patrick.net

Kakistocracy says

Haven't talk to one person over the age of 50 who has not echoed the weather has definitely changed in my lifetime and not for the better....

I'm over 50, and I see no change in the weather over my lifetime.

zzyzzx says

Kakistocracy says

Haven't talk to one person over the age of 50 who has not echoed the weather has definitely changed in my lifetime and not for the better....

I'm over 50, and I see no change in the weather over my lifetime.

Me too, it's been the same.

Interesting, every year it gets hot during the Summer and cold in the Winter. Every year. Just how does that happen?

Plus, the temperatures can swing over 90+ degrees during that time period. Yet, the "Alarmists" want us to be so concerned about their claim that the planet warmed 1.2 degrees over the last 130 years?

Really?

Kakistocracy says

Haven't talk to one person over the age of 50 who has not echoed the weather has definitely changed in my lifetime and not for the better...

I have seen change in weather...how do I know what is responsible for it? And even more importantly, what to do about change? Solution can not be giving Al Gore a billion so he can enlarge his 10000000 sq ft home that consumes as much electricity as 100 hillbilly houses

From memory, the part of the atmosphere that affects life on earth is in the lower portion. A few hundred miles from the ocean surface. All weather takes place in the atmosphere, most of it in the lower atmosphere. It is much more fragile than we imagined.
The thickness of it would be proportional to a saran wrap on a basketball.
I am not on the fence wrt man-made climate change, I am not sure how bad, how close we are to the point of no return.
I also recognize my knowledge is too limited in this very complex issue to anticipate all the consequences.
If one were to say, there are what seems like extreme lows in temperatures in certain regions this winter, it does not prove anything
Just like stocks, the more volatile a stock becomes the larger the channel of highs and lows. In controls, when a system is becoming more unstable we will have higher highs and lower lows. It is the underlying trend that matter, (I drew purple channel lines in the temperature chart).
With positive feedback the system will becoming more unstable, leading quickly to failure. Once the positive f-b exceed critical damping, it goes out of control. Picture the Tacoma Narrows bridge failure.
There are ominous signs of a number of positive feedback loops at of near that state.
The canaries-in-the-mine in the ice covered poles. Melting permafrost. Some had been frozen for 10000 years or more. Cracks in vast ice plates, retreating glaciers. Methane release from the ice melting in ever spreading regions. Once flourishing coral reefs dying off Australia. Bees and insects population decimated. On and on. They do not act in isolation on the ecosystem. Nature has a way with exponential response, not linear where things progress incrementally, as in the CO2 chart. If we wait until the signs are all flashing red, it will be too late to do anything.
It gets depressing for me some days and I am by no means alone.

New colder temperatures are bringing much rain to California, putting a nail in the coffin of the never ending drought.

As for the OP, I’ve lived in ILLINOIS, and temperatures swing WILDLY there. One day there’s a blizzard and the next the Gulf Stream blows in and melts it all to nothing. They get extreme weather. It’s just the confluence of different factors that all sort of intersect over Lake Michigan. Nothing to be alarmed about!

kt1652 says

So you deny the medieval warm period and the little ice age?

Do you think Mann will ever release his hockey stick data? Not that it matters as time has shown his theory on co2 related global warming has not matched observations.

Quigley says

New colder temperatures are bringing much rain to California, putting a nail in the coffin of the never ending drought.

As for the OP, I’ve lived in ILLINOIS, and temperatures swing WILDLY there. One day there’s a blizzard and the next the Gulf Stream blows in and melts it all to nothing. They get extreme weather. It’s just the confluence of different factors that all sort of intersect over Lake Michigan. Nothing to be alarmed about!

I dont mind my view being called Alarmist.
We are in that stage warning alarms should be going off.
There are 3 outcomes:
1. Nothing to worry about. Just thousands of credible scientists all over the world colluding for self gain. In this case, we as humans still gain by shifting our way of life to a more sustainable and for many, more economical life style as energy is a huge component of our existence. We do know oil is getting more costly as the easy stuff will be soon depleted, as in 100-200 years. Economics.
2. It is getting bad, and the warning signs are there. We must act as a specie to unite and fight for the future of our children, future generations. Imagine a "Land on the moon in a decade" type of goal for all mankind.
3. It is already too late. We will have to plan for a least-bad outcome and bid for more time. We must still try even if there is only 5% chance of success. But 1st, we must recognize there is a problem.

