We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, January 6. 2017
Image clipped from American Digest
Granny, the world's oldest known orca, is likely dead
I blame climate change
EPA's Clean Power Plan Lies Undermine Congressional Oversight
Where the Buffalo Zone - An innovative zoning code overhaul could help revive the western New York city and is already inspiring copycats.
Sultan on the power of weakness:
In civil societies, showng weakness can be a power play. In uncivil societies, signs of weakness are suicidal.
For University Endowments, There’s No Time like the Present
VDH: Chicago Is Breaking
The Real Housewives of Isis: "Another woman models her new suicide vest for her fellow jihadist wives. “What do you think?” she asks. “Ahmed surprised me with it yesterday.”"
The Most Epic “Epic Media Fail” of All Time?
Democracy and the bloodiness of mob rule
Pray for Jeff Sessions
President Obama's Legacy Follows His Shadow
Trump didn’t just beat the gentry liberals, after all. He also humiliated them.
House GOP, Trump team hatch border wall plan
Washington Post Is Richly Rewarded For False News About Russia Threat While Public Is Deceived
Ireland and Brexit
Tracked: Jan 08, 09:25
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Earth Cooling At The Fastest Rate On Record
You do realize that the graph doesn’t show temperature, but change in temperature? If you look at the actual temperature data, it clearly shows warming over the period. A short term cooling after a strong El Niño is the expected pattern. Even after the cooling, the temperature is still above the average for the period.
you didn't read your own linked article. again.
try to go through the day without using the word "conflate".
They never read what they post. If the title says something interesting, that supports their babble, they post it. Then slap themselves on the back. They then use all these quotes to fill ups space, makes them appear brilliant.
B Hammer: If the title says something interesting, that supports their babble, they post it.
Still, if you look at the actual temperature data, it clearly shows warming over the period. Cooling after a strong El Niño is the expected pattern. Even after the cooling, the temperature is still above the average for the period. (The reason we reposted the data is because the data doesn't go away because you refuse to consider it.)
zhe's the worst I've seen anywhere. calling zachiels out on misrepresenting articles that it clearly hasn't read is a fish/barrel proposition. note that he essentially admits not reading anything.
It's a cinch he doesn't read his own links. I think you're right: he doesn't get past titles or, at best, blurbs.
Texan99: It's a cinch he doesn't read his own links.
We only provided a single link, and it was a chart. We did read the chart, and if you notice, it includes RSS TLT.
Did you read the chart where it says it goes through Feb 2016?
DrTorch: Did you read the chart where it says it goes through Feb 2016?
Sure. But the temperature anomaly is still above the long-term average (+0.23°C in Dec 2016) even after the so-called historic cooling. There's the possibility of a La Niña period and additional cooling, but even that won't be likely to change the overall positive trend.
Then you must not have understood the chart then. Because the one in the original link starts the downward trend right about that time...the time that's not on the chart you posted as some sort of evidence or "proof" to the contrary.
DrTorch: the time that's not on the chart you posted as some sort of evidence or "proof" to the contrary.
We used the chart to show the overall trend. The last few months have not changed the trend significantly. Here's a chart of RSS TLT through Dec 2016. The trend over the period of observation is clear.
Z: The last few months have not changed the trend significantly.
The additional months change the trend from +0.135°C/decade to +0.130°C/decade.
DrTorch: Did you read the chart where it says it goes through Feb 2016?
Here's a chart of RSS TLT through Dec 2016. The trend over the period of observation is clear.
Trivial and far below the forecasts. Which means two things: (1) the model mistakes the underlying mechanisms, and (2) if that underwhelming lukewarming trend had been forecast 30 years ago, warming alarmists could never have gotten anyone's attention in the first place. Which, frankly, probably explains the "mistakes" in the underlying mechanisms embodied in the models, which include entirely unwarranted assumptions about positive CO2/water vapor feedbacks for the apparent purpose of punching up otherwise decidedly undramatic forecasts. The problem is, being unwarranted, the assumptions never are borne out by the climate as it actually occurs. Clearly, the feedback mechanism is either very weakly positive or even negative. The strong positive feedback is a pure fantasy, clung to for entirely rhetorical purposes because it makes the curve swoop up alarmingly any year now, but never this year.
It's fair to say there's been some modest warming. It's not clear that it's a significant trend in light of natural variability over the last few hundred or few thousand years. It's consistent with the data, but not an inevitable conclusion, to say that human activity is contributing to whatever trend is truly signal and not noise. It's not at all clear that the trend is severe enough to be a problem, and certainly not clear that the solutions proposed to date could possibly be said to be worth their cost.
