On this they blame the Chinese and Indians.

6/19/2015 7:43:27 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/08/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-says-obama-is-dead-wrong-on-global-warming/

7/8/2015 4:23:26 PM

Cool. When and what was the noble prize for and how does it relate to global warming?

(Hint: I know the answer)

7/8/2015 4:27:33 PM

Quote :

"how does it relate to global warming?"

Quote :

"Quantum tunnelling or tunneling (see spelling differences) refers to the quantum mechanical phenomenon where a particle tunnels through a barrier that it classically could not surmount. This plays an essential role in several physical phenomena, such as the nuclear fusion that occurs in main sequence stars like the Sun."

Pretty sure the Sun relates to climate change

7/8/2015 6:23:25 PM

lol

7/8/2015 8:01:37 PM

Obama probably understands how the sun works better than the nobel prize winning physicist

Of course I wouldn't trust the physicist to know all the ebbs and flows of a 4.5 billion year old planet's climate either

[Edited on July 8, 2015 at 9:24 PM. Reason : grammar]

7/8/2015 9:20:59 PM

Cool. Let's continue pumping shit into the air!

7/9/2015 1:37:21 PM

Quantum tunneling is weird shit. And the "simple" equations for it take up more than a sheet of paper. That is all

7/9/2015 11:20:14 PM

It's the older scientists that speak out against the "consensus", mostly since they're old and don't give a fuck about being shunned and kicked out of scientific organizations, think tanks, etc.

7/10/2015 1:14:46 PM

because there are no opportunities for them to be propped up by deniers

7/10/2015 1:16:45 PM

To be fair, this guy admitted he did a half day of research on the subject so you know he knows what he is talking about.

Similarly, I watched The Apprentice once so I'm an expert on the GOP primary race.

7/10/2015 2:12:57 PM

He's wrong. All the evidence proves he's wrong. The scientific consensus agrees he's wrong. We really should stop caring about people saying wrong stuff. Anyone who doesn't believe in AGW at this point is either hopelessly retarded or somehow personally benefiting from destroying the earth.

7/10/2015 4:26:07 PM

Maybe we need some global warming now?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html

7/11/2015 1:10:32 PM

^^this is the problem. People who present evidence that goes against what "everyone knows is true" are automatically called nut jobs, retarded, and such by the liberal masses. This is not scientific discourse. Orwellian indoctrination maybe.

[Edited on July 11, 2015 at 7:14 PM. Reason : ]

7/11/2015 7:13:33 PM

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/7/9/exxon-knew-of-human-role-in-climate-change-in-1981.html

Indoctrination indeed. There is a special corner in hell for these people (just ask Pope Frank).

7/11/2015 9:27:40 PM

Can anyone access the full text of the NOAA paper and the one recently published in either Science or Nature that dispels the myth of the "global warming pause"?

7/11/2015 10:46:35 PM

global warming seems legit as fuck the last few weeks



[Edited on July 12, 2015 at 12:13 AM. Reason : and next week too]

7/12/2015 12:13:22 AM

It's hot!

7/12/2015 4:39:04 PM

Jesus would never let some retarded shit like global warming to occur because he loves us too much.

[Edited on July 13, 2015 at 12:37 AM. Reason : H]



[Edited on July 13, 2015 at 12:40 AM. Reason : J]

7/13/2015 12:37:20 AM

So is this new impending mini ice age the global warming crowd's way to cover up the fact that they're full of crap?

Hey, the earth is warming. It's our fault. But lets forget about that for the next 15 years or so, because we're gonna be going through a mini ice age.

7/14/2015 7:15:55 PM

Mini ice age? Sounds like more media hysteria, such as the last time they said it.

7/14/2015 8:49:17 PM

Until someone can produce a [working] link to the actual journal article as well as the two that dispel the myth about the "global warming pause", then it's pointless to take stock in any of the ensuing new stories.

7/14/2015 9:52:28 PM

I dunno about this so called "pause" we had record setting weather for both intensity and duration of high temperatures plus the dry season started a month early in Portland.

We haven't had measurable rain in the Willamette valley since June 3rd!!!

