Maybe they are, most likely they are not.Carbizene wrote:You guys seem to be missing the significance of what is occuring under the East Siberian Sea right now, Methane Clathrates have started disassociating on a large scale, this is one of the predicted worse case scenarios, if not the worst becoming real so there is no argument as to the validity of AGW concerns, the horse has bolted and there is no 'other' side to the discussion now.
To my very simple brain, this is significant:Typhoon wrote:Maybe they are, most likely they are not.Carbizene wrote:You guys seem to be missing the significance of what is occuring under the East Siberian Sea right now, Methane Clathrates have started disassociating on a large scale, this is one of the predicted worse case scenarios, if not the worst becoming real so there is no argument as to the validity of AGW concerns, the horse has bolted and there is no 'other' side to the discussion now.
If they are then it's not due to global warming:
The vast majority of Scientists I've met, including family members are so straight that a night on Ginger beer sounds risky to them, the other day I was at the Pub with a Climatologist from the Bureau of Meteorolgy and he could barely hold a conversation as being in close proximity to Women was such an unusual event, so even if they did accept my proposal the kind of behaviour you are talking about would probably just constitute a normal night out for others and thus be indiscernible.Simple Minded wrote: Well of course people don't want to know if there is nothing they can do about it. Kinda like like finding a broken condom on the floor the morning after..... too late....
what I want to know is how many of the scientists you are talking to are extremely confident, you know like buying Ferraris on credit, or boffing anything that walks with out caring whether their husbands or wives find out...
To my unscientific brain, that would be a real indicator....
So you are chosing to ignore the disassociation, good luck with that.Typhoon wrote:Maybe they are, most likely they are not.Carbizene wrote:You guys seem to be missing the significance of what is occuring under the East Siberian Sea right now, Methane Clathrates have started disassociating on a large scale, this is one of the predicted worse case scenarios, if not the worst becoming real so there is no argument as to the validity of AGW concerns, the horse has bolted and there is no 'other' side to the discussion now.
That would make sense if it wasn't bollocks.Simple Minded wrote:
The uncertainty in the global temperture is probably more than +/- 3C making the purported rise well within 1 sigma, ie., noise
Carbizene wrote: GISS is well within 3C of UAH and the proposal that UAH is out by around 3C is right up there with that sighting of Elvis filling up his VW Beetle down at the BP I had the other day.
If it works for you, it works for me. 
My point is that GISS for the last thirty years has closely matched Satellite data so therefore what ever they are doing now and before is suitably accurate thus it can be said that temperature measurement for the last hundred years is accurate within the uncertainy limits proposed by the bodies that present the data.Simple Minded wrote:
Seeing is believing.
We keep coming back to a question you refuse to answer, how accurately can the Earths temperature be measured? When?
+/-.01C from 2000-2010? +/- .1C from 1980-2000? +/- 1C from 1950 -1980? +/- 2C from 1900 - 1950?
Any professed change in temp that is not at least an order of magnitude greater than a proven (how?) accuracy of the least count, I gotta yell Bullshit! I've worked with too many of these fools in the past who don't know the diffence between theory/lab measurements and reality/practise.
I know what you mean about those foolish scientists not being able to disprove a negative. Ask them for help to keep the unicorns for eating your tulips sometime. No help at all. Useless bastards.....
Carbizene wrote:My point is that GISS for the last thirty years has closely matched Satellite data so therefore what ever they are doing now and before is suitably accurate thus it can be said that temperature measurement for the last hundred years is accurate within the uncertainy limits proposed by the bodies that present the data.Simple Minded wrote:
Seeing is believing.
We keep coming back to a question you refuse to answer, how accurately can the Earths temperature be measured? When?
+/-.01C from 2000-2010? +/- .1C from 1980-2000? +/- 1C from 1950 -1980? +/- 2C from 1900 - 1950?
Any professed change in temp that is not at least an order of magnitude greater than a proven (how?) accuracy of the least count, I gotta yell Bullshit! I've worked with too many of these fools in the past who don't know the diffence between theory/lab measurements and reality/practise.
I know what you mean about those foolish scientists not being able to disprove a negative. Ask them for help to keep the unicorns for eating your tulips sometime. No help at all. Useless bastards.....
