2014 was definitely the hottest year on record

[MuyLocoNC]

This is funny...CSIRO axes their climate division.

And guess who is crying the blues about the science not being settled now!
The irony...

http://joannenova.com.au/2016/02/csiro-wipes-out-climate-division-350-scientists-to-go-since-its-beyond-debate-who-needs-em/

Freaking awesome.

300 - 350 climate scientists @ $250,000 per year. It's a good thing it's not about the money, $90+ million can go elsewhere, now that the debate is settled.

How many billions of dollars can we recover annually, by taking all the MMGW conspirators off the government dole? Think how many three year studies we can fund to investigate programs to train solar panel repairman that no one is hiring. Oh wait, no one has heard shit about that study since the millions were spent on it. Never mind.

 

[Fogdog]

Global warming? Isn't the earth cooling? That's what the satellite data says. Get ready for the next ice age. No need for additional information. Just focus on what you agree with. No confirmation bias in that.

http://climatecrocks.com/2016/02/05/arctic-ice-hits-new-january-low/

 

[Fogdog]

This is funny...CSIRO axes their climate division.

And guess who is crying the blues about the science not being settled now!
The irony...

http://joannenova.com.au/2016/02/csiro-wipes-out-climate-division-350-scientists-to-go-since-its-beyond-debate-who-needs-em/

No point in paying for research if you aren't going to use it.

 

[heckler73]

No point in paying for research if you aren't going to use it.

In line with that reasoning, Gavin Schmidt et al. should be axed, too.
Essentially anyone doing "climate research" on the gov't dime is now superfluous.
Think about that carefully. You're agreeing--by proxy--the US is throwing away ~$2Bn/yr on useless research (according to GAO data and precluding the ~$8Bn being funneled into Climate Tech grants, and ~$1Bn tossed to "international assistance" whatever the fuck that is).
If not, then you're saying the science isn't settled.
That's a bit of a dilemma, eh?

Or are you implying the research conducted by CSIRO is of such low quality it should not have been funded in the first place? If so, then what makes other climate research superior?
If this action propagates around the world, we're going to see some serious bellowing when it gets to the US. Then we'll really see some "well-financed" media pieces trying to drum up the fear.
But that will be justified spending, right? Much better than some Bogan dilettantes pretending to be "scientists".

 

[Fogdog]

In line with that reasoning, Gavin Schmidt et al. should be axed, too.
Essentially anyone doing "climate research" on the gov't dime is now superfluous.
Think about that carefully. You're agreeing--by proxy--the US is throwing away ~$2Bn/yr on useless research (according to GAO data and precluding the ~$8Bn being funneled into Climate Tech grants, and ~$1Bn tossed to "international assistance" whatever the fuck that is).
If not, then you're saying the science isn't settled.
That's a bit of a dilemma, eh?

Or are you implying the research conducted by CSIRO is of such low quality it should not have been funded in the first place? If so, then what makes other climate research superior?
If this action propagates around the world, we're going to see some serious bellowing when it gets to the US. Then we'll really see some "well-financed" media pieces trying to drum up the fear.
But that will be justified spending, right? Much better than some Bogan dilettantes pretending to be "scientists".

You missed the snark. We need a snark font. You seem to be celebrating the axing of research jobs in Au. I don't understand why. So I made a snarky response.

 

[UncleBuck]

Confirmation bias cuts both ways!

no, it actually doesn't. the overwhelming and vast majority of information coming from climate scientists confirms manmade global warming.

only a very small fringe of idiocy supports your denialist nonsense.

to believe the stupid shit that you do, one would have to actively practice confirmation bias. to believe the peer reviewed science that people like i do, all one has to do is look at what scientists are saying.

 

[UncleBuck]

Essentially anyone doing "climate research" on the gov't dime is now superfluous....If not, then you're saying the science isn't settled.

is this the newest line of denialist idiocy that dumb people think is smart logic?

it's not.

since manmade global warming is settled science, we now need to study and monitor its advance, its effects, and the solutions to it.

for example, when it is 4 degrees celsius warmer than it was 150 years ago, which crops will not be able to withstand the extra heat, and which cool season crops can be grown in new places? to what extent will the oceans rise and by when so that people can be relocated? what effect will warmer temperatures have on the plankton development, which powers much of the food chain in the ocean?

it seems that a "scientist" (LOL) like you would take these simple things into consideration. the fact that you don't makes me think you are some retarded mouthpiece denialist fucktard.

but who knows, you may just think what you said is good logic. but i won't insult you by saying that.

 

[Bugeye]

no, it actually doesn't. the overwhelming and vast majority of information coming from climate scientists confirms manmade global warming.

only a very small fringe of idiocy supports your denialist nonsense.

to believe the stupid shit that you do, one would have to actively practice confirmation bias. to believe the peer reviewed science that people like i do, all one has to do is look at what scientists are saying.

Then please explain why the troposphere is not warming in line with model expectations. RSS and UAH are now very close and in line with weather balloons.

 

[Fogdog]

Then please explain why the troposphere is not warming in line with model expectations. RSS and UAH are now very close and in line with weather balloons.

