2017 is the Second Warmest Year on Record

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Media_Truth, Oct 23, 2017.

  1. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,794
    Likes Received:
    8,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's absurd.
     
  2. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Real world outcomes can be a struggle for folk!
     
  3. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,794
    Likes Received:
    8,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They certainly can.
     
  4. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good. You've admitted the problem, that's half the battle. The US does not have a record of adopting supply side economics. Its just a term used to convince the gullible right wingers (e.g. Reaganomics merely twinned tax reductions with higher military expenditure).

    Now we know that, where supply side economics is applied, the environmental effects aren't positive. Imagine, for example, the resources available for subsidising green technologies if we didn't have rent seeking energy companies skewing policy.
     
  5. Fenton Lum

    Fenton Lum Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2017
    Messages:
    6,127
    Likes Received:
    1,398
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The corporate state media machine now owned by 6 multinational corporations since Clinton deregulated the FCC will never allow any real discussion on any of this. Any protest like DAPL will be met with force and violence by the corporate state.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2017
  6. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,794
    Likes Received:
    8,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks for confirmation of your lack of understanding and history of US economics.
     
  7. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You forgot to supply an argument. Did Reaganomics involve tax reductions and military expenditure increases? Think carefully now!
     
  8. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,794
    Likes Received:
    8,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And again thanks for the confirmation. You have no idea what supply side economics consists of. Review and get back us.
     
  9. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again you didn't actually have an argument. It amuses me that you think that is a worthwhile strategy. Did Reaganomics involve tax reductions and military expenditure increases? Think carefully now!
     
  10. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,794
    Likes Received:
    8,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks again for the confirmation. You’v Mistaken me for someone who wants to have a discussion with someone who lacks an understanding of supply side economics.
     
  11. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thrice I've asked "Did Reaganomics involve tax reductions and military expenditure increases?" and you can't respond. Tut tut
     
  12. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How can you possibly say this after indicting proxy records of being dishonest? And how far back in time are we talking about here?

    Solar activity peaked 60 years ago and has been declining ever since. We've warmed 1.0C since then.

    No one is claiming that CO2 is the only cause of warming. Just that it is the primary cause (well that and CH4 and other gases) since the industrial revolution. The consensus is that solar activity has accounted for < 10% of the warming. There is an abundance of evidence that shows that anthroprogenic GHGs are the primary cause of the warming. But, if you don't accept that then what is the alternative?
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2017
  13. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I believe climate models (like CIMP5 and other general circulation models) actually do quite well with hindcasts staying within the 95% confidence envelope the majority of the time. The divergence between models and observations largely began around 2000 during "the pause". Now that "the pause" is over (presumably anyway) the divergence between prediction and observation may end as well. Only time can answer that question.
     
  14. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,794
    Likes Received:
    8,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How did those models handle the cooling phases ?? And why do those same models show only increasing temperatures going forward ??
     
  15. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,794
    Likes Received:
    8,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why does the rate of warming in the early 20th century match the rate of warming in the late 20th century with different CO2 rates of increase. And why did the LIA end ?? Just about everyone believes that human CO2 emissions contribute. That's the science. But the Iron Law of Climate Policy (RP Jr.) states that no energy policy which would significantly reduce CO2 emissions to effect a significant temperature effect is politically possible. And since the consensus of economic models shows that global warming is net beneficial for the next ~ 3 deg C and that is based on cooling costs using today's technology the best policy is to maximize economic growth and thus the capability to adapt. Bangladesh is an excellent example of this - look at the reduction in deaths from flooding in the last 100 years and the reason for that.
     
  16. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,794
    Likes Received:
    8,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not interested in playing you silly game in which you imply that Reaganomics consisted only of tax rate reductions and military spending increases. Come'on man - you can do better than that.
     
  17. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I have many scientific citings that can help this forum a lot.

    https://judithcurry.com/2017/10/06/jc-interview-hurricanes-and-global-warming/#more-23423

     
  18. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,794
    Likes Received:
    8,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Judith Curry was literally drummed out of Georgia Tech for her "denialist" tendencies. Roger Pielke Jr. was drummed out of climate science at the U of Colorado for the same reasons. Both were telling the truth. So much for academic freedom and the interest of the gov in the scientific method. BIG GOV got them.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2017
  19. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually Curry gave her side of the story. She makes huge dollars today doing hurricane predictions.

    Curry is quite accurate.
     
  20. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,794
    Likes Received:
    8,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good for her. I still follow and consult her blog. She unlike most in climate science is very fair.
     
  21. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have no beef with JC's view here. In fact, it's pretty much inline with the rest of her peers. Actually, I don't have a beef with most of her opinions.

    The thing that gets her in trouble is her unprofessional behavior. For example, she indicts her peers and the entirety of the recently federal climate report of being "deceptive" all because of a single sentence embedded in an 600+ page report. It's so petty that the proposed change is completely immaterial and doesn't change any of the conclusions...at all. And this is the one thing she hangs her hat on to call for a "red team" to investigate the researchers. Even if this critique were legit (which is debatable) she's not handling it in a professional manner. Actually, it's so ridiculous that if you and I were to handle a similar petty grievance in our own professional lives the way she is we'd be at risk of being fired. It's sad really because she often has good points that get lost because of her arrogant and demeaning attitude towards here peers.
     
  22. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,794
    Likes Received:
    8,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In no way does she "indict" anything or anyone. That's ridiculous.

    How does this :below: "indict" anyone ??



    https://judithcurry.com/2017/04/21/a-red-team-exercise-would-strengthen-climate-science/
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2017
  23. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    From her blog post "Steve Koonin: A Deceptive New Report on Climate". The report states:

    [Page 26, Line 6]
    "Global mean sea level (GMSL) has risen by about 7‐8 inches (about 16‐21 cm) since 1900, with about 3 of those inches (about 7 cm) occurring since 1993 (very high confidence)."

    Steve Koonin wants it changed to the following.

    "GMSL has risen 16‐21 cm since 1900, continuing a trend that began in the 19th century. The rate of rise has averaged 1.3 mm/yr since 1900, but has oscillated between about 0 and 2.5 mm/yr, with uncertainties of ±(1‐2) mm/yr. The rates since 1993 are at the high end of this range, but are not statistically different from those during the first half of the 20th Century."

    This is the deception that requires red-teaming the government. The critique itself is fine (though most experts appear to disagree with it). It's the way in which the critique was presented using terminology like "deceptive" and submitting it on October 10th. It's not even clear the government actually got the critique. This is completely unprofessional. If I presented critiques of projects in my professional life by indicting my colleagues of being "deceptive" and recommending that they be "red-teamed" at the end when the project is wrapping up on a public blog I would be shunned by my peers at the very least and if I showed a pattern of similar behavior I'd be fired. I don't know very much about JC's past, but if this is how she typically deals with her peers then it's almost certainly her behavior and not her work that got her pushed out.
     
  24. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,794
    Likes Received:
    8,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's ridiculous. The original sentence is deceptive and alarmist. The suggested revision states the trends and errors. The first does not.

    That is not the point of the red team - blue team suggestion. And there is no "indictment" of persons being inherently deceptive. Only a correct assessment of ambiguous wording which is not as precise as necessary. Have you ever been in a design review, product review, academic paper review ?? If people can't take criticism then they should retreat to safe spaces and never come out again.
     
  25. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    She does no harm to herself other than those pushing the dogma. She has long observed the alarmist claims that leave out the scientific truth and that is leaving out uncertainties and making unscientific assertions like the report does.

    Those pushing the dogma realize that most people will not understand what uncertainty means so push the worst case scenario in unscientific alarmist language.
     

Share This Page