Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 106

Thread: Arctic

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oscar Wilde View Post
    Well now, whatta "we" gonna do 'bout this?

    What can "we" do 'bout this here TonyM, in which there'll be any noticeable, appreciable change in the next ... century?

    What can "we" do to bring back the dinosaurs Tony?

    O.W.
    I would start with what Secretary of State designate Tillerson recently said in support of a carbon tax --

    In doing so, we must continue to lower emissions. At ExxonMobil, we share the view that the risks of climate change are serious and warrant thoughtful action. Addressing these risks requires broad-based, practical solutions around the world. Importantly, as a result of the Paris agreement, both developed and developing countries are now working together to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, while recognizing differing national responsibilities, capacities and circumstances. In our industry, the best hope for the future is to enable and encourage long-term investments in both proven and new technologies, while supporting effective policies.

    Which is what we are doing. We have long supported a carbon tax as the best policy of those being considered. Replacing the hodge-podge of current, largely ineffective regulations with a revenue-neutral carbon tax would ensure a uniform and predictable cost of carbon across the economy. It would allow market forces to drive solutions. It would maximize transparency, reduce administrative complexity, promote global participation and easily adjust to future developments in our understanding of climate science as well as the policy consequences of these actions.

    source: prepared remarks for Tillerson's 2016 speech at an annual Oil & Money conference, which you can find at http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/c...gy-environment


    Others might have additional proposals.
    Last edited by TonyM; 12-28-2016 at 08:20 AM.
    Founding Member, Ministry of Truth

  2. #2
    breezy's Avatar
    breezy is offline Tree of Liberty Benefactor
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Behind enemy lines
    Posts
    40,623

    Default

    100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering

    Posted on December 28, 2016 by tonyheller

    Climate Central just ran this piece, which the Washington Post picked up on. They claimed the US was “overwhelmingly hot” in 2016, and temperatures have risen 1,5°F since the 19th century.

    The first problem with their analysis is that the US had very little hot weather in 2016. The percentage of hot days was below average, and ranked 80th since 1895. Only 4.4% of days were over 95°F, compared with the long term average of 4.9%. Climate Central is conflating mild temperatures with hot ones.


    They also claim US temperatures rose 1.5°F since the 19th century, which is what NOAA shows.

    The problem with the NOAA graph is that it is fake data. NOAA creates the warming trend by altering the data. The NOAA raw data shows no warming over the past century


    The adjustments being made are almost exactly 1.5°F, which is the claimed warming in the article.


    The adjustments being correlate almost perfectly with atmospheric CO2. NOAA is adjusting the data to match global warming theory. This is known as PBEM (Policy Based Evidence Making.)


    The hockey stick of adjustments since 1970 is due almost entirely to NOAA fabricating missing station data. In 2016, more than 42% of their monthly station data was missing, so they simply made it up. This is easy to identify because they mark fabricated temperatures with an “E” in their database.


    When presented with my claims of fraud, NOAA typically tries to arm wave it away with these two complaints.

    1. They use gridded data and I am using un-gridded data.
    2. They “have to” adjust the data because of Time Of Observation Bias and station moves.

    Both claims are easily debunked. The only effect that gridding has is to lower temperatures slightly. The trend of gridded data is almost identical to the trend of un-gridded data.


    Time of Observation Bias (TOBS) is a real problem, but is very small. TOBS is based on the idea that if you reset a min/max thermometer too close to the afternoon maximum, you will double count warm temperatures (and vice-versa if thermometer is reset in the morning.) Their claim is that during the hot 1930’s most stations reset their thermometers in the afternoon.

    This is easy to test by using only the stations which did not reset their thermometers in the afternoon during the 1930’s. The pattern is almost identical to that of all stations. No warming over the past century. Note that the graph below tends to show too much warming due to morning TOBS.


    NOAA’s own documents show that the TOBS adjustment is small (0.3°F) and goes flat after 1990.


    Gavin Schmidt at NASA explains very clearly why the US temperature record does not need to be adjusted.
    You could throw out 50 percent of the station data or more, and you’d get basically the same answers.

    One recent innovation is the set up of a climate reference network alongside the current stations so that they can look for potentially serious issues at the large scale – and they haven’t found any yet.
    NOAA has always known that the US is not warming.

    All of the claims in the Climate Central article are bogus. The US is not warming and 2016 was not a hot year in the US. It was a very mild year.

    http://realclimatescience.com/2016/1...ata-tampering/

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Lapland, TN
    Posts
    13,403

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TonyM View Post
    I would start with what Secretary of State designate Tillerson recently said in support of a carbon tax --

    Addressing these risks requires broad-based, practical solutions

    .... We have long supported a carbon tax as the best policy of those being considered. Replacing the hodge-podge of current, largely ineffective regulations with a revenue-neutral carbon tax would ensure a uniform and predictable cost of carbon across the economy. It would allow market forces to drive solutions. It would maximize transparency, reduce administrative complexity, promote global participation and easily adjust to future developments in our understanding of climate science as well as the policy consequences of these actions.
    Babbling bull$h!t ... I see a theme but no specific problem identified accompanied by no solution(s) provided. Gotta have one to have the other ....

    Now I would offer that if there is to be any effort expended in any meaningful manner in regards to our environment, the concern be directed to the quality of our air, our water, our soil. As to temperatures, "science" has shown the earth to have experienced extremes that are cyclical and critters have either adapted or not and those that have, we run over with our vehicles or shoot for fun.

    Future development of understanding? Seriously?

    Climate science has been a "study" since man experienced the first raindrop, the first gust of wind. It's how "we've" come to dedicating 30 minutes or better of animated bobblehead babbling to describe an environmental condition in which anyone with any sense can determine for themselves in about 30 seconds or less.

    Climate science? Using natural phenomena to spook the sheep by exploiting their apathy and ignorance.

    O.W.


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,343

    Default

    Is it any wonder Arctic sea ice is doing so bad? 925 mb temps from 70°N-90°N were off the charts.

    Founding Member, Ministry of Truth

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,343

    Default

    Current Arctic sea ice extent remains at a record low for the date (JAXA)... unfortunately, increasing warmth in Atlantic sector next week

    Founding Member, Ministry of Truth

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,343

    Default

    Update -- Global Sea Ice is still plummeting, as of Dec 2016



    http://edmdigest.com/preparedness/po...urrent-update/
    Founding Member, Ministry of Truth

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,343

    Default

    Arctic sea ice coverage in the central #Arctic basin is tanking. It is now below the lowest point since mid October.

    Founding Member, Ministry of Truth

  8. #8
    breezy's Avatar
    breezy is offline Tree of Liberty Benefactor
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Behind enemy lines
    Posts
    40,623

    Default

    Any "calculations" when NYC goes under water???

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by breezy View Post
    Any "calculations" when NYC goes under water???
    Yes


    https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sl...?stnid=8518750
    Founding Member, Ministry of Truth

  10. #10
    breezy's Avatar
    breezy is offline Tree of Liberty Benefactor
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Behind enemy lines
    Posts
    40,623

    Default

    Is NASA going back on its analysis here?

    Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay.../#1606a3e632da

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •