Global Climate Change Science News

[pErvinalia]

CHOPPED UP PARROTS!!1

[Hermit]

[Animavore]

Once again, science is shown to work. The laborious process in which scientists check and recheck their work and subject their ideas to peer review has led to another success. An independent test of global warming data has confirmed a groundbreaking 2015 study that showed warming was faster than prior estimates.

Because of its inconvenient findings, the study’s lead author Thomas Karl was subjected to harassment by Lamar Smith (R-TX), chair of the House Science Committee, in an effort to impugn his credibility. But now Karl and his co-authors have been vindicated.

Let’s take a step back and discuss the science. Measuring the temperature of the Earth is hard. There are many locations to measure and many choices to make. Should we measure the temperature of the ground? Of the ocean waters? How deep in the water? If we measure air temperatures, what height should the measurements be taken? How many locations should we make measurements at? What happens if the instruments change over time or if the location changes? What happens if a city grows near a measurement location and the so-called urban heat-island effect grows? How do we estimate the temperatures in areas where no measurements exist?

These and many other questions make measuring global warming challenge. Different groups of scientists make different decisions so that depending on the institution, they will get a slightly different temperature result.

But this diversity is also a good thing. It turns out that it doesn’t matter whose results you use – NASA, NOAA, The Hadley Centre in the UK, the Japanese Meteorological Agency, or the Berkeley Earth group – they all report a warming world. However, the rates are slightly different. So, one persistent question is, which group is most accurate? Whose methods are best?

Continued. https://skepticalscience.com/new-study- ... ather.html

[mistermack]

The scepticalscience blog is a joke.
On a par with the watchtower for objectivity.

Nice bit of propaganda. Any Global Climate Change Science News?

[Animavore]

Skeptical science didn't write the article. It's from here.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... al-warming

They didn't do the study either.

Are you going to debunk the study, or just cry?

[Animavore]

This article nicely preempts denialist dishonesty.

Prepare for reanimation of the zombie myth ‘no global warming since 2016’.

Climate myths are like zombies – you shoot them through the heart, walk away thinking they’re dead, and then they pop back up behind you and try once again to eat your brain.

So it is with Stage 1 climate denial and the myth that the Earth isn’t warming. It’s so persistent that it’s related to the 5th, 9th, and 49th-most popular myths in the Skeptical Science database. Climate deniers have been peddling the myth ‘no warming since [insert date]’ for over a decade.

It’s a popular myth among those who benefit from maintaining the status quo because if the problem doesn’t exist, obviously there’s no need for action to solve it. And it’s an incredibly easy argument that can be made at any time, using the telltale technique of climate denial known as cherry picking.

I created a video to illustrate this point. The key is that the Earth has natural short-term temperature oscillations caused by factors like the El Niño/La Niña cycle. El Niño events temporarily warm temperatures at the Earth’s surface, while La Niña events cause temporary surface cooling. When you combine these up-and-down cycles with a long-term human-caused global warming trend and various other noisy influences, you get a bumpy temperature rise that allows for cherry picking of periods without warming:



That’s what it looks like with artificial data. Using real global surface temperature data from NASA, I created a popular graphic called The Escalator, which has been featured the PBS documentary Climate of Doubt and used by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse on the Senate floor. The video below shows The Escalator with data updated through 2016:

Read all: https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... since-2016

I shall be favouriting this page for posterity. The moment lying, denialist fucks start yapping that warming has paused I'm pointing them straight back here.

[Animavore]

Exxon Has to Release Decades of Internal Climate Change Documents, a Massachusetts Judge Rules

A Massachusetts judge has refused to excuse Exxon Mobil (xom, -0.54%) from a request by the state's attorney general to hand over decades worth of documents on its views on climate change, state officials said on Wednesday.

The decision by Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Heidi Brieger denying Exxon 's request for an order exempting it from handing over the documents represents a legal victory for Attorney General Maura Healey, who is investigating the world's largest publicly traded oil company's climate policies.

"This order affirms our longstanding authority to investigate fraud," Healey said on Twitter following the decision, adding that Exxon "must come clean about what it knew about climate change."

Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers said the company was "reviewing the decision to determine next steps."

http://fortune.com/2017/01/12/exxon-mob ... te-change/

[Svartalf]

It's because the Joos don't want us to know the TRUTH!

They've been obfusscating since biblical times

[Sean Hayden]

They'll just say your chart isn't long enough. -my bias is your bias- etc, etc

[Animavore]

Well this isn't good.

[mistermack]

Well this isn't good.

Oh really ?

[Animavore]

Yes. Really.

Do you even know what and understand what you're posting?

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

[mistermack]

Yes. Really.

Do you even know what and understand what you're posting?

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

The ice doesn't look too bad to me. Considering that the orange line is the mean. Which means that some years have more than that, and some less.
And considering that El Nino was one of the strongest, from 2014-2016, you would expect low levels at the moment.

[Animavore]

Yes. Really.

Do you even know what and understand what you're posting?

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

The ice doesn't look too bad to me. Considering that the orange line is the mean. Which means that some years have more than that, and some less.
And considering that El Nino was one of the strongest, from 2014-2016, you would expect low levels at the moment.

The chart I posted was for the global ice, not just the Arctic, but even just going by the Arctic we're talking a difference of 1,000,000 km2.



And it's not simply a case of a particularly strong El Nino. Ice levels are shrinking over time. There's a reduction of around 1,500,000km2 from '78.



This was all in that link I posted.

Also, learn the difference between median and mean for homework.

[mistermack]

Also, learn the difference between median and mean for homework.

Don't try to pretend you're a median hombre.

You ain't fooling anyone.