Jump to content

***Official OT MMCC/Global Warming Thread***

Recommended Posts

Willywoo    235

She describes the atmosphere in academia much as I envision it. Not too much different from a corporate culture. The powers that be have certain expectations and those expectations are to be filled by the underlings. When I read the Judith Curry blog, I immediately thought of the people who default to "conspiracy". Her blog and retirement notice do a pretty good job of describing how this shit happens. It's not a conspiracy, it's a culture and there is pressure with consequences which shape the research and the conclusions toward the outcome that is expected and desired by the people with the power over the research and the researchers' careers. She comes off as, not bitter or angry, just disappointed in the system that creates the sort of environment that discourages debates and differing opinions etc., and encourages a single direction, the opposite of my understanding of what academia is supposed to be about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dyzalot    89

Solar power is now cheaper than coal in some parts of the world. In less than a decade, it’s likely to be the lowest-cost option almost everywhere.

In 2016, countries from Chile to the United Arab Emirates broke records with deals to generate electricity from sunshine for less than 3 cents a kilowatt-hour, half the average global cost of coal power. Now, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Mexico are planning auctions and tenders for this year, aiming to drop prices even further. Taking advantage: Companies such as Italy’s Enel SpA and Dublin’s Mainstream Renewable Power, who gained experienced in Europe and now seek new markets abroad as subsidies dry up at home.

Since 2009, solar prices are down 62 percent, with every part of the supply chain trimming costs. That’s help cut risk premiums on bank loans, and pushed manufacturing capacity to record levels. By 2025, solar may be cheaper than using coal on average globally, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-03/for-cheapest-power-on-earth-look-skyward-as-coal-falls-to-solar

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

norcaljeff    2

Them damn scientists! They are only in it to save their jobs!

An iceberg expected to be one of the 10 largest ever recorded is ready to break away from Antarctica, scientists say.

A long-running rift in the Larsen C ice shelf grew suddenly in December and now just 20km of ice is keeping the 5,000 sq km piece from floating away.

Larsen C is the most northern major ice shelf in Antarctica.

Researchers based in Swansea say the loss of a piece a quarter of the size of Wales will leave the whole shelf vulnerable to future break-up.

Larsen C is about 350m thick and floats on the seas at the edge of West Antarctica, holding back the flow of glaciers that feed into it.

Researchers have been tracking the rift in Larsen C for many years, watching it with some trepidation after the collapse of Larsen A ice shelf in 1995 and the sudden break-up of the Larsen B shelf in 2002.

Oh no! What should we do?

Good.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

niptuck    74

She describes the atmosphere in academia much as I envision it. Not too much different from a corporate culture. The powers that be have certain expectations and those expectations are to be filled by the underlings. When I read the Judith Curry blog, I immediately thought of the people who default to "conspiracy". Her blog and retirement notice do a pretty good job of describing how this shit happens. It's not a conspiracy, it's a culture and there is pressure with consequences which shape the research and the conclusions toward the outcome that is expected and desired by the people with the power over the research and the researchers' careers. She comes off as, not bitter or angry, just disappointed in the system that creates the sort of environment that discourages debates and differing opinions etc., and encourages a single direction, the opposite of my understanding of what academia is supposed to be about.

Very well written. This is EXACTALLY the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

niptuck    74

Sorry norcal, even if you get the standard response of "well we have to Cut CO2 before it is too late" lame and meaningless response....

even if you get a response they won't tell you how that will help in ANY meaningful way. They will tell you more gov't power and regulation is somehow going to cool the Earf off to the 'right' tempature though....lame

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

norcaljeff    2

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

norv    15

as ive said, there is now toooooooo much money involved for any decent answers, everybody just damn lies to suit their agenda

tooooooo political

200w.gif#132

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tennis Bum    8

Then look at the process used to erase the hiatus. There are three sets of data measuring ocean temps. Two are state of the art systems (satellite and ocean array) that are consistent with each other... the third record was higher and is installed inside the engine cooling water intake on ships. Which would you use as a baseline to smooth (adjust) the other?