Big difference between your Unicorn problem and my proposition is that there is no evidence for those buggers and there is lavender loads of evidence for my scenario, with the only significant loose end that James Hansen proposed being recently dispproved by a study of Greenland Isostatic rebound.
The whole point of Science is to disprove a negative, ie this doesn't blow up if I do this.
Amusing you think GISS, Hadley, UAH, RSS etc are fools.
This plot only goes back to 1979, not 1880. There was no satellite data in 1880.Carbizene wrote:That would make sense if it wasn't bollocks.Simple Minded wrote:
The uncertainty in the global temperture is probably more than +/- 3C making the purported rise well within 1 sigma, ie., noise
GISS is well within 3C of UAH and the proposal that UAH is out by around 3C is right up there with that sighting of Elvis filling up his VW Beetle down at the BP I had the other day.
I'm not avoiding the accuracy issue at all, I'm saying as GISS matches UAH for the last 30 years then what they were doing prior to 78 was also accurate thus 100 years of direct measurement is accurate.Simple Minded wrote: You still keep avoiding the accuracy of hard numbers in measuring temperature issue. If the accuracy of measurements is questionable, so are all the good/bad projections. Temperature of the Earth +/- 1/2 of 1% over centuries? Really?
Distance to the sun, +/- 1/2 of 1%? Circumference of the Earth +.- 1/2 of 1 %? Constant output of the Sun +/- 1/2 of 1%? All are doubtful in my mind because all are dependent on who measures what when and how.
The stopped clock of the End of the Worlders has to be right some time.... now, next week, next year, or next decade just might be their hour. Not sure the above are fools, just fairly sure their paychecks influence their conclusions. Scientists are humans.
That and the cynicism that comes from having lived thru several end of the world scenarios........
Let me know when you are maxing out your credit cards and tooting around in your Ferrari....... I'll buy you a end of the world dinner and drinks!!!
I think you've found the key to eternal life, just refuse to accept death as it has no error bars.Typhoon wrote: Again, where are the error bars? What are the uncertainties?
Sure, send me photos and a stool sample and I'm down.Simple Minded wrote:
Carbi,
Would pictures of the unicorn tracks in my tulip garden give you pause....
You are still twisting words bro. The data from two different sources agrees for the last 30 years, therefore the prior 70 years of data from only one source is thereby defined as accurate? You might want to think that one thru a little bit more.Carbizene wrote: I'm not avoiding the accuracy issue at all, I'm saying as GISS matches UAH for the last 30 years then what they were doing prior to 78 was also accurate thus 100 years of direct measurement is accurate.
Accusations of corruption are amusing and essentially just an indication of just how bereft of any real scientific platform the new Luddites are.
The difference between the current scenario and other catastrophic scenarios is this is actually happening as proven by kilometer in diameter geysers of Methane.
The only credit I have access to is Student loans and I'm doing a merry job of milking that by just signing up for 2 more degrees for a sweet 20 g with no plan for repayment but hey I don't mind share houses as my entire Student debt is probably somewhere around 40g.
Over the last 4 I have started 6 different Degrees in effort to soothe my concerns about finding an out.
Simple Minded wrote:You are still twisting words bro. The data from two different sources agrees for the last 30 years, therefore the prior 70 years of data from only one source is thereby defined as accurate? You might want to think that one thru a little bit more.Carbizene wrote: I'm not avoiding the accuracy issue at all, I'm saying as GISS matches UAH for the last 30 years then what they were doing prior to 78 was also accurate thus 100 years of direct measurement is accurate.
Accusations of corruption are amusing and essentially just an indication of just how bereft of any real scientific platform the new Luddites are.
The difference between the current scenario and other catastrophic scenarios is this is actually happening as proven by kilometer in diameter geysers of Methane.
The only credit I have access to is Student loans and I'm doing a merry job of milking that by just signing up for 2 more degrees for a sweet 20 g with no plan for repayment but hey I don't mind share houses as my entire Student debt is probably somewhere around 40g.
Over the last 4 I have started 6 different Degrees in effort to soothe my concerns about finding an out.