Your mistake is in simply passing on the same refuted drivel as fact without checking yourself. The incorrect conclusions made by Christy and Spencer have taken on a life of their own.

The measurements were not in line because of error used in converting output from the satellite into a temperature reading. It was exactly the same topic that I posted earlier in the videos. I realize that a faux skeptic like you would just scream confirmation bias and not bother to think about it. However, because you asked, here is something that explains the "discrepancy". I cut and pasted a portion of the discussion on this from a web site. To access the full discussion, I included the link below. Also in bold highlight is text from this page that refutes what you said exactly.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama published a series of papers starting about 1990 that implied the troposphere was warming at a much slower rate than the surface temperature record and climate models indicated Spencer and Christy (1992).One early version of their data even showed a cooling trend (Christy et al. 1995).

Several groups of scientists began looking closely at this discrepancy. With so many other pieces of evidence indicating warming, it seemed unlikely that the troposphere would not be warming. Errors were discovered in the methods the UAH group used to adjust the data.

To understand what was wrong: The satellites must pass over the same spot on Earth at the same time each day to get a temperature average. In reality the time the satellite passes drifts slightly as the orbit slowly decays. To compensate for this and other orbital changes a series of adjustments must be applied to the data.

The MSU satellite data is collected from a number of satellites orbiting & providing daily coverage of some 80% of the Earth's surface. Each day the orbits shift and 100% coverage is achieved every 3-4 days. The microwave sensors on the satellites do not directly measure temperature, but rather radiation given off by oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere. The intensity of this radiation is directly proportional to the temperature of the air and is therefore used to estimate global temperatures.

There are also differences between the sensors that were onboard each satellite and merging this data to one continuous record is not easily done. It was nearly 13 years after the orginal papers that the adjustments that Christy and Spencer originally applied were found to be incorrect. Mears et al. (2003) and Mears et al. (2005).

When the correct adjustments to the data were applied the data matched much more closely the trends expected by climate models. It was also more consistent with the historical record of troposphere temperatures obtained from weather balloons. As better methods to adjust for biases in instruments and orbital changes have been developed, the differences between the surface temperature record and the troposphere have steadily decreased.

At least two other groups keep track of the tropospheric temperature using satellites and they all now show warming in the troposphere that is consistent with the surface temperature record. Furthermore data also shows now that the stratosphere is cooling as predicted by the physics.

Hmm, the troposphere is warming too. More confirmation bias?

 

[Bugeye]

Your mistake is in simply passing on the same refuted drivel as fact without checking yourself. The incorrect conclusions made by Christy and Spencer have taken on a life of their own.

The measurements were not in line because of error used in converting output from the satellite into a temperature reading. It was exactly the same topic that I posted earlier in the videos. I realize that a faux skeptic like you would just scream confirmation bias and not bother to think about it. However, because you asked, here is something that explains the "discrepancy". I cut and pasted a portion of the discussion on this from a web site. To access the full discussion, I included the link below. Also in bold highlight is text from this page that refutes what you said exactly.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama published a series of papers starting about 1990 that implied the troposphere was warming at a much slower rate than the surface temperature record and climate models indicated Spencer and Christy (1992).One early version of their data even showed a cooling trend (Christy et al. 1995).

Several groups of scientists began looking closely at this discrepancy. With so many other pieces of evidence indicating warming, it seemed unlikely that the troposphere would not be warming. Errors were discovered in the methods the UAH group used to adjust the data.

To understand what was wrong: The satellites must pass over the same spot on Earth at the same time each day to get a temperature average. In reality the time the satellite passes drifts slightly as the orbit slowly decays. To compensate for this and other orbital changes a series of adjustments must be applied to the data.

The MSU satellite data is collected from a number of satellites orbiting & providing daily coverage of some 80% of the Earth's surface. Each day the orbits shift and 100% coverage is achieved every 3-4 days. The microwave sensors on the satellites do not directly measure temperature, but rather radiation given off by oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere. The intensity of this radiation is directly proportional to the temperature of the air and is therefore used to estimate global temperatures.

There are also differences between the sensors that were onboard each satellite and merging this data to one continuous record is not easily done. It was nearly 13 years after the orginal papers that the adjustments that Christy and Spencer originally applied were found to be incorrect. Mears et al. (2003) and Mears et al. (2005).

When the correct adjustments to the data were applied the data matched much more closely the trends expected by climate models. It was also more consistent with the historical record of troposphere temperatures obtained from weather balloons. As better methods to adjust for biases in instruments and orbital changes have been developed, the differences between the surface temperature record and the troposphere have steadily decreased.

At least two other groups keep track of the tropospheric temperature using satellites and they all now show warming in the troposphere that is consistent with the surface temperature record. Furthermore data also shows now that the stratosphere is cooling as predicted by the physics.

Hmm, the troposphere is warming too. More confirmation bias?

Great, now plot the troposheric warming against model expectations for tropospheric warming and you'll have caught up with me. The corrections to the satellite data are not some secret.

