Did Obama Tell You Folks It Snowed While He Was In Alaska? No!

[threegoofs]

Hell -- very few folks gonna read that shit.. I already have read most of the non-political parts of the RECENT UN crapfests..

How about what folks were getting TOLD about Global Warming. To help you out here. I picked my favorite example of hysteria from thinkprogress -- c'mon --- admit you're a regular there.. REMEMBER they are correctly quoting the projections for back in 2009....

An introduction to global warming impacts: Hell and High Water

Two of the best recent analyses of what we are headed towards can be found here:

M.I.T. joins climate realists, doubles its projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1°C

Hadley Center: “Catastrophic” 5-7°C warming by 2100 on current emissions path

As Dr. Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice for the Met Office’s Hadley Centre explains on their website (here):
Contrast that with a world where no action is taken to curb global warming. Then, temperatures are likely to rise by 5.5 °C and could rise as high as 7 °C above pre-industrial values by the end of the century.
That likely rise corresponds to roughly 9°F globally and typically 40% higher than that over inland mid-latitudes (i.e. much of this country) — or well over 10°F.

[Note: The MIT rise is compared to 1980-1999 levels see study here). So you can add at least 0.5 C and 1.0°F for comparison with pre-industrial temperatures.]

Indeed, some of the best research on this has come from the Hadley Center, since it has one of the few models that incorporates many of the major carbon cycle feedbacks. In a 2003 Geophysical Research Letters (subs. req’d) paper, “Strong carbon cycle feedbacks in a climate model with interactive CO2 and sulphate aerosols,” the Hadley Center, the U.K.’s official center for climate change research, finds that the world would hit 1000 ppm in 2100 even in a scenario that, absent those feedbacks, we would only have hit 700 ppm in 2100. I would note that the Hadley Center, though more inclusive of carbon cycle feedbacks than most other models, still does not model most of the feedbacks above or any feedbacks from the melting of the tundra even though it is probably the most serious of those amplifying feedbacks.
So we must stabilize at 450 ppm or below — or risk what can only be called humanity’s self-destruction. Since the cost is maybe 0.11% of GDP per year — or probably a bit higher than that if we shoot for 350 ppm — the choice would seem clear. Now if only the scientific community and environmentalists and progressives could start articulating this reality cogently.

I blew up the part about the magic multipliers applied to the actual warming powers of CO2 that I just don't buy.
And the reference to the "TRIGGER" that is part of your VALUED theory,. Not mine.

Same way the UN is counting days to the inevitable -- irreversible demise of life as we know it..

And you try to tell me there IS NOW and ALWAYS HAS BEEN a CONSENSUS on all of this?? That's hysterical...

Again. Pop culture references.

I know science is hard to read. But lazy and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

So you think it's OK for the media and politicians to be complicit in misinforming the public? For our hapless leader to be WOEFULLY uninformed on the topic and directing a concerted govt paid propaganda campaign to achieve political goals supposedly based on the LATEST science?

This battle ain't fought in the literature. I'm positive of that. I've read enough of it. And if YOU HAD done the same, you would have realized that the ThinkProgress hysteria was FACTUALLY BASED on what the "science was saying" in 2009.. Sucks that you can't do that --- since you've already demonstrated who is intellectually lazy here with your dismissal of Marcott's explanation of temperature proxies..

Perhaps you'd like to point any FACTUAL errors in what was asserted back then in that article.. Or impeach ANY of their sources that you wish.

While I admire your devotion to non scientific sources discussing scientific topics, you might want to actually consider that your blog postings and 'hysteria' are just that.


The science is in the literature- there is no other place it exists by scientific convention. Just because you don't like the conclusions does not change the facts.

What FACTS in the 2009 thinkprogress propaganda were NOT backed by the "literature"??
Since you don't read it -- can't discuss it -- don't understand it --- could take awhile to get my question answered.. Eh?

Not sure. I don't read newspapers for scientific content like you do.

Why don't you ever cite science? Too hard?

Makes me wonder why you think you know more than scientists.

 

[flacaltenn]

Hell -- very few folks gonna read that shit.. I already have read most of the non-political parts of the RECENT UN crapfests..

How about what folks were getting TOLD about Global Warming. To help you out here. I picked my favorite example of hysteria from thinkprogress -- c'mon --- admit you're a regular there.. REMEMBER they are correctly quoting the projections for back in 2009....

An introduction to global warming impacts: Hell and High Water

Two of the best recent analyses of what we are headed towards can be found here:

M.I.T. joins climate realists, doubles its projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1°C

Hadley Center: “Catastrophic” 5-7°C warming by 2100 on current emissions path

As Dr. Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice for the Met Office’s Hadley Centre explains on their website (here):
Contrast that with a world where no action is taken to curb global warming. Then, temperatures are likely to rise by 5.5 °C and could rise as high as 7 °C above pre-industrial values by the end of the century.
That likely rise corresponds to roughly 9°F globally and typically 40% higher than that over inland mid-latitudes (i.e. much of this country) — or well over 10°F.

[Note: The MIT rise is compared to 1980-1999 levels see study here). So you can add at least 0.5 C and 1.0°F for comparison with pre-industrial temperatures.]