7/14/2015 10:12:41 PM

Weather != climate

7/14/2015 10:17:12 PM

There is a particular faction of the uninformed populace (principally on the Right) that contends there was a "pause" or "hiatus" spanning either 10 years or 15 years or 18 years or whatever arbitrary (and ultimately false) time frame Fox News, et al. fed them in order to abrogate reality.

7/14/2015 10:19:29 PM

Quote :

"Weather != climate"

Well the climate deniers are the first to throw out this fallacy every time we get hit by a massive arctic front or the previous 2 summers which were abnormally cool on the midatlantic and SE seaboard.

The weather here has been a continuing trend over several years from my understanding. Plus when you take into account the global average.

7/15/2015 12:27:02 AM

yep. my favorite was when Sandy was cited as irrefutable proof of global warming.

and there has been one main paper (in june maybe) that claims to have "debunked" the pause... and guess how they did it? they revised data and ignored entire data sets that didn't fit with their "corrections" (which were pretty much the majority of the data sources that have been consistently used over many decades). sound familiar?



[Edited on July 15, 2015 at 12:57 AM. Reason : and for the record, i don't deny that humans can affect the climate. just hate the hypocrisy. ]

7/15/2015 12:44:20 AM

There are two papers out actually. The one in June was conducted by NOAA which corrected buoy temperatures by accounting for surface heat dispersion that was not found at depths measured by ships. A second paper that came to the same to the same conclusions is found in either Science or Nature just within the last few weeks.

Before dismissing their findings, I would encourage the reading of the actual study (if it can be found online without costing $climate).

7/15/2015 8:52:02 AM

Quote :

"yep. my favorite was when Sandy was cited as irrefutable proof of global warming. "

cited by who though, it was only cited by misinformed idiots

7/15/2015 10:44:28 AM

Quote :

"cited by who though, it was only cited by misinformed idiots"

Agreed, no serious scientist ever uttered those words. Media-folk? Yeah probably. Of course if Sandy had hit at low tide instead of high none of us would even remember that storm's name

Quote :

"There is a particular faction of the uninformed populace (principally on the Right) that contends there was a "pause" or "hiatus" spanning either 10 years or 15 years or 18 years or whatever arbitrary (and ultimately false) time frame Fox News, et al. fed them in order to abrogate reality."

You mean the "pause" that even Phil Jones admitted was taking place? Pretty sure he has no connection (or love for) Fox News . The 4 satellite data sets haven't shown a global increase in temperature (itself a hard figure to calculate) in over 18 years. Though there's a good chance of that ending this year, as the current El Nino is looking to become a pretty strong one, similar to the last strong one (1997-1998).

Here's an interesting blog post about 2014 potentially being the warmest year within the last 150 years:

Quote :

" The question of whether 2014 was or wasn’t the warmest year has recently exercised the minds of many. The answer, of course, is… no. At some point in the past, the Earth was a glob of molten rock pummelled by other rocks travelling at the kind of speeds that made Einstein famous, dinosaurs late and a very, very, very loud bang. There have also been periods, more hospitable to life (of various kinds), where global temperatures were in excess of what they are today. However, if we narrow the scope of our question to the more conventional and cosmically brief period covered by our instrumental temperature record – roughly 1850 to now – the short answer is… maybe. This has been an answer to a frequently asked question on the Met Office website and has been the source of occasional ridicule. Obviously, one year was the warmest1. In other words, according to some particular definition, the global average of the temperature of the air near the surface of the Earth in 2014 or some other calendar year was higher than in any other. Unfortunately, we don’t know what that number is for any particular year. We have to estimate it1.5 from, sparse and, occasionally unreliable measurements. Some of them made with the help of a bucket. ..."

full post here: http://www.statslife.org.uk/significance/environment-nature/2064-was-2014-the-warmest-ever-year

7/15/2015 1:20:34 PM

Why do liberal climatologists hate America and our freedoms so much.

7/16/2015 12:46:58 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/13/world/sun-irregular-heartbeat-ice/?iid=ob_homepage_deskrecommended_pool&iref=obnetwork

"Our bad...that whole global warming thing? Let's just forget about it for a few years. We'll come back to it later."

7/16/2015 7:52:52 AM

Wait, wait, wait. So there are folks here who are vehemently against the notion of any anthropogenic warming, but are suddenly on board with one paper that predicts cooling 15 years from now?