Indeed. Climate research has gone from an obscure backwater to one of the best funded programs outside of the Mil Ind Complex with the AGW activists, er, scientists, jetting around the planet - fetted as media superstars.Simple Minded wrote:Never said a word about corruption. But you yourself state that access to money influences your academic career. The same may be true for other people who are earning a living in academia or doing research. Give that one a little bit more thought also.
Seconded.Simple Minded wrote:
Seriously though, if you ever do come across anything that proves the temp of the Earth can be measured within +/- 3 C, even in the last 30 years, I would love to see the methodology explained.
Bingo.Simple Minded wrote:All the politicalization BS, Flat Earther insults, Halocaust Deniers labels, over the last 15 years, instead of just objectively presenting the data, has stained a whole field of science. It may take a few years before climatologist is not synomous with snake oil salesman for more than a few people. Al Gore tarred a lot of people with his huge brush. I'm sure damn few climatologist would consider Gore their spokesperson.
Quite right.Simple Minded wrote:I'm not trying to change your mind, but based on my experience, I need to know a lot more about process other than "some people claiming they are smarter than me." Lots of people are, but oddly enough, usually those who say they are, often aren't. Weird how that works.
If a system is verified accurate for a reasonable time period then it is reasonable to assume for other periods it is accurate, if that system remains the same, essentially this is the basis for Science.Simple Minded wrote:
You are still twisting words bro. The data from two different sources agrees for the last 30 years, therefore the prior 70 years of data from only one source is thereby defined as accurate? You might want to think that one thru a little bit more.
That is hilarious, you imply that globally Scientists are making lavender up for grants ie UAH, RSS, GISS and Hadley are all in cahoots to overstate global temperature rise and then say you are not making accusations of corruption, you should run for politics.Never said a word about corruption. But you yourself state that access to money influences your academic career. The same may be true for other people who are earning a living in academia or doing research. Give that one a little bit more thought also.
..not to mention a editing postion on Prison Planet.Satellites orbit the planet measuring upwelling microwave radiation from atmospheric oxygen to determine Atmospheric temperature.Seriously though, if you ever do come across anything that proves the temp of the Earth can be measured within +/- 3 C, even in the last 30 years, I would love to see the methodology explained.
Will do.In your shoes, I would go for broke on the student loans, they will all be forgiven within 3-5 years. I would bank on it. Milk the hell out of it.
...Light snows for portions of the Kenai Peninsula and Kodiak
Island...
A weak area of low pressure developing south of Kodiak Island will
track to southern Cook Inlet on Sunday. Some of the cold air across
southwest AK will bleed across Shelikof Strait and southern Cook
Inlet tonight and allow rain to mix with or change over to wet snow
from Kodiak Island through the southern to eastern Kenai Peninsula.
Areas near sea level might expect a dusting to 1 inch...and at higher
elevations...such as the Homer Bluff and Turnagain Pass may see 3 to
5 inches of accumulation. Precipitation is expected to taper to
flurries/sprinkles from southwest to northeast through
Sunday...lingering longest over western Prince William Sound.
People traveling the Seward and Sterling highways are advised to
allow for extra time due to possible inclement conditions on mother's
day.
Jam
Who is this guy?And repeated in 2009, and re-broadcast on June 17th 2010.
“Now, one sobering forecast is that the Arctic Ocean will be seasonally ice free by the summer of 2013.”
David Suzuki
http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/natureo ... cmeltdown/
‘by the summer of’ not ‘in the summer of’ or ‘after the summer of’, meaning sometime Before the summer of 2013, ie. in the low point of 2012
The starting point was in June 1988 – James Hansen’s address to Congress, where he was so sure of his science, he and Senator Tim Wirth turned off the air conditioning to make the room hotter.
WUWT | Follow the money . . .The Congressional Research Service estimates that since 2008 the federal government has spent nearly $70 billion on “climate change activities.”
Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 1 - the backgroundCarbizene wrote:So I'm guessing that the Scientists observing the kilometer in diameter geysers of Methane Clathrates dissasociating from beneath the ESS are in on the Conspiracy as well? maybe you should email them and ask about those faked Moon landings.
As a result of Germany's green energy transition, electricity prices are exploding. Consumers and businesses are paying the price while Germany faces gradual de-industrialisation. Economists estimate that the cost of the green energy transition will total 170 billion Euros by 2020. This is more than double of what Germany would have to write off if Greece were to withdraw from the monetary union.
