Author Topic: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread  (Read 429423 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline OregonSmock

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 8512
  • Mashing 'taters like an Old Country Buffet
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #500 on: January 08, 2014, 11:56:46 AM »
http://www.dailyinterlake.com/opinion/article_9444fff2-74fd-11e3-b5b0-001a4bcf887a.html

Quote
Use of motivated reasoning to deny human-caused climate change is a belief system akin to a superstition but with an end goal; it is not founded on science, logical reasoning, and evidence. Myerowitz’s op-ed demonstrates all of the characteristics of motivated reasoning.

So let’s examine some of his contrived logic and claims in detail. First, if, as he claims, the climate isn’t warming, then he needs to explain why the heat content of the atmosphere, ocean, and land is increasing, why glaciers are retreating almost everywhere in the world, why sea level is rising, why the mass of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets is declining, and why the minimum extent of Arctic sea is declining.

Secondly, if it isn’t warming, then claiming that there is a normal cyclical change in climate plus a small contribution of man-made warming is itself a contradiction of that claim.

Thirdly, if the theory of man-made global warming is “not a very good one,” how does he know the contribution of man-made warming is small? The fact is that climate models predict the observed increase in global average temperatures since 1951 only if human-caused climate forcing is included in the models. When the models are forced only with known natural sources, such as changes in solar input, the models fail to accurately predict the observed temperature increase. Fourthly, if there is a “normal cyclical change, then what is his explanation of the mechanism causing the change? Any change in climate is due to a change in the Earth’s energy balance, and saying it’s a “natural cyclical change” is not an explanation of the cause, but instead is a description of a pattern caused by something.

 Myerowitz ignores the fact that his claims are refuted by an extensive body of observational data and evidence assessed in the recently released Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2013 report on the physical science basis of climate change. This report authored by 259 climate experts is an extensive analysis of the current state-of-knowledge about climate change. It is based on results of the latest findings and conclusions of published, peer-reviewed studies conducted by climate experts all over the world.

The evidence cited and discussed in the report all points to the same conclusion: Our entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance caused primarily by the rising concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere from fossil fuel combustion and other human activities. Due to this imbalance, the Earth’s climate is warming, resulting in warming of the atmosphere and oceans and changes in many other climate conditions.

The report’s conclusions particularly relevant to Myerowitz’s claims are: 1) “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia.” 2) “It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.” 3) “The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.” (By “extremely likely,” the report’s authors mean 95-100 percent certainty.)

While Myerowitz acknowledges his awareness of this report, which is easily accessible, he ignores its conclusions because they contradict his claims. The only thing he offers to support his bogus claims is more bogus claims. For example, he asserts that there has been “no change in global temperature of our planet since 1998.” The fact is that analyses of surface temperature data, which are collected at thousands of weather stations and on ocean buoys and ships show the global average surface temperature over the land and the oceans has gotten warmer since 1998, and the average decadal surface temperature of the globe has increased every consecutive decade over the past 30 years. All 10 of the warmest years of record beginning in 1850 have occurred since 1997.

http://science.time.com/2014/01/06/climate-change-driving-cold-weather/

Quote
Unsurprisingly, the extreme cold has brought out the climate change skeptics, who point to the freeze and the recent snowstorms and say, essentially, “nyah-nyah.” Now this is where I would usually point to the fact that the occasional cold snap—even one as extreme as much of the U.S. is experiencing now—doesn’t change the overall trajectory of a warming planet. Weather is what happens in the atmosphere day to day; climate is how the atmosphere behaves over long periods of time. Winters in the U.S. have been warming steadily over the past century, and even faster in recent decades, so it would take more than a few sub-zero days to cancel that out.

But not only does the cold spell not disprove climate change, it may well be that global warming could be making the occasional bout of extreme cold weather in the U.S. even more likely. Right now much of the U.S. is in the grip of a polar vortex, which is pretty much what it sounds like: a whirlwind of extremely cold, extremely dense air that forms near the poles. Usually the fast winds in the vortex—which can top 100 mph (161 k/h)—keep that cold air locked up in the Arctic. But when the winds weaken, the vortex can begin to wobble like a drunk on his fourth martini, and the Arctic air can escape and spill southward, bringing Arctic weather with it. In this case, nearly the entire polar vortex has tumbled southward, leading to record-breaking cold, as you can see in this weatherbell.com graphic:



That disruption to the polar vortex may have been triggered by a sudden stratospheric warming event, a phenomenon Rick Grow explained at the Washington Post a few days ago:

    "Large atmospheric waves move upward from the troposphere — where most weather occurs — into the stratosphere, which is the layer of air above the troposphere. These waves, which are called Rossby waves, transport energy and momentum from the troposphere to the stratosphere. This energy and momentum transfer generates a circulation in the stratosphere, which features sinking air in the polar latitudes and rising air in the lowest latitudes. As air sinks, it warms. If the stratospheric air warms rapidly in the Arctic, it will throw the circulation off balance. This can cause a major disruption to the polar vortex, stretching it and — sometimes — splitting it apart."

(MORE: November Was Cold, But the Climate Keeps Warming)

What does that have to do with climate change? Sea ice is vanishing from the Arctic thanks to climate change, which leaves behind dark open ocean water, which absorbs more of the heat from the sun than reflective ice. That in turn is helping to cause the Arctic to warm faster than the rest of the planet, almost twice the global average. The jet stream—the belt of fast-flowing, westerly winds that essentially serves as the boundary between cold northern air and warmer southern air—is driven by temperature difference between the northerly latitudes and the tropical ones. Some scientists theorize that as that temperature difference narrows, it may weaken the jet stream, which in turns makes it more likely that cold Arctic air will escape the polar vortex and flow southward. Right now, an unusually large kink in the jet stream has that Arctic air flowing much further south than it usually would.

Still, this research is fairly preliminary, in part because extreme Arctic sea ice loss is a fairly recent phenomenon, so scientists don’t have the long data sets they need to draw more robust conclusions about the interaction between Arctic warming and cold snaps. In fact, the most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that it was likely that the jet stream would shift towards the north as the climate warmed, and that the polar vortex would actually contract, even as a 2009 study found that sudden stratospheric warming events are becoming more frequent, which in turn seems to be driven by the rapid loss in Arctic sea ice.

And while a muddle like that would seem to make the science less rather than more reliable, it’s actually one more bit of proof that climate change is real. Global warming is sometimes thought of more as “global weirding,” with all manner of complex disruptions occurring over time. This week’s events show that climate change is almost certainly screwing with weather patterns ways that go beyond mere increases in temperature—meaning that you’d be smart to hold onto those winter coats for a while longer.




Offline WillieWatanabe

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 19275
  • We'll always have Salt Lake
    • View Profile
Sometimes I think of the Book of Job and how God likes to really eff with people.
- chunkles

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #502 on: January 08, 2014, 01:04:44 PM »
Beeems, there is more antarctic ice now than ever before. Your blogger is a GW shill.


Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #503 on: January 08, 2014, 01:15:02 PM »
Poor time magazine getting caught up in hype again.


Offline OregonSmock

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 8512
  • Mashing 'taters like an Old Country Buffet
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #504 on: January 08, 2014, 03:03:22 PM »
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

The proof that man-made CO2 is causing global warming is like the chain of evidence in a court case. CO2 keeps the Earth warmer than it would be without it. Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, mainly by burning fossil fuels. And there is empirical evidence that the rising temperatures are being caused by the increased CO2.

The Earth is wrapped in an invisible blanket

It is the Earth’s atmosphere that makes most life possible. To understand this, we can look at the moon. On the surface, the moon’s temperature during daytime can reach 100°C (212°F). At night, it can plunge to minus 173°C, or -279.4°F. In comparison, the coldest temperature on Earth was recorded in Antarctica: ?89.2°C (?128.6°F). According to the WMO, the hottest was 56.7°C (134°F), measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley).

Man could not survive in the temperatures on the moon, even if there was air to breathe. Humans, plants and animals can’t tolerate the extremes of temperature on Earth unless they evolve special ways to deal with the heat or the cold. Nearly all life on Earth lives in areas that are more hospitable, where temperatures are far less extreme.

Yet the Earth and the moon are virtually the same distance from the sun, so why do we experience much less heat and cold than the moon? The answer is because of our atmosphere. The moon doesn’t have one, so it is exposed to the full strength of energy coming from the sun. At night, temperatures plunge because there is no atmosphere to keep the heat in, as there is on Earth.

The laws of physics tell us that without the atmosphere, the Earth would be approximately 33°C (59.4°F) cooler than it actually is.

This would make most of the surface uninhabitable for humans. Agriculture as we know it would be more or less impossible if the average temperature was ?18 °C. In other words, it would be freezing cold even at the height of summer.

The reason that the Earth is warm enough to sustain life is because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases act like a blanket, keeping the Earth warm by preventing some of the sun’s energy being re-radiated into space. The effect is exactly the same as wrapping yourself in a blanket – it reduces heat loss from your body and keeps you warm.

If we add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the effect is like wrapping yourself in a thicker blanket: even less heat is lost. So how can we tell what effect CO2 is having on temperatures, and if the increase in atmospheric CO2 is really making the planet warmer?

One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.



Total Earth Heat Content from Church et al. (2011)

What can keep the energy in the atmosphere? The answer is greenhouse gases. Science has known about the effect of certain gases for over a century. They ‘capture’ energy, and then emit it in random directions. The primary greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), water vapour, nitrous oxide and ozone – comprise around 1% of the air.

This tiny amount has a very powerful effect, keeping the planet 33°C (59.4°F) warmer than it would be without them. (The main components of the atmosphere – nitrogen and oxygen – are not greenhouse gases, because they are virtually unaffected by long-wave, or infrared, radiation). This is the second piece of evidence: a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere.

For our next piece of evidence, we must look at the amount of CO2 in the air. We know from bubbles of air trapped in ice cores that before the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 in the air was approximately 280 parts per million (ppm). In June 2013, the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory in Hawaii announced that, for the first time in thousands of years, the amount of CO2 in the air had gone up to 400ppm. That information gives us the next piece of evidence; CO2 has increased by nearly 43% in the last 150 years.



Atmospheric CO2 levels (Green is Law Dome ice core, Blue is Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC). While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per million, here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in gigatonnes. CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement production and emissions from gas flaring.

The Smoking Gun

The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths.  In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:



Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.

Summing Up

Like a detective story, first you need a victim, in this case the planet Earth: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.

Then you need a method, and ask how the energy could be made to remain. For that, you need a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere, and greenhouse gases provide that mechanism.

Next, you need a ‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the increase is from burning fossil fuels.

And finally, the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.

The last point is what places CO2 at the scene of the crime. The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #505 on: January 08, 2014, 03:52:21 PM »
I'm going to plant my living Christmas tree this weekend for you beems. Should soak up a little CO2.

« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 06:54:47 PM by john "teach me how to" dougie »

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52962
    • View Profile

Offline sys

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40472
  • your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #507 on: January 08, 2014, 09:36:52 PM »
I'm going to plant my living Christmas tree this weekend for you beems. Should soak up a little CO2.



what kind is it?  i've heard that sometimes they sell pinus pinea as living xmas trees, but i haven't seen that myself.  i've also heard that they don't transplant well and it's best to grow them from seed.  it's hard to tell what's true and what's fiction, sometimes.
"experienced commanders will simply be smeared and will actually go to the meat."

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #508 on: January 08, 2014, 09:37:15 PM »
BMW is one dumb mother rough rider.

Also, those time article  :ROFL:
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #509 on: January 08, 2014, 10:19:18 PM »
I'm going to plant my living Christmas tree this weekend for you beems. Should soak up a little CO2.



what kind is it?  i've heard that sometimes they sell pinus pinea as living xmas trees, but i haven't seen that myself.  i've also heard that they don't transplant well and it's best to grow them from seed.  it's hard to tell what's true and what's fiction, sometimes.

It's an Aleppo (Pinus halepensis) that is used for landscaping in the warmer parts of the county. Last year I bought a Monterey pine (Pinus radiata)  and it did great with lots of new growth until September, then just dried up in a 2 week time span. I'm not sure if it was lack of water when I went on vacation or it got some type of disease.

Offline sys

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40472
  • your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #510 on: January 08, 2014, 11:59:11 PM »
prolly got too hot.  the aleppo should be bulletproof, but i dunno if its seeds taste good.
"experienced commanders will simply be smeared and will actually go to the meat."

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #511 on: January 11, 2014, 09:39:06 AM »






I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Online star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63770
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #512 on: January 11, 2014, 12:05:31 PM »
Wrong thread
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #513 on: January 14, 2014, 09:14:20 PM »
Politics as usual. http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/democrats-plan-to-pressure-tv-networks-into-covering-climate-change-20140114

Quote
Senate Democrats pledging to get more aggressive on climate change will soon pressure the major TV networks to give the topic far greater attention on the Sunday talking-head shows.

Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, are gathering colleagues' signatures on a letter to the networks asserting that they're ignoring global warming.

"It is beyond my comprehension that you have ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox, that their Sunday shows have discussed climate change in 2012, collectively, for all of eight minutes," Sanders said, citing analysis by the liberal watchdog group Media Matters for America.

Sanders mentioned the letter during a press conference with most other members of Senate Democrats' new, 19-member Climate Action Task Force, and he elaborated on it in a brief interview afterward.

"Sunday news shows are obviously important because they talk to millions of people, but they go beyond that by helping to define what the establishment considers to be important and what is often discussed during the rest of the week," he said.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #514 on: January 14, 2014, 10:26:02 PM »
Liberal media in action . . .

Offline Emo EMAW

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 17891
  • Unrepentant traditional emobro
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #515 on: January 15, 2014, 01:14:31 PM »
Wait, the government can tell the media what to put on TV?  :Wha:

Offline Stupid Fitz

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 4660
  • Go Cats
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #516 on: January 17, 2014, 08:28:32 PM »
Politics as usual. http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/democrats-plan-to-pressure-tv-networks-into-covering-climate-change-20140114

Quote
Senate Democrats pledging to get more aggressive on climate change will soon pressure the major TV networks to give the topic far greater attention on the Sunday talking-head shows.

Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, are gathering colleagues' signatures on a letter to the networks asserting that they're ignoring global warming.

"It is beyond my comprehension that you have ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox, that their Sunday shows have discussed climate change in 2012, collectively, for all of eight minutes," Sanders said, citing analysis by the liberal watchdog group Media Matters for America.

Sanders mentioned the letter during a press conference with most other members of Senate Democrats' new, 19-member Climate Action Task Force, and he elaborated on it in a brief interview afterward.

"Sunday news shows are obviously important because they talk to millions of people, but they go beyond that by helping to define what the establishment considers to be important and what is often discussed during the rest of the week," he said.

This is more terrifying than global warmingchange

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #517 on: January 18, 2014, 07:59:49 AM »
Has anyone ever read a "Live Science" article linked off Yahoo news. Good lord :facepalm:
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Online steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 85177
  • Romantic Fist Attachment
    • View Profile

Offline The1BigWillie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3172
  • Known to be a horrible person... (BORN 7/4/75)
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #519 on: January 21, 2014, 03:49:07 PM »
I like it warmer.  I like the ocean. More warm more ocean.  Win Win.

 :Woohoo:
"That's what you get when you let some dude from Los Angles/Texas with the alias Mookfu raw dog it.  Willesgirl can back me up here.  There's a lesson in this.  You only get HIV once; make it count." - Mr. Bread

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #520 on: January 21, 2014, 07:04:39 PM »
I like how libtards are unable to distinguish between AGW and the weather and have no concept as to how old earth is (even though they hate Jesus and are certain its more than 2014 years old)
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline bubbles4ksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5488
  • Son of Pete
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #521 on: January 21, 2014, 07:24:06 PM »
the world's leading physicists are wrong about AGW and i am right because jesus and rush and some republicans in the house said so.
:lol:

Offline sys

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40472
  • your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #522 on: January 21, 2014, 10:51:22 PM »
that map is fake.  you can tell because there isn't a persistent orange blob obscuring central california.
"experienced commanders will simply be smeared and will actually go to the meat."

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #523 on: January 21, 2014, 11:58:05 PM »
that map is fake.  you can tell because there isn't a persistent orange blob obscuring central california.

I need rain  :impatient:

Offline mocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 39042
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #524 on: January 22, 2014, 09:35:15 AM »
is that super hot pocket of Brazil caused by all the super hot chicks in thongs? JUST LOOK AT THOSE BOZANGAZZZZZZIP