Keep in mind, this prediction is based on mmmmoooddels which the Right dismiss the validity of constantly. As a scientist, here is the giant red flag:

Quote :

"the study looks intriguing, but it has not been peer reviewed, or subjected to the scrutiny of the larger scientific community"

7/16/2015 8:47:00 AM

Yea, this ice age shit is just the media grabbing hold of one group's research and then fashioning some click-bait articles.

There is other related science on this exact same topic. Any individual science paper (or in this case a proceeding) should be viewed in the context of the entire body of work on the subject.

There are many other recent articles that indicate the absolute maximum cooling we could hope for from a minimum would be 0.09*C - 0.3*C. It could slow warming, but it won't be anywhere near enough to stop projected warming. Solar forcing is thought to be a very small fraction of overall climate system.

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/abs/ncomms8535.html
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdf
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011JD017013.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50806/abstract
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/jma/meehl_grand_solar_2013.pdf


Further, its not even totally agreed that solar minimums where the primary cause of the "Little Ice Ages."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/volcanoes-may-have-sparked/




I actually think we should create another global warming thread, where we can discuss actual, new science without all the trolling that happens ITT, it would be more stimulating than constantly rehashing the same tired arguments for 82 pages. There are some smart, interested, science-oriented folks on this forum and I think we could learn some things from each other. Unfortunately, That has been overshadowed for a long time ITT by trolling and users seeking to get a rise out of others, rather than the free exchange of ideas.



[Edited on July 16, 2015 at 9:52 AM. Reason : screwed up link]

7/16/2015 9:50:56 AM

Hey, I haven't really made my opinion about global warming known one way or the other. I'm of the opinion that the Earth is gonna do what it do.

If we CO2 our way out of existence, then so be it, the Earth would be better off.

In the meantime, I think there's a lot of people trying to make a lot of money off of global warming. Tons of grant money out there to be had. To get grants you have to research, to have research, you need a problem.

[Edited on July 16, 2015 at 12:26 PM. Reason : asdfasd]

7/16/2015 12:25:15 PM

so there's no money to be had if you're a professional denier?

Quote :

"to have research, you need a problem."

no, no you don't

[Edited on July 16, 2015 at 12:38 PM. Reason : .]

7/16/2015 12:37:08 PM

Let's not forget our friends the Koch brothers and all the other industries that stand to lose money by being forced to clean up their emmissions

7/16/2015 2:55:23 PM

^^the amount of money in climate change studies is staggering. skeptic funding is but a fraction of that. "to have a study you need a problem" I agree that you don't. But if you want to apply for a grant, and include that this study might uncover another link to cause/effect's of AGW you've got a much greater chance of getting approval, even if the individual really has no interest in that aspect of study. Of course, that's just my anecdotal POV.

Quote :

"Further, its not even totally agreed that solar minimums where the primary cause of the "Little Ice Ages." http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/volcanoes-may-have-sparked/"

Yeah, all this talk about Minimums, especially the last one, and the Krakatoa eruption is being left out of the conversation. Disingenuous to say the least.

Quote :

"I actually think we should create another global warming thread, where we can discuss actual, new science without all the trolling that happens ITT, it would be more stimulating than constantly rehashing the same tired arguments for 82 pages. There are some smart, interested, science-oriented folks on this forum and I think we could learn some things from each other. Unfortunately, That has been overshadowed for a long time ITT by trolling and users seeking to get a rise out of others, rather than the free exchange of ideas."

I agree. Though in the meantime I'd say that most of us already know which posters to completely ignore by habit.

[Edited on July 16, 2015 at 4:48 PM. Reason : asdf]

7/16/2015 4:46:19 PM

Let's be a bit more honest about research funding though. Scientist who want to study things like weather and climate have to beg for that money in an ever increasing smaller pool of funds. Everytime I read about research funding from conservatives, they make it sound as though money is just rained down from the sky and scientists are gleefully awash in Benjamins. In reality, Grant proposals are an arduous process that may or may not even be approved. Once the study is even funded, the data still have to be collected and processed correctly so as to not get laughed out of every respectable journal. I find the idea that some believe that climate opposition research isn't well funded to be bizarre and a little sad.