_____The promotion of renewable energy has become the largest single item of green taxes and levies. This year, the subsidies will increase to the highest ever annual figure of 14.1 billion Euros.
German industry, in particular, is suffering from high electricity prices. Most affected are the chemical, metal and paper industries. In the aluminium industry, the electricity costs amount to about 40 percent of total costs.
All industries complain; some companies have already closed down: the aluminium smelter Voerdal in the Lower Rhine town of Voerde recently filed for bankruptcy because of high energy prices. The U.S. chemical giant Dow Chemical currently operates 17 plants with more than 5,000 employees in Germany. "Because of the green energy transition I get increasingly critical questions from our corporate headquarters in the US about whether energy supply in Germany is still possible at competitive prices," said Germany boss Ralf Brinkmann.
Germany's de-industrialization has already begun
"The de-industrialization has already begun," Energy Commissioner Guenther Oettinger has warned in an interview with the Handelsblatt. Hans Jürgen Kerkhoff, President of the Steel Trade Association, complains: "The levels of industrial electricity prices are higher here than in most other countries."
Within the Federal Government, the concerns are growing: "The price of electricity has become the Achilles’ heel of the energy revolution. We must design it in such a way that electricity prices remain affordable," says Thomas Bareiß, energy policy coordinator of the Parliamentary Christian Democrats (CDU). Experts estimate that the cost of the green energy transition will total 170 billion Euros by 2020. This is more than double of what Germany would have to write off if Greece were to withdraw from the monetary union.
What is of particular concern is that Germany’s industry has helped the country to more economic growth compared to other countries during the recent years of crisis. Countries such as Britain envy Germany for the 22 percent share of industry in its GDP.
A press campaign of four months will convince the German people of the rightness of any idiocy you like to suggest.
~ Alfred von Kiderlen-Waechter 1852 - 1912
Thank you Very Much for your post, Typhoon.Typhoon wrote:Handelsblatt | Green Energy Transition: Germany Fears De-Industrialisation
As a result of Germany's green energy transition, electricity prices are exploding. Consumers and businesses are paying the price while Germany faces gradual de-industrialisation. Economists estimate that the cost of the green energy transition will total 170 billion Euros by 2020. This is more than double of what Germany would have to write off if Greece were to withdraw from the monetary union._____The promotion of renewable energy has become the largest single item of green taxes and levies. This year, the subsidies will increase to the highest ever annual figure of 14.1 billion Euros.
German industry, in particular, is suffering from high electricity prices. Most affected are the chemical, metal and paper industries. In the aluminium industry, the electricity costs amount to about 40 percent of total costs.
All industries complain; some companies have already closed down: the aluminium smelter Voerdal in the Lower Rhine town of Voerde recently filed for bankruptcy because of high energy prices. The U.S. chemical giant Dow Chemical currently operates 17 plants with more than 5,000 employees in Germany. "Because of the green energy transition I get increasingly critical questions from our corporate headquarters in the US about whether energy supply in Germany is still possible at competitive prices," said Germany boss Ralf Brinkmann.
Germany's de-industrialization has already begun
"The de-industrialization has already begun," Energy Commissioner Guenther Oettinger has warned in an interview with the Handelsblatt. Hans Jürgen Kerkhoff, President of the Steel Trade Association, complains: "The levels of industrial electricity prices are higher here than in most other countries."
Within the Federal Government, the concerns are growing: "The price of electricity has become the Achilles’ heel of the energy revolution. We must design it in such a way that electricity prices remain affordable," says Thomas Bareiß, energy policy coordinator of the Parliamentary Christian Democrats (CDU). Experts estimate that the cost of the green energy transition will total 170 billion Euros by 2020. This is more than double of what Germany would have to write off if Greece were to withdraw from the monetary union.
What is of particular concern is that Germany’s industry has helped the country to more economic growth compared to other countries during the recent years of crisis. Countries such as Britain envy Germany for the 22 percent share of industry in its GDP.
A press campaign of four months will convince the German people of the rightness of any idiocy you like to suggest.
~ Alfred von Kiderlen-Waechter 1852 - 1912