Indeed, some of the best research on this has come from the Hadley Center, since it has one of the few models that incorporates many of the major carbon cycle feedbacks. In a 2003 Geophysical Research Letters (subs. req’d) paper, “Strong carbon cycle feedbacks in a climate model with interactive CO2 and sulphate aerosols,” the Hadley Center, the U.K.’s official center for climate change research, finds that the world would hit 1000 ppm in 2100 even in a scenario that, absent those feedbacks, we would only have hit 700 ppm in 2100. I would note that the Hadley Center, though more inclusive of carbon cycle feedbacks than most other models, still does not model most of the feedbacks above or any feedbacks from the melting of the tundra even though it is probably the most serious of those amplifying feedbacks.
So we must stabilize at 450 ppm or below — or risk what can only be called humanity’s self-destruction. Since the cost is maybe 0.11% of GDP per year — or probably a bit higher than that if we shoot for 350 ppm — the choice would seem clear. Now if only the scientific community and environmentalists and progressives could start articulating this reality cogently.

I blew up the part about the magic multipliers applied to the actual warming powers of CO2 that I just don't buy.
And the reference to the "TRIGGER" that is part of your VALUED theory,. Not mine.

Same way the UN is counting days to the inevitable -- irreversible demise of life as we know it..

And you try to tell me there IS NOW and ALWAYS HAS BEEN a CONSENSUS on all of this?? That's hysterical...

Again. Pop culture references.

I know science is hard to read. But lazy and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

So you think it's OK for the media and politicians to be complicit in misinforming the public? For our hapless leader to be WOEFULLY uninformed on the topic and directing a concerted govt paid propaganda campaign to achieve political goals supposedly based on the LATEST science?

This battle ain't fought in the literature. I'm positive of that. I've read enough of it. And if YOU HAD done the same, you would have realized that the ThinkProgress hysteria was FACTUALLY BASED on what the "science was saying" in 2009.. Sucks that you can't do that --- since you've already demonstrated who is intellectually lazy here with your dismissal of Marcott's explanation of temperature proxies..

Perhaps you'd like to point any FACTUAL errors in what was asserted back then in that article.. Or impeach ANY of their sources that you wish.

While I admire your devotion to non scientific sources discussing scientific topics, you might want to actually consider that your blog postings and 'hysteria' are just that.


The science is in the literature- there is no other place it exists by scientific convention. Just because you don't like the conclusions does not change the facts.

What FACTS in the 2009 thinkprogress propaganda were NOT backed by the "literature"??
Since you don't read it -- can't discuss it -- don't understand it --- could take awhile to get my question answered.. Eh?

Not sure. I don't read newspapers for scientific content like you do.

Why don't you ever cite science? Too hard?

Makes me wonder why you think you know more than scientists.

Times like these I regret I didn't fight harder to retain the "negative rep" feature of the board.
It's reserved for the times that all you get is ad homs and dodging of the question..

We already TESTED your ability to understand the science on the Marcott deal. And on reading graphs. So we can't really go there. But I seriously want to know how you can deny the MASSIVE amount of dishonesty and propaganda that is spawned by the "science" and promulgated into the media and politics. And why these principled investigators don't come out and CORRECT misconceptions like Marcott did..

So if you're only gonna TRY to impeach me and my credentials -- and be dodgey.. You're no more use to your cause or this discussion and we're pretty much done...

 

[threegoofs]

Again. Pop culture references.

I know science is hard to read. But lazy and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

So you think it's OK for the media and politicians to be complicit in misinforming the public? For our hapless leader to be WOEFULLY uninformed on the topic and directing a concerted govt paid propaganda campaign to achieve political goals supposedly based on the LATEST science?

This battle ain't fought in the literature. I'm positive of that. I've read enough of it. And if YOU HAD done the same, you would have realized that the ThinkProgress hysteria was FACTUALLY BASED on what the "science was saying" in 2009.. Sucks that you can't do that --- since you've already demonstrated who is intellectually lazy here with your dismissal of Marcott's explanation of temperature proxies..

Perhaps you'd like to point any FACTUAL errors in what was asserted back then in that article.. Or impeach ANY of their sources that you wish.

While I admire your devotion to non scientific sources discussing scientific topics, you might want to actually consider that your blog postings and 'hysteria' are just that.


The science is in the literature- there is no other place it exists by scientific convention. Just because you don't like the conclusions does not change the facts.

What FACTS in the 2009 thinkprogress propaganda were NOT backed by the "literature"??
Since you don't read it -- can't discuss it -- don't understand it --- could take awhile to get my question answered.. Eh?

Not sure. I don't read newspapers for scientific content like you do.

Why don't you ever cite science? Too hard?

Makes me wonder why you think you know more than scientists.

Times like these I regret I didn't fight harder to retain the "negative rep" feature of the board.
It's reserved for the times that all you get is ad homs and dodging of the question..

We already TESTED your ability to understand the science on the Marcott deal. And on reading graphs. So we can't really go there. But I seriously want to know how you can deny the MASSIVE amount of dishonesty and propaganda that is spawned by the "science" and promulgated into the media and politics. And why these principled investigators don't come out and CORRECT misconceptions like Marcott did..

So if you're only gonna TRY to impeach me and my credentials -- and be dodgey.. You're no more use to your cause or this discussion and we're pretty much done...

Yeah. And you failed so bad with Marcott that it's kinda silly to engage you in a fight of your blogs vs. Nature articles.

 

[Crick]

What Marcott correction are you talking about FCT?