Onvacation says

Do you think Mann will ever release his hockey stick data? Not that it matters as time has shown his theory on co2 related global warming has not matched observations.

They were not man created and the powerful positive feedback loops were not present.

There is a maximum carry limit on the earth's resources, we are way past that.
To ask 5 billions of the world's underclass to restrict their consumption while the 2 billions or so of the upper class continue in our wanton way is unrealistic. We cant exterminate half the population to act quick enough. If anything it'd be better "ROI" to kill off 1st world consumers. lol.

kt1652 says

Onvacation says

Do you think Mann will ever release his hockey stick data? Not that it matters as time has shown his theory on co2 related global warming has not matched observations.

They were not man created

Michael Mann created. Not man created. Michael Mann, you know, the creator of the hockey stick graph that won't release his data.kt1652 says

There is a maximum carry limit on the earth's resources, we are way past that.
To ask 5 billions of the world's underclass to restrict their consumption while the 2 billions or so of the upper class continue in our wanton way is unrealistic. We cant exterminate half the population to act quick enough. If anything it'd be better "ROI" to kill off 1st world consumers. lol.

And there you go. The real reason behind global warming climate change is population control

WillPowers says

He said the first problem is you can’t separate the science from the politics. Errors in the projections accumulate as you move forward in time and cause "the measure bars of error” to be “so wide” it is impossible “to measure the positive or negative effect of anything we do right now.” So how is it possible to measure the “consequences of our actions? How is that possible?”

Public discourse is never science and is always politics. Doesn't change the science.

Peterson is a psychologists whose definition of "truth" includes such things as "Jungian archetypes".

But a phenomena like global warming that is backed by thousands of empirical measures of different aspects of reality: temperatures land, temperatures in the atmosphere at different elevations, ocean surface temperatures, ocean heat content, polar ice sheets extent, thickness, glaciers, sea level rise, CO2 in the atmosphere, CO2 rejected by humans, radiation outgoing the atmosphere, radiation reflected downward by the atmosphere, historical temperatures, historical CO2 concentrations, etc, etc....

... Way too much "measure errors" according to Peterson. But Jungian archetypes... yeah that's obvious.

This post kind of shows the kind of cherry picking that has to go on to maintain a possible level of doubt on global warming:
- polar vortex... blah blah blah.... (as if polar vortex moving that way had any influence on global temperatures)
- Psychologist Peterson said.... blah blah blah

Heraclitusstudent says

Peterson is a psychologists whose definition of "truth" includes such things as "Jungian archetypes".

So a doctor of psychology can’t speak truth because his work involves a measure of speculation.
I guess a student of philosophy is REALLY just full of shit, then. Right?
*snicker*

If you bring him up specifically because he says one thing which you happen to think is true - while you dismiss what most scientific studying the matter are saying - that's the text book definition of confirmation bias.

Peterson has shown a remarkable love for speaking the truth as he sees it, rather than endless political wavering as most public figures do these days. He has a respect for facts and the truth where others regard these things as “inconvenient.” (See what I did there? Hehe)

kt1652 says

Onvacation says

Do you think Mann will ever release his hockey stick data? Not that it matters as time has shown his theory on co2 related global warming has not matched observations.

...

I am not trying to change your mind.
The speed of change is indicative of man's industrial byproduct. True that human population is the key driver.
I don't waste my time talking about things that we cannot affect. We can't reduce # humans on earth fast enough in any acceptable manner, so why talk about it? It is not a solution.

We can't reduce # humans on earth fast enough in any acceptable manner, so why talk about it? It is not a solution.

It is not the number of humans that is the issue. It is the number of humans living a first world lifestyle.

Halting immigration from 3rd world to 1st world and letting the natural declining rate of 1st world societies play out is a great start.

kt1652 says

The speed of change is indicative of man's industrial byproduct. True that human population is the key driver.

You do know the temperature has been falling for a couple years?

Don'tcha?

What temperature?
Go back to what I said about the behavior or oscillating reaponse, esp if the feedback is increasing. Like a stock, oscillation could be an indication of instability. In natural systems, it may indicate amplification, resonance.
As I said, I know I will never know enough to be certain of the outcome.
I've never personally experienced cancer from smoking, but I still believe the data there is a indesputable link. I've never been on the moon, I still believe from credible info, we've done that. It is not scientific to say, I don't know anything about a complex topic, but I am so sure I am right. Long short of it, I will not engage in pointless debate, like 2 frogs in a well, about things way beyond our competency.
As Einstein said, simple solution is better but not too simple.

kt1652 says

As I said, I know I will never know enough to be certain of the outcome.

