Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DirtyThirdFrog

Chicago: Coldest 4 months on record

Recommended Posts

And you would still blame them for all your problems.

Why would I if there were no evidence of harm? That would be incredibly stupid, and it's a good example of the kind of thinking that is the problem here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duq thinks we are all idiots.

Not idiots. Just sad that the science can't be discussed without the political bullshit. Or that the political conversation can't be about the real, relevant issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did everyone see the recent discovery pointing toward a greenhouse gas explanation for the Permian extinction? Yes, rapid climate change doesn't snuff out all life, but it can snuff out a lot of it. And species who need a lot of energy to survive rarely come out of these episodes well.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA2U1KO20140331?irpc=932

It's just flat ignorant to presume to know what species will benefit or get wiped out by a given environmental change. And its exceedingly foolish to run this experiment if we can avoid it given how little certainty there is in the outcome.

As to the cold in Chicago and why global warming helped cause it ... its thermodynamics. Arctic is warming faster than tropics. Temperature difference between the two drives the jet stream. Jet stream helps isolate cold arctic air in northern latitudes. Weaker jet stream means a weaker barrier enforcing that separation. Warmer arctic air is still damn cold to us. It'd why noone lives up there.

And the evidence showing warming ... ice in the arctic, receding glaciation, rising sea levels, satellite data, geologic data, etc, is far more convincing than 4 months of cold in Chicago ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Warmer arctic air is still damn cold to us. It'd why noone lives up there.

And the evidence showing warming ... ice in the arctic, receding glaciation, rising sea levels, satellite data, geologic data, etc, is far more convincing than 4 months of cold in Chicago ...

1. Speak for yourself!

 

2. Far more convincing to Tony Watts??? I beg to differ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's like reading the benefits of corn consumption published by the Corn Farmers of America... might be a tadddddddd biased.

Why would the IPCC be biased like the CFA? Unlike the CFA, in the IPCC the writers all donate their time and in fact have to take time away from their own productive research and grant writing. The IPCC gets no financial benefit from their reports. The notion that scientists are into climate change for the money is one of the sillier notions you'll encounter should you take the time to go have coffee over at the Science Building. They are into it for the money about as much as the physicists who built the Bomb were into that exercise for money: That is hardly at all at any basic level. The problem itself was the driver. Many would have done it for free just for the chance to work on the problem.

 

If you want to make money, you do NOT go into basic climate science. There are much better places. Golf and baseball, for example. Hell. I have a young cousin who caddies for a major golfer who makes more than I make and makes near infinitely more than I made at his age--and I had top-of-the-line scholarships/fellowships/young researcher positions. Or biomedical/pharmaceutical research. Or for me, various industrial/organizational/testing type positions pay quite well.

 

In climate, various specialty forecasters can do quite a lot better than basic researchers for a lot less effort and hassle. We have a number here who do such work for the oil/marine industries, for example. J. Curry supplements her faculty income substantially that way, for example. OTOH, I know one guy from sailing who took a significant pay cut to get out of that work back into research again.

 

As one example, we pay our post grad  (ABD) students who work 60+ hours a week about 35% more than 40 hours per week minimum wage earners would get. They will only START to earn any money over that level when they are in their latest 20s early 30s. They are not in it for the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not idiots. Just sad that the science can't be discussed without the political bullshit. Or that the political conversation can't be about the real, relevant issues.

I think we agree here, but you have to admit, the scientists have allowed the debate to be corrupted by political forces. Too many people on both sides have seized on climate change as an opportunity to advance political agendas, some of which can be described as nefarious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we agree here, but you have to admit, the scientists have allowed the debate to be corrupted by political forces. Too many people on both sides have seized on climate change as an opportunity to advance political agendas, some of which can be described as nefarious.

I think you are right. But, meanwhile, I have lost track of what the political agendas have to do with climate change....but then a lot of political agendas are pretty hard to tie to reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we agree here, but you have to admit, the scientists have allowed the debate to be corrupted by political forces. Too many people on both sides have seized on climate change as an opportunity to advance political agendas, some of which can be described as nefarious.