The developing world isn't going to kill large numbers of its citizens by foregoing the benefits of abundant energy, just to avoid a modest increase in warmth. To get anyone seriously interested even in contemplating such a drastic program requires projections of a radical increase in warmth. But this in turn requires revising the forecast constantly, because the radical increase in warmth never actually shows up in the present. It's always scheduled for 5-10 years from now. What happens now is always flat or lukewarm, and non-alarming.
Texan99: Trivial and far below the forecasts.
At least we have resolved the existence of a trend. Good.
Texan99: if that underwhelming lukewarming trend had been forecast 30 years ago
People live on the surface. The rate of surface warming over the last 30 years per NOAA is 0.167°C/decade. This rate is expected to increase — unless there are efforts to reign in greenhouse gas emissions.
Texan99: The developing world isn't going to kill large numbers of its citizens by foregoing the benefits of abundant energy
Well, that would be silly. A better policy would be to adapt the energy infrastructure.
Shame that's not what's proposed. And no one at any time, to my knowledge, has ever adopted the strawman position that there indisputably has been no warming trend over the last 150 years. What we say repeatedly is that there is very likely a trivial warming trend, that it may or may not be a signal above the noise when taking the last few centuries or millennia into account, and that therefore human agency is disputable (though possible) and the magnitude of the change doesn't warrant huge concern. Again, therefore, extremely expensive and dangerous dismantlings of the world's energy-delivery systems are not only unnecessary, but are well known to have deadly impacts of their own.
The most important points, and therefore those never ever ever acknowledged or discussed by proselytes, are that the models on which the anti-warming crusade depends are consistently wrong, that they consistently--decade after decade--drastically overstate the mild warming trend, that they are based on a politically driven but scientifically shaky and unproven assumption about positive CO2/water vapor feedback, and that the refusal even to discuss these problems reveals the whole thing as a dishonest political maneuver.
But your whole take is, "Oh, so you admit there's been a trivial warming trend, that proves something." It's as if you were prescribing amputation because of a body temperature increase of 0.1 of a degree, which you insisted on reporting as a 6-degree rise you project to happen any hour now. "Imminent rampant infection! Must amputate or lose the patient!" The family objects, "But it's only a tiny temperature change, possibly within the normal range of his lifetime. Is it really worth losing a leg over?" You answer, "So you ADMIT he's running a fever! Get out the knives, you heartless deniers! Call security, and escort these people off the civilized premises!--and by the way, it's not an amputation, it's a limb adaptation."
Texan99: And no one at any time, to my knowledge, has ever adopted the strawman position that there indisputably has been no warming trend over the last 150 years.
The specific claim was that climate scientists are "Just a group of criminals who are terrified that their global warming scam is about to end," based on the claim that scientists are lying about the data.
Texan99: What we say repeatedly is that there is very likely a trivial warming trend, that it may or may not be a signal above the noise when taking the last few centuries or millennia into account, and that therefore human agency is disputable (though possible) and the magnitude of the change doesn't warrant huge concern.
The article is saying that scientists are criminally distorting the data. The typical skeptic uses the climate data when it supports their views, then rejects it as falsified when it doesn't.
Texan99: The most important points, and therefore those never ever ever acknowledged or discussed by proselytes, are that the models on which the anti-warming crusade depends are consistently wrong
That is incorrect.
Z: You do realize that the graph doesn’t show temperature, but change in temperature?
Yes. It shows the change in temperature is negative indicating cooling as opposed to warming at a slower rate and more steeply negative than earlier readings on the graph.
mudbug: It shows the change in temperature is negative indicating cooling as opposed to warming at a slower rate and more steeply negative than earlier readings on the graph.
Yes, it cooled rapidly after the end of the El Niño. The temperature anomaly is still above the average over the period. So?
You commented on the title of the article, "Earth Cooling At The Fastest Rate On Record" making sure we knew that the graph in the article was of temperature change and not temperature. I don't know your motivation for calling attention to that fact, but one might be forgiven for drawing the implication that it was an attempt to disqualify the claim in the title. I merely pointed that it it was indeed a graph of the change in temperature and that since it was in negative territory, that indicated the temperature was cooling as opposed to getting warmer slower and that the change in temperature curve was steeper than elsewhere on the chart indicating cooling at a faster rate than previous cooling periods.
You can talk about all the reasons why that might be the case or that it isn't a big deal but that doesn't address my post. I'll just leave you with this thought:
“It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention.”
“So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.”