OK, so why do you call yourself an "Alarmist" then.

Since you don't know enough, you could just as easy be a "Denier".

Why pick sides if you don't know?

In science, even more so in engineering, if you try to be 100% certain, you will aim, aim, aim ...never pull the trigger. And you dont have to as individuals, it is the critical mass that is important. Lets say we decide air travel is bad, one person flying or not wont make any difference.
Some problems and opportunities don't allow one to take forever. Analysis paralysis. Miss the window, you lose. Good enough is good enough - like i said, the trend and rate of change is more impotant to the scientist. If we wait for confirmation without a doubt, humanity will all be dead, in my case 2 and case 3..

Heraclitusstudent says

... Way too much "measure errors" according to Peterson

Did you listen all the way ?

He's not denying global warming as much as he is questioning what we can do about it.

I like him a lot, but in this instance he does seem to be trying a little too hard to find a middle position that is okay with both points of view on this subject.

On the other hand, he has a point I guess. He's a proponent of long form discussions of the IDW on podcasts. I would love to see some long and thorough public discussions on this topic.

Why the hell aren't we moving forward with third or fourth generation nuclear power ? Possibly thorium ?

Instead of a wall, why don't we invest 50 billion in a few thorium nuclear power plants ?

(WE should continue to beef up border and port security as we have for more than a decade - but there are so many better things to spend 50 billion on).

Not true. You don’t test hypothesis on life without being sure. I know my science, chem major originally.

kt1652 says

In science, even more so in engineering, if you try to be 100% certain, you will aim, aim, aim ...never pull the trigger. And you dont have to as individuals, it is the critical mass that is important. Lets say we decide air travel is bad, one person flying or not wont make any difference.
Some problems and opportunities don't allow one to take forever. Analysis paralysis. Miss the window, you lose. Good enough is good enough - like i said, the trend and rate of change is more impotant to the scientist. If we wait for confirmation without a doubt, humanity will all be dead, in my case 2 and case 3..

Where we differ is the sense of urgency.
As far as the world's leading scientific body, 97% is close enough concensus for me. Anyone is free to hold and express a different opinion.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
http://opr.ca.gov/facts/scientific-consensus.html

kt1652 says

Where we differ is the sense of urgency.
As far as the world's leading scientific body, 97% is close enough concensus for me. Anyone is free to hold and express a different opinion.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
http://opr.ca.gov/facts/scientific-consensus.html

The 97% number has been widely debunked. More propaganda. But you choose to believe what you believe.....

link? What is widely debunked?

Onvacation says

kt1652 says

So you deny the medieval warm period and the little ice age?

I dont have to deny anything, you can feel warm and comfy in your echo chamber with your diy climate science.
It is obvious you have nothing but grasping at straws.
What is the point of the population chart?

So there is an explosion of human population in the last 100 years? Ok, so humans are the problem?
What do modern human civilization do? Burn a shit ton of fossil fuel, plunder the natural resources.
What is the common enabler - cheap and abundant fossil fuel energy consumption,100% non-renewable up to today. If you're saying it is overpopulation that is the problem, uh, the horse left the barn already.
If anything, the recent data has been showing the rate of deterioration is much worse than expected.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11644-climate-myths-it-was-warmer-during-the-medieval-period-with-vineyards-in-england/

'What really matters, though, is not how warm it is now, but how warm it is going to get in the future. Even the temperature reconstructions that show the greatest variations in the past 1000 years suggest up until the 1980s, average temperature changes remained within a narrow band spanning 1ºC at most. Now we are climbing out of that band, and the latest IPCC report (pdf format) predicts a further rise of 0.5ºC by 2030 and a whopping 6.4ºC by 2100 in the worst case scenario.'
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/10/climate/ocean-warming-climate-change.html
A new analysis, published Thursday in the journal Science, found that the oceans are heating up 40 percent faster on average than a United Nations panel estimated five years ago. The researchers also concluded that ocean temperatures have broken records for several straight years.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/02/the-devastation-of-human-life-is-in-view-what-a-burning-world-tells-us-about-climate-change-global-warming
'2C of global warming was considered the threshold of catastrophe...here is almost no chance we will avoid that scenario. The Kyoto Protocol achieved, practically, nothing'

kt1652 says

, I will not engage in pointless debate

Too late.
Co2 is a vital nutrient to life on earth, not pollution. Unfortunately more co2 will not save us from the cold of a less powerful sun.

kt1652 says

like i said, the trend and rate of change is more impotant to the scientist

So what is the trend and rate of change?