7/16/2015 9:57:51 PM

Quote :

"cited by who though, it was only cited by misinformed idiots"

media yes, but also the folks who are usually the loudest global warming advocates I know. Most people I'm thinking of (and no i don't remember specific facebook posts or anything) are not involved in meteorology research at any level, yet will argue tooth and nail about climate as if they are experts in it.

but i also know a bunch of folks with masters or phds from NCSU in meteorology, (most of them are practicing some form of meteorology research today), and i remember many of them mentioning it or linking to a headline connecting sandy to global warming... the folks who I know are mostly good people and good scientists. (except for that sumbitch gosabres)

and of course I was using the term "cited" in the colloquial sense... mentioned in conversation, reported in media, etc was what i was going for. my point is some of these same people are outraged and condescending whenever joe sixpack says "so much for global warming" when it's snowing in the winter, but then basically commit the same fallacy.


[Edited on July 17, 2015 at 12:35 AM. Reason : ]

7/17/2015 12:28:16 AM

^^in a perfect world, funding should be for "climate research" and not for "go prove global warming is bunk" or "global warming is going to kill us all... here's money go prove it"

(and that's not an argument either way... just frustration on how science should be unbiased in a perfect world, but politics, opinions, and human nature can very easily taint the sanctity of research)

[Edited on July 17, 2015 at 12:39 AM. Reason : taint]

7/17/2015 12:38:58 AM

Y'all are basically proving my point that we can't have science discussions in this thread, because you don't even accept the basic integrity of the scientist that are doing the work. It seems that all climate scientist are just used car salesmen, clamoring for the next big grant. Willing to do or say anything to make the sell.

For instance, I could tell you that both the polar vortex snows and Hurricane Sandy were linked with anomalies in the jet stream and that the jet stream was thought to be weakening due to polar amplification. While this hypothesis isn't fully accepted by the climate community it is gaining momentum, and if it endures, will likely become very important to our understanding of how regional climates will be changing in the future. We could then discuss how the upcoming alleged super El Nino could possibly slow this jet stream effect or make it worse, etc.

Instead we are in here discussing how rich and famous climate scientist are getting (umm, nope) and how "tainted the sanctity of research" is ( ). All with zero evidence that any of that is true in the slightest. Its fucking frustrating.

7/17/2015 9:27:12 AM

I don't think anyone said climate scientists are getting rich.

7/17/2015 12:38:58 PM

Quote :

"...In the meantime, I think there's a lot of people trying to make a lot of money off of global warming. Tons of grant money out there to be had."

Quote :

"...the amount of money in climate change studies is staggering...."

seems like that is what is being implied

7/17/2015 2:38:41 PM

No, you take my words out of context. Scientists getting grants better not be getting rich off of said grant money because that is illegal. However there are lots of green companies out there making money hand over fist selling products based on the idea of global warming.

7/17/2015 2:56:57 PM

Quote :

"Y'all are basically proving my point that we can't have science discussions in this thread, because you don't even accept the basic integrity of the scientist that are doing the work. It seems that all climate scientist are just used car salesmen, clamoring for the next big grant. Willing to do or say anything to make the sell. For instance, I could tell you that both the polar vortex snows and Hurricane Sandy were linked with anomalies in the jet stream and that the jet stream was thought to be weakening due to polar amplification. While this hypothesis isn't fully accepted by the climate community it is gaining momentum, and if it endures, will likely become very important to our understanding of how regional climates will be changing in the future. We could then discuss how the upcoming alleged super El Nino could possibly slow this jet stream effect or make it worse, etc. Instead we are in here discussing how rich and famous climate scientist are getting (umm, nope) and how "tainted the sanctity of research" is ( ). All with zero evidence that any of that is true in the slightest. Its fucking frustrating. "

he is taking a lot of shit out of context. do you really think that research money isn't being given to certain scientists over others because of the types of results/conclusions they typically come up with?

7/17/2015 3:24:50 PM

Quote :

"However there are lots of green companies out there making money hand over fist selling products based on the idea of global warming."

as opposed to.....?

7/17/2015 4:01:10 PM

That quote reminds me of this:

7/17/2015 4:17:00 PM

^^^grants go to those scientist with the best proposals, most expertise, and better credentials, probably in that order. I don't believe it has anything to do with their expected findings.

7/17/2015 4:23:32 PM

At least not those employed by the Cato Institute...

7/17/2015 4:47:07 PM