Cmon... this ain't rocket surgery. We're talking about elementary science.

I called out those errors at the time those "results" were put out. It was flawed... any high school student could've determined that given the full text of the paper. The question is... why can't liberals or even that scientific consensus see such clear graft and fraud? The only logical reason is an agenda driven conditioned response... or hypnosis I guess... lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oroville Dam in N. Cal has water going over the emergency spill way. They say this will be the wettest winter EVER in N. California. Since the drought was caused by global warming does that mean we are in global cooling now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dyzalot    89

There is a new paper out in the journal Climatic Change that takes a look into the issue of publication bias in the climate change literature. This is something that we have previously looked into ourselves. The results of our initial investigation (from back in 2010) were written up and published in the paper “Evidence for ‘Publication bias’ concerning global warming in Science and Nature” in which we concluded that there was an overwhelming propensity for Nature and Science—considered among the world’s leading scientific journals—to publish findings that concluded climate change was “worse than expected.” We noted the implications:

This has considerable implications for the popular perception of global warming science, for the nature of “compendia” of climate change research, such as the reports of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and for the political process that uses those compendia as the basis for policy…

 

The consequent synergy between [publication bias], public perception, scientific “consensus” and policy is very disturbing. If the results shown for Science and Nature are in fact a general character of the scientific literature concerning global warming, our policies are based upon a unidirectionally biased stream of new information, rather than one that has a roughly equiprobable distribution of altering existing forecasts or implications of climate change in a positive or negative direction. This bias exists despite the stated belief of the climate research community that it does not.

In their investigation into publication bias, the authors of the new paper, Christian Harlos, Tim C. Edgell, and Johan Hollander, looked more broadly across scientific journals (including articles from 31 different journals), but a bit more narrowly at the field of climate change, limiting themselves to a sub-set of articles that dealt with a marine response to climate change (they selected, via random sampling, 120 articles in total).

Harlos et al. were primarily interested in looking into whether or not there was a bias in these articles resulting from an under-reporting of non-significant results. This bias type is known as the “file drawer” problem—in which research findings that aren’t statistically significant are rarely published (and therefore sit in a “file drawer). This leads to an over- (and non-robust) estimate of the number of truly significant results. The “file drawer” problem has received a lot of attention in recent years (see here for example) and it continues to be an active research area.

From their examination, however, the Harlos team did not find firm evidence that the file-drawer-type bias was strongly manifest. But, importantly, they did find that several other types of bias were manifest, including bias in how scientific findings were being communicated:

However, our meta-analysis did find multiple lines of evidence of biases within our sample of articles, which were perpetuated in journals of all impact factors and related largely to how science is communicated: The large, statistically significant effects were typically showcased in abstracts and summary paragraphs, whereas the lesser effects, especially those that were not statistically significant, were often buried in the main body of reports. Although the tendency to isolate large, significant results in abstracts has been noted elsewhere (Fanelli 2012), here we provide the first empirical evidence of such a trend across a large sample of literature.

The authors note that, in particular, this bias was worst in the high impact journals (like Science and Nature), and that:

[O]ur results corroborate with others by showing that high impact journals typically report large effects based on small sample sizes (Fraley and Vazire 2014), and high impact journals have shown publication bias in climate change research (Michaels 2008, and further discussed in Radetzki 2010).

Ultimately, importantly, and significantly, they conclude:

…[M]ost audiences, especially non-scientific ones, are more likely to read article abstracts or summary paragraphs only, without perusing technical results. The onus to effectively communicate science does not fall entirely on the reader; rather, it is the responsibility of scientists and editors to remain vigilant, to understand how biases may pervade their work, and to be proactive about communicating science to non-technical audiences in transparent and un-biased ways. Ironically, articles in high impact journals are those most cited by other scientists; therefore, the practice of sensationalizing abstracts may bias scientific consensus too, assuming many scientists may also rely too heavily on abstracts during literature reviews and do not spend sufficient time delving into the lesser effects reported elsewhere in articles.