You may be shocked by the answer.

We all know next liberals will claim day and night are proof of global warming.

Quigley says

Peterson has shown a remarkable love for speaking the truth as he sees it, rather than endless political wavering as most public figures do these days. He has a respect for facts and the truth where others regard these things as “inconvenient.” (See what I did there? Hehe)

Trump has shown a remarkable love for speaking the truth as he sees it, rather than endless political wavering as most public figures do these days. He has a respect for alternate facts and the alternate truth where others regard these things as “lies.” (See what I did there? Hehe)

kt1652 says

97% is close enough concensus for me.

Number is likely fake. See https://patrick.net/post/1321944/2019-01-29-interesting-lecture-about-global-warming-from-nas-member-lindzen
I am a scientist and they did not poll me.
Not saying that humans do not have influence on climate - they do - but question is how much, and what to do about it.

Onvacation says

kt1652 says

, I will not engage in pointless debate

Smart move - best to avoid at all costs.

Climate of North American cities will shift hundreds of miles in one generation

New web application helps visualize climate changes in 540 North American cities

Date: February 12, 2019

Source:University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science

Summary:In one generation, the climate experienced in many North American cities is projected to change to that of locations hundreds of miles away -- or to a new climate unlike any found in North America today. A new study and interactive web application aim to help the public understand how climate change will impact the lives of people who live in urban areas of the United States and Canada. These new climate analyses match the expected future climate in each city with the current climate of another location, providing a relatable picture of what is likely in store.


Under current high emissions the average urban dweller is going to have to drive more than 500 miles to the south to find a climate similar to their home city by 2080.

Credit: Matthew Fitzpatrick/University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science

In one generation, the climate experienced in many North American cities is projected to change to that of locations hundreds of miles away -- or to a new climate unlike any found in North America today. A new study and interactive web application aim to help the public understand how climate change will impact the lives of people who live in urban areas of the United States and Canada. These new climate analyses match the expected future climate in each city with the current climate of another location, providing a relatable picture of what is likely in store.

"Within the lifetime of children living today, the climate of many regions is projected to change from the familiar to conditions unlike those experienced in the same place by their parents, grandparents, or perhaps any generation in millennia," said study author Matt Fitzpatrick of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. "Many cities could experience climates with no modern equivalent in North America."

Scientists analyzed 540 urban areas that encompassed approximately 250 million inhabitants in the United States and Canada. For each urban area, they mapped the similarity between that city's future climate expected by the 2080s and contemporary climate in the western hemisphere north of the equator using 12 measures of climate, including minimum and maximum temperature and precipitation during the four seasons.

The study also mapped climate differences under two emission trajectories: unmitigated emissions (RCP8.5), the scenario most in line with what might be expected given current policies and the speed of global action, and mitigated emissions (RCP4.5), which assumes policies are put in place to limit emissions, such as the Paris Agreement.

Climate-analog mapping is a statistical technique that matches the expected future climate at one location -- your city of residence, for instance -- with the current climate of another familiar location to provide a place-based understanding of climate change. Combining climate mapping with the interactive web application provides a powerful tool to communicate how climate change may impact the lives of a large portion of the population of the United States and Canada.

"We can use this technique to translate a future forecast into something we can better conceptualize and link to our own experiences," said Fitzpatrick. "It's my hope that people have that 'wow' moment, and it sinks in for the first time the scale of the changes we're expecting in a single generation."

The study found that by the 2080s, even if limits are placed on emissions, the climate of North American urban areas will feel substantially different, and in many cases completely unlike contemporary climates found anywhere in the western hemisphere north of the equator. If emissions continue unabated throughout the 21st century, the climate of North American urban areas will become, on average, most like the contemporary climate of locations about 500 miles away and mainly to the south. In the eastern U.S., nearly all urban areas, including Boston, New York, and Philadelphia, will become most similar to contemporary climates to the south and southwest. Climates of most urban areas in the central and western U.S. will become most similar to contemporary climates found to the south or southeast.

"Under the business as usual emissions the average urban dweller is going to have to drive nearly 1,000 km to the south to find a climate like that expected in their home city by 2080," said Fitzpatrick. "Not only is climate changing, but climates that don't presently exist in North America will be prevalent in a lot of urban areas."

The climate of cities in the northeast will tend to feel more like the humid subtropical climates typical of parts of the Midwest or southeastern U.S. today -- warmer and wetter in all seasons. For instance, unless we take action to mitigate emissions, Washington, D.C. will feel more like northern Mississippi. The climates of western cities are expected to become more like those of the desert Southwest or southern California -- warmer in all seasons, with changes in the amount and seasonal distribution of precipitation. San Francisco's climate will resemble that of Los Angeles. New York will feel more like northern Arkansas.

"Similar efforts to communicate climate change often focus on temperature only, but climate is more than just temperature. It also includes the amount precipitation an area receives, when it falls during the year, and how much arrives as snow versus rain," said Fitzpatrick. "Climate change will lead to not only warming, but also will alter precipitation patterns."

Search the interactive climate map for your location at: www.umces.edu/futureurbanclimates.
The paper, "Contemporary climatic analogs for 540 North American urban areas in the late 21st century," by Matt Fitzpatrick of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science and Robert Dunn of North Carolina State University, is published in Nature Communications on February 12.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190212120044.htm

Paper referenced above: Contemporary climatic analogs for 540 North American urban areas in the late 21st century

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08540-3

kt1652 says

From memory, the part of the atmosphere that affects life on earth is in the lower portion. A few hundred miles from the ocean surface. All weather takes place in the atmosphere, most of it in the lower atmosphere. It is much more fragile than we imagined.
The thickness of it would be proportional to a saran wrap on a basketball.
I am not on the fence wrt man-made climate change, I am not sure how bad, how close we are to the point of no return.
I also recognize my knowledge is too limited in this very complex issue to anticipate all the consequences.
If one were to say, there are what seems like extreme lows in temperatures in certain regions this winter, it does not prove anything
Just like stocks, the more volatile a stock becomes the larger the channel of highs and lows. In controls, when a system is becoming more unstable we will have higher highs and lower lows. It is the underlying trend that matter, (I drew purple channel lines in the temperature chart).
W...

What's the chi squared value on that second fit?

theoakman says

What's the chi squared value on that second fit?

As if.

From last August - Areas of Lake Michigan plunge 32 degrees; hypothermia is possible

After a low pressure system whipped up huge waves along Lake Michigan's eastern shore on Tuesday, the water temperature dropped as much as 32 degrees in affected areas, according to the National Weather Service.

The service's Grand Rapids branch warned that the frigid temperatures pose a hypothermia risk and told people to stay out of the water because of the temperature and dangerous currents.

Between 3 p.m. and 1 a.m., a weather service monitor in the lake near Ludington registered a steep drop in temperature, from 73 degrees to just 41.

Satellite photos of the lake's east coast on Wednesday showed water temperatures in the 40s and 50s from Holland to Frankfort, the Grand Rapids branch said. Areas south of Holland were not able to be measured due to cloud cover.



Strong winds have caused cold water from the depths of Lake Michigan to be pulled up at the shoreline. The Ludington buoy’s water temperature dropped steadily from 73 to 41 degrees late Tuesday. Satellite pictures Wednesday morning show water temperatures in the 40s or 50s from Holland to Ludington to Frankfort.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/08/22/lake-michigan-temperature-plunge/1063835002/

OccasionalCortex says

Watermelon: Thin veneer of environmentalist green camouflaging a huge mass of communist red.

Reducing the left to Commies, SJWs, Liars, Libbies, Libruls, Losers, Snowflakes, Socialists, etc. - those type of comments from the regulars on the forum in the echo chamber of the right ?

That's the type of shit Potus engages in on twitter.

Does anyone from the base find it curious that any time Trump is criticized for something, his immediate response is not to answer the criticism, but instead to start calling the critic names. It's like he never left the school yard.

Almost as if Potus was following along with some of the threads here....

Comment #25, This Thread http://patrick.net/post/1322958/2019-03-09-media-bias-is-mostly-right-wing-professor-at-princeton

Thanks ever so much for everyone on here today for once again proving all of my allegations, attack attack attack - nothing intelligent to say - attack and make it political or start with the name calling.