 

[Fogdog]

Great, now plot the troposheric warming against model expectations for tropospheric warming and you'll have caught up with me. The corrections to the satellite data are not some secret.

Since you have this, why not show it? You guys keep talking about the satellite data as if that's all there is. Quite a few other events are relevant too. I can't believe somebody capable of reading still thinks that global warming is a hoax. Show me more than snark and maybe I'll understand.

 

[Bugeye]

Since you have this, why not show it? You guys keep talking about the satellite data as if that's all there is. Quite a few other events are relevant too. I can't believe somebody capable of reading still thinks that global warming is a hoax. Show me more than snark and maybe I'll understand.

Never said it was a hoax. I believe in AGW, just not a big believer in the IPCC worst case or mid case. I think the low end of projections is most likely.

 

[Fogdog]

That's some pretty good agreement, coming from a computational model.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

Now, on to the so-called "hiatus".

In this this article: http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures

The author breaks down
The possible causes for the model/observation discrepancies can be grouped into several categories:

• Measurement Errors\
• Errors in Model “Forcing”
• Internal Variability (Random Fluctuations) in the Climate System
• Errors in Fundamental Model Physics

Nobody has shown that there are errors in the fundamental model physics. The answer lies in the other three sources of error. None of which provide valid criticism in the science or conclusion that there is global warming and it will continue.

So, I say again to @Bugeye and @heckler73 , all I see from you guys is old, refuted rehashed mistake-riddled conclusions from one data set. Can you do better than that?

 

[Fogdog]

Never said it was a hoax. I believe in AGW, just not a big believer in the IPCC worst case or mid case. I think the low end of projections is most likely.

Low end projections, which are? Any justifications for throwing out the mid-case projection?

Is this what you have in mind?

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/67

Even the low end projection is a disaster. Its not really a case of how much, its how long for the earth to warm to the tipping point to many ecosystems on the planet. This rapid rise, even in the longest case is 100 years to 4 degree C temperature rise globally. This is a fucking disaster to many ecosystems because evolutionary adaptation is too slow, at least for most of the larger life forms.

 

[Bugeye]

Low end projections, which are? Any justifications for throwing out the mid-case projection?

Is this what you have in mind?

Even the low end projection is a disaster. Its not really a case of how much, its how long for the earth to warm to the tipping point to many ecosystems on the planet.

I'm referring to IPCC consensus range. I don't completely discount even the worst case scenario, I just don't assign it a high probability, maybe 5% chance. I'll give mid case about 15-20% chance.

 

[Fogdog]

I'm referring to IPCC consensus range. I don't completely discount even the worst case scenario, I just don't assign it a high probability, maybe 5% chance. I'll give mid case about 15-20% chance.

I'm looking at the best case e.g. slowest projected rate of rise and thinking climate science denial is borderline sociopath. And then you guys yuk it up about cutting funding to Australia research. Right wingers are doing their level best to dismantle research in the US.

That said, at least you are not denying the science or that AGW is real, you are simply willing to disbelieve the worst case projections. In this regard, we agree.

Even the low end projection is a disaster. Its not really a case of how much, its how long for the earth to warm to the tipping point to many ecosystems on the planet. This rapid rise, even in the longest case is 100 years to 4 degree C temperature rise globally. This is a fucking disaster to many ecosystems because evolutionary adaptation is too slow, at least for most of the larger life forms.

I'm glad you didn't come out and say we are headed into an ice age, like some have said.

 

[UncleBuck]

the troposphere is not warming in line with model expectations.

yawn.

it's settled. putting up the latest roy spencer nonsense is tiresome.

human activities are causing global warming.

 

[UncleBuck]

I'm referring to IPCC consensus range. I don't completely discount even the worst case scenario, I just don't assign it a high probability, maybe 5% chance. I'll give mid case about 15-20% chance.

and this is based on your doctoral degree in climate science?

LOL

 

[Fogdog]

So, who you going to listen to?
Cruz likes McLean -- quotes him as gospel.
So does Limbaugh.
@MuyLocoNC listens to voices and carps but makes no sense at all, and is representative of the wing nut community the US is currently afflicted with.
IPCC has a better track record but admits it can do better.

Its possible to be a skeptic without denying the science, which I'd say describes most of the climate science community that are convinced AGW is a reality. Folks like Cruz, Limbaugh and MLNC are more like the Luddites of the past. McLean, well, he's doing quite well feeding his own hoax to the Geo-Luddites and will continue to do so as long as they keep funding going his way. I think he's corrupt.

How are the contrarians doing compared to the real scientists in the IPCC?

Isn't it obvious?

 

[Bugeye]

and this is based on your doctoral degree in climate science?

LOL

Just my opinion. But I did some statistical modeling in a past career and understand that the most sensitive fucking variable in all of the models is the feedback variable for water vapor, which curiously enough is still not all that well understood. Do you deny this?

The greatest amount of warming is predicted to occur in the troposphere, over the tropics. The best measurement tools for this region are weather balloons and satellites. Do you deny this?

LOL back at ya.