 

Despite our sincerest aim of using science as an objective and unbiased tool to record natural history, we are reminded that science is a human construct, often driven by human needs to tell a compelling story, to reinforce the positive, and to compete for limited resources—publication trends and communication bias is a proof of that.

These findings are yet another impelling reason (recall the problem with the bias in climate model tuning) why a re-examination of our government’s previous assessment reports of climate change (such as those underlying the EPA’s endangerment finding) should be undertaken by the new Administration at the soonest possible opportunity.

https://www.cato.org/blog/bias-climate-science

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to 2009, we were all supposed to be under water by now.

and our children wouldn't know what snow looked like. California would be a dust bowl. But they are trying to create that by tearing down the dams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spectacular news. Oroville dam in danger of failing. Evacuations ordered. Nice job Gov. Brown on your self inflicted drought.

Maybe they can get a picture of him standing in an empty reservoir, kind of like the picture of him standing in the snow barren sierras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

norcaljeff    2

Spectacular news. Oroville dam in danger of failing. Evacuations ordered. Nice job Gov. Brown on your self inflicted drought.

Maybe they can get a picture of him standing in an empty reservoir, kind of like the picture of him standing in the snow barren sierras.

environdonks must be happy. dams are bad. #Fishies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

norcaljeff    2

nice. in b4 "Why do you hate clean water? Trump emphasizing clean air and water and not pie in the sky "combatting global warming" nonsense.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/27/politics/trump-climate-change-executive-order/index.html

A White House official briefed on the plan said Monday the administration believes the government can both "serve the environment and increase energy independence at the same time" by urging the EPA for focus on what the administration believes is its core mission: Clean air and clean water.

More important than regulating climate change, the official said, is protecting American jobs.

"It is an issue that deserves attention," the official said of climate change. "But I think the President has been very clear that he is not going to pursue climate change policies that put the US economy at risk. It is very simple."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nice. in b4 "Why do you hate clean water? Trump emphasizing clean air and water and not pie in the sky "combatting global warming" nonsense.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/27/politics/trump-climate-change-executive-order/index.html

A White House official briefed on the plan said Monday the administration believes the government can both "serve the environment and increase energy independence at the same time" by urging the EPA for focus on what the administration believes is its core mission: Clean air and clean water.

More important than regulating climate change, the official said, is protecting American jobs.

"It is an issue that deserves attention," the official said of climate change. "But I think the President has been very clear that he is not going to pursue climate change policies that put the US economy at risk. It is very simple."

These little things are huge and help out the average American more than you can imagine. This is why trump is so successful. Helping out everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again liberals are blaming the drought in CA on global warming. Gov. Moonbeam just declared the emergency over. Record rain falls. And I thought it was curtains for California becuae of all the global warming talk.

Good article, but they blame global warming and are already blaming future droughts on global warming and of course Trump. Never mind their refusal to build more damns. The next drought will be self induced.

Just another global warming prediction that was proven false.

http://gizmodo.com/look-at-the-profound-difference-between-californias-dro-1794335536

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JustALurker    3

I still blame the flooding in Bhutan on global warming. Quite sad as they have zero net emissions but are extremely affected. I blame the melting caps on warming. I blame the fact that Miami beach had to spend loads of taxpayer money on huge pumps and raise up roads to keep them out of the water on global warming. I don't particularly know what the Cali thing is all about but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MiamiNole    0

step one as a country would be to turn Iowa into the commune it always should have been. A natural oak-savanna biome with some of the best soils on earth that we turned into a giant corn field because as a Christian nation we are great stewards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JustALurker    3

I'll wait

would you listen if I told you? Previous conversations in this thread would suggest otherwise. Personally, I don't care all that much as I'm not having any kids and my future will be just fine. However, there are probably better options of making changes earlier rather than later and save trillions of tax dollars...then again, I have a non-taxable income as well so... meh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


    • Accolades & Cashes

  • Top 10 Ranked Players

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.