Monika Kopacz, NOAA Program Manager 2009 – letter to The New York Times, Apr. 12 2009
mudbug: I don't know your motivation for calling attention to that fact
To clarify what the graph shows.
mudbug: I merely pointed that it it was indeed a graph of the change in temperature
It's a change in temperature using a 10-month interval. The claim disappears when you consider a 12-month interval.
mudbug: It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion ...
Of course there's opinion in science. However, there is also substantial objective evidence of global warming, consistent with the physics of an increasing greenhouse effect.
Democracy and the bloodiness of mob rule ... America, of course, is not a democracy. It is a representative republic.
That, of course, is incorrect.
Merriam Webster: democracy, a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
Wikipedia: Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, Dēmokratía literally "rule of the commoners"), in modern usage, is a system of government in which the citizens exercise power directly or elect representatives from among themselves to form a governing body, such as a parliament.
The U.S. is a "representative democracy".
The word “democracy” appears nowhere in the two most fundamental documents of our nation— the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. Our Constitution’s Article IV, Section 4, guarantees “to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” If you don’t want to bother reading our founding documents, just ask yourself: Does our pledge of allegiance to the flag say to “the democracy for which it stands,” or to “the Republic for which it stands”? Or, did Julia Ward Howe make a mistake in titling her Civil War song “The Battle Hymn of the Republic”? Should she have titled it “The Battle Hymn of the Democracy”?
Williams, Walter E. (2015-05-01). American Contempt for Liberty
JK Brown: The word “democracy” appears nowhere in the two most fundamental documents of our nation— the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.
No, it doesn't. And the early U.S. Republic was not a democracy. Only white men of property could vote, and blacks were still held as slaves. But over time, the franchise was extended to all white men (called Jacksonian Democracy), to all men, and to women.
JK Brown: Does our pledge of allegiance to the flag say to “the democracy for which it stands,” or to “the Republic for which it stands”?
Being a republic (lacking a hereditary monarch, with the people being sovereign) and being a democracy (leaders elected by the people) are not inconsistent.
RE EPA's Clean Power Plan Lies Undermine Congressional Oversight
the ultimate oversight for the EP Agency is that congress can amend the EP Act to carve out or withdraw its jurisdiction or authority to promulgate rules. congress can't amend the EP Act until little barry is gone, obviously, because of his veto power.
the Agency is a creature of the osama administration, set up by congress to enforce the Act. its no surprise that the enviro-loony creature of an insane administration would propose stupid save the planet laws and actively oppose the GOP's attempts to rein it in. of course its officials are going to lie before congress, its what they do.
the solution is not budgetary. Trump will appoint an agency head an instruct him to drop the cap and trade. Congress can and should amend the Act. the author does not show any particular expertise or knowledge of how administrative law works, not surprising, since he's apparently only a law student.
Trigger warning advisory. Graphic and profane. Brace yourself for an introduction to trap house culture--it is dated c.2016 but you will see what I am saying.
Venture in at your own risk.
All you had to say was "rap." This is an example of all "cultures" being equally relevant! don't you know. This stuff has SOOO improved the US.
That was disgusting, racist, sexist. Seriously! How is it that Youtube bans so many videos and let's this disgusting crap stay? Help me out here is the "N" word banned speech or not?
SweetPea: Help me out here is the "N" word banned speech or not?
How A White Man Says the N-word to a Black Man
RE Granny, the world's oldest known orca, is likely dead
they don't know how old she was, probably a century or two. but all we need to do is apply climate change weather fetish book cooking formulae and this fish can be as old as we need her to be. 100 years? no problem. a billion years? why not.
RE What the 'Women's March on Washington' Is Really About
the menstrual cycles of the men and women marching will surely synch, and if they all PMS at the same time, ... the consequences will be unthinkable.
"Where the Buffalo Zone - An innovative zoning code overhaul could help revive the western New York city and is already inspiring copycats."
This is key. All the Trump trade talk and opposition miss this point. The problem in areas that lost manufacturing is regulation. Zoning regulation, force unionization, regulation. During the mid-20th century when the money was flowing the local and state government went hardcore regulatory state. That is now the noose these areas hang from.
But no one is talking about real regulatory reform, i.e., slashing it in a skilled manner.
I think deregulation and zoning are changing on the local and state level and you can probably correlate that with the politics of the state. Republicans have been gaining at the local and state level and only recently have democrats noticed. That blue wall is being slowly shattered by the Walkers at the state level. I am hoping that at the federal level the republicans can close up a lot of federal government offices and employees. Trump could rescind EO 10988/11491 and empty a lot of money from the democratic party. But only time will tell.