I do not agree at all that the intentional misinformation and downright lying propaganda is equal between the scientific reports and peer-reviewed literature versus the blog/Fox/Forbes/WSJ "science" we see every day. To anyone with any knowledge of any aspect of the issues--mine being that I am, ahem, an expert in stat, for example--the difference is night and day. The example from WUWT that started this thread is precisely a good example of terrible stats inference that promotes a downright lying viewpoint, though I'm sure with high Bayesian significance that the original intent was more than a little to rabble-rouse for fun and enjoyment!

 

As much as there is another corrupted-by-political-forces "side" the greens are prone to misinformation and lying, but that is NOT in the science literature. That is in their own blogs/MSNBC/green pamphleteers/etc. 

 

Some scientists publish in multiple literatures. J Curry, for example, has published peer-reviewed work on why we'd expect more ice in Antarctica which she comes very near to denying/contradicting in some of her near-denier blog entries. Hansen the same from the other side. But no one has any real fight with either party in their peer-reviewed work as reflecting political anything: That work reflects the numbers as best they can be professionally interpreted as judged by panels of peers. This gets lost inside all the ad hominem propaganda sometimes on both of these more extreme people. There is some leakage, of course, between the three literatures. But not in central, important journals with high citation rates (about the best measure of what is found scientifically acceptable available at the moment).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you don't agree. If I said the sky was blue, you'd find 10,000 pages of Internet articles to prove my eyesight is bad.

But at least you slayed a huge straw man there. I'll let you find it, Mr. Omniscient.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you don't agree. If I said the sky was blue, you'd find 10,000 pages of Internet articles to prove my eyesight is bad.

But at least you slayed a huge straw man there. I'll let you find it, Mr. Omniscient.

If you said the sky was blue, you'd be agreeing with the physics of the situation as published for a couple of centuries now in the scientific literature. The mathematics of why the sky is blue is, shall we say, "settled science"!

 

The reason why the sky is blue has very strong relations to why global warming is occurring with excess greenhouse gases, BTW. They are both part and parcel of the same specific area of study

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fox News! Fox News!

God god almighty.

Fox simply does not report climate science accurately in the same way a number of other sources do not. It does report the memes you see in the denial blogs quite accurately.

 

If you don't believe me, ask anyone who understands the smallest amount of science. It really is obvious at the most basic of levels. That is not a political statement. Rather, this is a simple statement of comparing what Fox says versus what the peer reviewed literature says. You can check this for yourself by, for example, comparing the recent AAAS/Royal Science Academy statement on climate to the statements expressed on the release of that report on any recent broadcast.

 

As Duq noted, it would be nice to separate politics from fact sometimes: The sky really is blue and that is reasonably closely related to why excess heat is held back with increased CO2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NFF, my point all along was that the science often gets lost because both sides focus on social, economic and political agendas, so each side of this debate mistrusts the other.

You can rant about Fox News all you want and point fingers at the evil conservatives. I believe BOTH sides are preventing the science from winning.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NFF, my point all along was that the science often gets lost because both sides focus on social, economic and political agendas, so each side of this debate mistrusts the other.

You can rant about Fox News all you want and point fingers at the evil conservatives. I believe BOTH sides are preventing the science from winning.

I did not "rant" about Fox. I listed them in one set of sources from which we see a particular form a disinformation (Forbes is usually the worst in that list, not Fox, BTW) just like I listed a different set of sources from which we see a different, particular form of disinformation. I pointed out lying deniers equally as much as lying greens. I called no one evil, but lies probably are regardless of source. If that is a "rant", I just do not think we share the same definition of the word. It would appear that you define it as stating something that really bugs you.

 

The MAIN point, however is that it is incorrect to place the scientific literature on one political side and the denier blog literature on the other political side. In my opinion that is flat out wrong and I gave my reasons why above. There is another "side", a third one, which I agree does engage in disinformation and is most definitely political. My point is that would be the correct political divide to see. Basically you've matched up the wrong 2 players as the 2 sides. You may disagree with this position, but it is neither political nor a rant.

 

If you want a "rant" from me, get me going on subsidizing housing insurance for beach property in total defiance of any remote notion of free market principles and scientific principles. That drives me crazy--though of course since both "sides" do that particular action, it's probably not a good example for you. But my comments on that particular practice do in fact precisely fit the definition of a "rant". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't have any problem with politicians saying that we don't want to do anything to attempt to counteract the effects of climate change.  That is a political position that I can support or reject.  What frustrates me is the tilting at windmills to pretend it isn't happening instead of offering political responses (including no response at all).  I want to believe that the political leaders we elect do their best to deal with facts and data when forming their positions.  We are not seeing that here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we agree here, but you have to admit, the scientists have allowed the debate to be corrupted by political forces. Too many people on both sides have seized on climate change as an opportunity to advance political agendas, some of which can be described as nefarious.

Really, the only scientist I can think of who could be accused, with some evidence, of pushing a political/financial agenda is Hansen. Most of the political conflation on the pro-AGW side has been due to Gore, who obviously isn't a scientist, despite inventing the interwebs. As I've said before, Gore was at the same time the best and worst thing that could have possibly happened to spurring action on AGW. Because while he lent an lot of visibility to it, he also single handedly convinced half the country that the whole thing is a liberal plot to wrest power.

Part of the problem is what is perceived as fear mongering by the climatology community is that some of the potential outcomes are pretty scary, but they are uncertain. And , I think, the success we've had in the past dealing with potentially scary technological developments have led to a sense of security by the general population that the potentially scary thing was never a problem in the first place. Overpopulation, acid rain, ozone depletion, Y2K, were all real and scary (and not completely gone as problems) but technology mitigated the problems. Hopefully, technology will mitigate the future problems associated with AGW. But we've got to get serious as a society in investing in that technology and developing the infrastructure for it, rather than having political pissing matches over whether it is a problem at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really, the only scientist I can think of who could be accused, with some evidence, of pushing a political/financial agenda is Hansen. Most of the political conflation on the pro-AGW side has been due to Gore, who obviously isn't a scientist, despite inventing the interwebs. As I've said before, Gore was at the same time the best and worst thing that could have possibly happened to spurring action on AGW. Because while he lent an lot of visibility to it, he also single handedly convinced half the country that the whole thing is a liberal plot to wrest power.

Part of the problem is what is perceived as fear mongering by the climatology community is that some of the potential outcomes are pretty scary, but they are uncertain. And , I think, the success we've had in the past dealing with potentially scary technological developments have led to a sense of security by the general population that the potentially scary thing was never a problem in the first place. Overpopulation, acid rain, ozone depletion, Y2K, were all real and scary (and not completely gone as problems) but technology mitigated the problems. Hopefully, technology will mitigate the future problems associated with AGW. But we've got to get serious as a society in investing in that technology and developing the infrastructure for it, rather than having political pissing matches over whether it is a problem at all.

Hansen, like Curry keeps/kept the 2 spheres pretty separate. Though with Hansen retired he is more political than ever now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, most people recognize the macro-science of climate change, and it fits with most everyones knowledge of the history of the Earth.  The climate has constantly changed, often radically, during all of this planets' known existence.  Climate change has, is and will continue to happen. 

 

Does the human carbon footprint contribute to climate change?  Sure, as does every other variable in the biosphere of Earth.  Is the human carbon footprint the cause of the current recordings of change?  There's the rub. 

 

The deniers are fringe, just as the apocalyptic predicters are fringe. 

 

Many believe that God has set Earth in a special position within this Universe, a living planet (which includes aging and changing, and dying), and home to millions of types of living things, from long gone to currently here to future mutations. 

 

To me, it is hubris to think we small ants can fundamentally change the course of the planets life cycle by burning fossil remnants of a bygone age. 

 

 

One small ant can do little, but put 7 billion of them together, and they can move mountains.

 

 

 

 

Somebody famous said that.

 

 

 

 

 

I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One small ant can do little, but put 7 billion of them together, and they can move mountains.

Somebody famous said that.

I think.

That was The Bug's Life movie, wasn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was The Bug's Life movie, wasn't it?

 

 

Dunnow......never saw it.

 

 

 

 

It's on my list, just after Old School......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...