensus. After all, the point of science is to challenge accepted wisdom and refine it, a process that runs somewhat counter to the idea of a consensus.

"I'm a hopeless romantic for the Enlightenment: I'd rather convince people with arguments than with an appeal to authority or consensus," Tol said via email.

One of the problems with Cook's appeal to authority is this: So far, no one has quantified the consensus among natural scientists on global warming. In fact, it cannot be done easily, said Jon Krosnick, a social psychologist at Stanford University who has been studying communication strategies for decades.

"I expected the criticism from climate deniers because they've been attacking the consensus for 20 years," Cook said. "I'm a bit disappointed that scientists who accept the consensus and who are trying to work towards climate action are criticizing this method of communication because the reason why we did it was based on a lot of social science research."



It's all science when you can get people to believe it.

Problem is, it's social science, not human induced climate change science.

Sheeple steering.

 

[Meandering]

‘Monster’ El Nino May Increase Global Warming, Cause Stronger Weather Events

While El Nino oscillates on a more or less yearly cycle, another dynamic in Pacific Ocean water temperatures, known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), has the potential to accelerate global warming and increase the severity of El Nino episodes, scientists said. The last time the PDO was, as it may be now, in a prolonged positive, or “warm” phase, it corresponded with two of the strongest El Niño on record.

“When you really have a monster El Nino, it could be enough to flip the PDO into a new phase for a decade or so,” said William Patzert, a climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. “Keep your eyeballs peeled because maybe we’re in for a decadal shift.”

Previous warm phases have also coincided with increased precipitation on the U.S. West Coast, signaling potential relief for California from a severe drought.

Before January of 2014, the world experienced a 15-year period of mostly negative values for the Pacific oscillation, according to data maintained by Nathan Mantua, an atmospheric scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Oceans.

That period saw only weak or moderate El Nino events. During the 21 years before that, the Pacific oscillation values trended mostly positive, a period that coincided with the 1982-83 and 1997-98 El Nino events, two of the strongest on record.

Now, scientists are beginning to wonder if the 15-year period of relative El Nino calm is coming to a close, marking the start of a warmer, stormier era akin to the 1980s and 90s.

The PDO index has been positive for 22 months through October, the longest such streak since a 26-month positive period between 2002 and 2004. Scientists are not sure if the current streak marks a longer-term turnaround or just a temporary blip like the 2002-2004 streak.

“It’s more likely that we’ll have a change in phase and we’ll remain in positive territory,” said Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, noting that while a decadal shift was far from a guarantee, the odds in favor are approximately 2-to-1.

A WARMER BASE STATE
In many ways, the weather of the 15 years before 2014 has resembled that of the mid-1940s to mid-1970s, the last prolonged period of a negative Pacific oscillation cycle, with drought in the American West and very few El Ninos, Patzert said.

The recent period saw several moderate La Nina events, a counterpart to El Nino defined as cooler than normal sea surface temperatures in the eastern and central tropical Pacific that dumps rain on Australia and Indonesia but leaves the Southwest United States dry, including episodes in 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2007-08 and 2010-11.

The warmer sea surface temperatures in the northern Pacific during the positive PDO phase tend to amplify El Nino’s effects, Trenbirth said.

Several scientists said the current El Nino could contribute to more positive PDO conditions at the moment and in the future.

“The key ingredient is the strong El Nino,” said NASA’s Veronica Nieves, noting that strong episodes have historically triggered decadal shifts. She has submitted a paper to an academic journal noting arguing that the Pacific may be in store for another 20 years or more of warmer sea surface temperatures.

To be sure, the two-year period of positive Pacific oscillation values that happened from 2002 to 2004, which saw weak and moderate El Niño’s, is still fresh in scientists’ minds, preventing them from being certain that the world is truly on the cusp of a decadal shift.

But so far in these past two years, the values have been more sharply positive than the 2002-04 streak. This has implications beyond El Nino: the recent decade has been referred to as a ‘hiatus’ in global warming, with the negative PDO value seen as limiting global temperature gains.

“If transitions back into positive, we’d see a resumption in these more rapid rates of global warming,” said Gerald Meehl, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. “Having that shift in the background base state means that the peaks of the El Nino are going to be higher.”