The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread

[ednksu]

more libs with their science and books and test tubes....its just disgusting I say!!!!
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/megadroughts-will-bake-plains-southwest-decades-study-n305276

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

I think I've asked this before, but have the warmist propagandists agendists decided what the correct C02 PPM count should be yet?

the UN's official goal is to keep it under 450 ppm

http://science.time.com/2013/05/02/greenhouse-effect-co2-concentrations-set-to-hit-record-high/

An arbitrary number. We still can't prove that the increase in CO2 concentration isn't a naturally occurring event similar to past events. This has all happened before and we should be planning for it rather than crippling the economy trying to stop something that can't be stopped.

I agree that planning ahead to mitigate changes is the best approach. You really don't believe that the increase in carbon dioxide is attributable to man?

I'm not dumb enough to believe that man has absolutely no effect on our atmosphere; you can see it in the form of pollution. But, as for CO2 concentrations, I do think it is minute compared to natural processes. I also believe that cycles in the sun's output is the major driving force in our temperature and and release of CO2 from the oceans and other sources, not the other way around.

Not even close.  Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth's average temperature would be close to 0 degrees Fahrenheit. 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

A rocky planet this far from the sun should be frozen solid and lifeless at an average temperature of -18°C (0°F). The fact that it isn’t is due to greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, mainly CO2. These atmospheric gasses have been in a delicate balance with the Earth’s oceans, the biosphere, and even the geosphere (all the rocks and sediments). Whether it was frigid ice ages or the steamy climates of the Eocene and the age of the dinosaurs, every change in the Earth (like a decrease in the rate of tectonic plate subduction or an increase in the rate of mountain building) caused a proportional change in CO2 in the atmosphere and in the oceans, and every change in atmospheric CO2 caused a proportional reaction in global temperatures, climate and ocean chemistry.

Scientists have shown that CO2 and climate moved in lock-step throughout the Pleistocene ice ages. The ice ages were actually many pulses of cold glacial phases interspersed with warmer interglacials. These pulses had a distinct regularity caused by wobbles in Earth’s orbit around the Sun (Milankovitch cycles). When Earth’s orbit reduced the intensity of sunlight in the northern hemisphere, the Earth went into a glacial phase. When the orbital cycle brought increased the intensity of insolation in the northern hemisphere, ice sheets melted and we went into a warm interglacial. Because warmer oceans can dissolve less CO2, the CO2 levels see-sawed extremely closely with Earth’s temperature. It was a slow pace of change, taking tens to hundreds of thousands of years, and yes as the myth states, in the last million years the biggest orbit-induced cycles were every 100,000 years.

But we know these orbital changes are not behind today's global warming. In fact our orbit dictates we should be cooling now, not warming.

The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD. But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions.

Life flourished in the Eocene, the Cretaceous and other times of high CO2 in the atmosphere because the greenhouse gasses were in balance with the carbon in the oceans and the weathering of rocks. Life, ocean chemistry, and atmospheric gasses had millions of years to adjust to those levels.

But there have been several times in Earth’s past when Earth's temperature jumped rapidly, in much the same way as they are doing today. Those times were caused by large and rapid greenhouse gas emissions, just like humans are causing today. In Earth's past the trigger for these greenhouse gas emissions was often unusually massive volcanic eruptions known as “Large Igneous Provinces,” with knock-on effects that included huge releases of CO2 and methane from organic-rich sediments. But there is no Large Igneous Province operating today, or anytime in the last 16 million years. Today’s volcanoes, in comparison, don’t even come close to emitting the levels of greenhouse gasses that humans do.

Volcanoes emit CO2 both on land and underwater. Underwater volcanoes emit between 66 to 97 million tonnes of CO2 per year. However, this is balanced by the carbon sink provided by newly formed ocean floor lava. Consequently, underwater volcanoes have little effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. The greater contribution comes from subaerial volcanoes (subaerial means "under the air", referring to land volcanoes). Subaerial volcanoes are estimated to emit 242 million tonnes of CO2 per year (Mörner and Etiope (2002)).

In contrast, humans are currently emitting around 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year (EIA). Human CO2 emissions are over 100 times greater than volcanic CO2 emissions. This is apparent when comparing atmospheric CO2 levels to volcanic activity since 1960. Even strong volcanic eruptions such as Pinatubo, El Chicon and Agung had little discernable impact on CO2 levels. In fact, the rate of change of CO2 levels actually drops slightly after a volcanic eruption, possibly due to the cooling effect of aerosols.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm

This is hilariously Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). I'm pretty sure Skeptical science is Koch funded parody.

[sonofdaxjones]

more libs with their science and books and test tubes....its just disgusting I say!!!!
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/megadroughts-will-bake-plains-southwest-decades-study-n305276

Haven't we had this discussion already?  Haven't we discussed how parts of the plains and SW, large parts in fact have had it "good" in terms of moisture they have received in the past few decades/centuries as compared to the realities and totality of climatic history (at least the unaltered history, pre-warmist statistical interventionism)? 

[Tobias]

sounds like magic to me

[illBisonYourdele]

 Spy agencies fund climate research in hunt for weather weapon, scientist fears

A senior US scientist has expressed concern that the intelligence services are funding climate change research to learn if new technologies could be used as potential weapons.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/15/spy-agencies-fund-climate-research-weather-weapon-claim

[sonofdaxjones]

But geo-engineering to support national policy is a myth.

[illBisonYourdele]

US scientists and legal experts are calling for a strong, international authority to regulate any man-made interventions meant to combat global warming, amid fears that the technology could be harmful to the environment.


http://phys.org/print343221881.html

[Jabeez]

Spy agencies fund climate research in hunt for weather weapon, scientist fears

A senior US scientist has expressed concern that the intelligence services are funding climate change research to learn if new technologies could be used as potential weapons.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/15/spy-agencies-fund-climate-research-weather-weapon-claim

From the comments section, I love crazy people!

Better late than never! These technologies allready exist, based on Tesla science, USA has (HAARP), Russian has it, UK has it, Norway has it and some more. You made the first step, take the next one and tell the people that our climate already has been engineered and they call it "climate change". North Pole is melting not because of "climate change" but because the big countries are about to take all its wealth. And this is not the only reason some countries belong to the "climate change" church, there is a lot of money there!

whilst alot of you are simply reactionists just fumbling through life only reacting to what the "official mainstream" word is , there are many of us who have known for a very long time that we are being tested on in the name of global warming. Call it "chemtrails , haarp, geoengineering" its all the same word for being fcked with by the powers that rule. why would you call a person a "tinfoil hat wearing fool" if he dared to mention this before the mainstream did? That person would of been right the whole time. While the rest of you just sit waiting to be forced fed garbage news, believing it to be real reporting. Tests have already been conducted to find what chemicals are being used on us, aluminium , stontium and barium are just a few Of them. ask yourselves again, 'why does the uk have the highest rate of alzheimers in all of europe?' being pepperd with aluminium can that effect? Before the igonrant replies, please research info in places other than the 'newspaper'

[Kat Kid]

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/44352_A_Climate_Change_Deniers_Links_to_the_Fossil_Fuel_Industry_Exposed

[sonofdaxjones]

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/44352_A_Climate_Change_Deniers_Links_to_the_Fossil_Fuel_Industry_Exposed

That's a good article Kat Kid, but I wonder if we took a step back and analyzed the climate research dollars that is handed out by the government, and those who decide what, who and where those dollars go to . . . and then see if those people have a bias.   Based on the current administration in place and their mindset, I suspect that there's many in charge of handing out research dollars who have a clear bias towards AGW, and who are seeking out like minded scientists to funnel money to.

I'd also like to see a study on scientists who receive research dollars from warmist alarmist entities and if these scientists are disclosing where their research dollars are coming from.

I really enjoyed the comment section where many said evil Republicans will shut down all climate research and/or attempts to reduce emissions. 

[sonofdaxjones]

Oh and about megadroughts from edns article.

Historical weather research has shown that similar mega droughts have happened on the North American continent before.  The current droughts still do not supersede the droughts of the 1930's and the 1950's, and climate researchers have already admitted (grudgingly) that the West Coast drought has been caused by naturally occurring weather patterns over the Pacific ocean.   Not to mention that from an entire earth perspective,  there's essentially no more or less drought occurring on the planet than usual.

[ednksu]

Oh and about megadroughts from edns article.

Historical weather research has shown that similar mega droughts have happened on the North American continent before.  The current droughts still do not supersede the droughts of the 1930's and the 1950's, and climate researchers have already admitted (grudgingly) that the West Coast drought has been caused by naturally occurring weather patterns over the Pacific ocean.   Not to mention that from an entire earth perspective,  there's essentially no more or less drought occurring on the planet than usual.

I think you need to read into a bit more. The current research is predicting these droughts will be 6 to 7 times more likely (occurring more often), longer severity, and lasting longer.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Oh and about megadroughts from edns article.

Historical weather research has shown that similar mega droughts have happened on the North American continent before.  The current droughts still do not supersede the droughts of the 1930's and the 1950's, and climate researchers have already admitted (grudgingly) that the West Coast drought has been caused by naturally occurring weather patterns over the Pacific ocean.   Not to mention that from an entire earth perspective,  there's essentially no more or less drought occurring on the planet than usual.

I think you need to read into a bit more. The current research is predicting these droughts will be 6 to 7 times more likely (occurring more often), longer severity, and lasting longer.

Oh "the current research is predicting"?! Climate alarmists never get their predictions wrong... Said the polar bears, and the ice caps, and the hurricanes, and the warming models... We should make a list of all the stellar predictions - but I'm betting a quick google search would provide many such lists.

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

If my livelihood (grant money) was dependent on hysteria, I'd be sure that my studies showed plenty of reason for it.

[sonofdaxjones]

Post Katrina the Safir-Simpson scale was going to need to be reworked because land falling hurricanes would be more frequent and intense.   Post Joplin the the Fujita scale was going to need to reworked because tornadoes would be more frequent and more intense.

Reality:  Landfalling Hurricanes dropped substantially (this was also blamed on AGW by warmist alarmists).   Tornadoes actually declined in number and intensity was well within established existing ratings models (the decline was blamed on AGW by warmist alarmists.   Not discussed as contributing factor into tornadic frequency by warmist alarmists:  technology advancement in detection, the massive increase in storm chasers, urban sprawl).

Now Bill Nye is on MSNBC telling their hosts that literally every weather event should mention AGW as a possible cause.   

[sonofdaxjones]

Oh and edn, like I said, historical climate study and research says that the North American Continent has already had periods of extreme "mega" droughts on a scale that the warmist alarmist scientists say we're going to have in 2050 and beyond, and claim will be unprecedented.

That's one of the go to words:  Unprecedented

Yet, people who actually research the unaltered historical weather and climate history find that many of these so called AGW based cataclysmic events that will happen in the future, have already happened many times before in Earth's history.   

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

If my livelihood (grant money) was dependent on hysteria, I'd be sure that my studies showed plenty of reason for it.

This. The money will go to the scientist that can confirm your point of view and advance your agenda. Scientists that have the time to waste on global warming studies work at publicly funded institutions and apply for grants from the government. The governments across the globe need tax money to grow, and the best way to increase taxes is to scare the public into thinking they will die unless the government has the funds and power to keep it from happening.

What we should be doing is preparing for possible warming and cooling cycles, but preparation and planning ahead is not a strong suit for governments, and lacks the pizzazz they crave.

[star seed 7]

global warming studies, a waste of time -- neocon philosophy

[sonofdaxjones]

global warming studies, a waste of time -- neocon philosophy

All climatic events good or bad are to be blamed on AGW, thus we need taxation and control . . . Prog Lib Mantra.

[Rage Against the McKee]

global warming studies, a waste of time -- neocon philosophy

At this point, they kind of are. We all know it's happening, so the focus should be on mitigation.

[sonofdaxjones]

Global Warming/Global Climate Disruption:  All caused by mankind.   ProgLib doctrine

[sonofdaxjones]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/22/the-disparity-between-ipcc-science-reports-summary-for-policymakers-and-reality-requires-a-political-science-solution/

[star seed 7]

how can you be so arrogant to think man could have any effect on climate -- necon ideology

[sonofdaxjones]

[sonofdaxjones]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/19/eye-roller-study-finds-climate-change-induced-severe-weather-may-dramatically-reduce-wheat-production/

I do give the ranks at K-State credit, they are stepping up to the research funding trough nicely.   Really helps those total research dollar reports.