Tuesday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Tuesday, September 19. 2017

Image above: Testing dog training. Command is Sit, or Sit, Stay. My dogs were tested on squirrels.

Confirmed: exercising during pregnancy is good for mother and baby

Organic Marketing Is Losing A Key Government Advocate

My plan for 2018 is to avoid anything labeled organic

Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests

No kidding!

RIP Irony 2017

Unconditional love

The W.K. Kellogg Foundation’s Radical Leftward Drift - Have some liberal politics with your cereal!

Shocking idea: Getting Back To "Bourgeois Basics"?

Why NYC is Spending Millions to Fill Garbage Cans with Nutritious Meals

Governments turn tables by suing public records requesters

Ian Buruma: A Jihad Apologist at the Helm of the New York Review of Books

Nobody reads it anyway.

SCENES FROM ACADEMIA: A Campus Conservative’s Year Facing Anger, Doxing and Intimidation.

EU Report Characterizes Opposition to Abortion as a Crime Against Humanity

Underreported: What Happened When Government Tried to Fix a Coal Town

New England's Illinois: Connecticut's Budget Mess Shows That States Can't Tax Themselves to Prosperity

DALLAS "INVESTIGATING" BENJAMIN FRANKLIN'S "CONNECTION TO THE CONFEDERACY"

Why Is Google Hiring 1,000 Journalists To Flood Newsrooms Around America?

Z-man: " The sole reason for Schumer to exist in Washington is to guide troublesome Republicans through the process of committing political suicide."

Tucker Carlson UNLEASHES on Illegal Alien: ‘You Don’t Have a Right to Demand Anything!’

Obama FBI Wiretapped TRUMP Campaign Manager During 2016 Election

Obama update: Retiree On Pension Still Has Not Made Enough Money, Occupies Wall Street … Sort Of

$400,000 per Wall St. speech. I am envious. That's a good pay day.

NYT Reporter: Hillary Thought “It Was Our Job” To Get Her Elected

She was right

Why U.S. Can't Have Open-Ended Amnesty For Kids Who Arrive Here Illegally

NYT: Is Trump a white supremacist?

Is he beating his wife?

Trump's Gentle-Seeming U.N. Reforms Are Really An Ultimatum: Reform Or Die

Around the world in 80 days (day 16) Okinawa: Remembering who we once were

London Update: West to Blame for Islamic Terrorism

The London bomber was a teenage refugee

Hungary Builds A Wall, Cuts Illegal Immigration By Over 99 Per Cent

Palestinians Imprison Journalists for Exposing Corruption

48% of east Jerusalem parents want Israeli school curriculum

Israeli Innovation Behind iPhone X – Will They Boycott Apple?

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 06:18 | Comments (44) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

QUOTE:

Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests

Bird Dog: No kidding!

QUOTE:

Millar et al: "Assuming emissions peak and decline to below current levels by 2030, and continue thereafter on a much steeper decline, which would be historically unprecedented but consistent with a standard ambitious mitigation scenario (RCP2.6), results in a likely range of peak warming of 1.2–2.0◦C above the mid-nineteenth century...

"the possibility that both Chinese and global emissions are at or near their peak, and could reduce from 2020, seems less far-fetched than it once did."

This hardly supports the skeptical view. Rather, the study clearly indicates that greenhouse gases are warming the planet, but that mitigation is already starting to work.

It's sort of like the story of a fire alarm. People shout that they have to put the fire out or the fire will spread and the whole town might burn down. Simplicio decides to do nothing. The rest of the townsfolk are upset, but go about putting out the fire. When all is said and done, Simplicio smugly points out that the town didn't burn down, after all.

#1 Zachriel on 2017-09-19 10:05 (Reply)

Temperature leads co2 by 800 years...co2 does NOT lead temperature.

#1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2017-09-19 11:30 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests.

Nope, the "models" are worse than they "thought".

#1.2 drowningpuppies on 2017-09-19 12:04 (Reply)

More like the story about the rooster crowing each morning to make the sun come up.

#1.3 BillH on 2017-09-19 12:50 (Reply)

Not at all. You don't even understand what you just read.

What's it like to be wrong?

#1.4 DrTorch on 2017-09-19 13:16 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Temperature leads co2 by 800 years...co2 does NOT lead temperature.

CO2 is both cause and effect in the climate system, a feedback mechanism.

DrTorch: Not at all. You don't even understand what you just read. What's it like to be wrong?

Not at all. You don't even understand what you just read. What's it like to be wrong?

#1.5 Zachriel on 2017-09-19 15:59 (Reply)

The only feedback mechanism in AGW is government money for those who provide the results that government wants so that government can demand more money and power to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

#1.5.1 indyjonesouthere on 2017-09-19 21:20 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: The only feedback mechanism in AGW is government money for those who provide the results that government wants so that government can demand more money and power to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

CO2 works as a feedback. For instance, if an orbital change causes an increase in solar insolation, the oceans will warm. Warmer water can hold less CO2, so atmospheric CO2 will increase. This warms the Earth further, leading to more CO2 in the atmosphere. A feedback mechanism.

Conversely, if an orbital change causes a decrease in solar insolation, the oceans will cool. Cooler water can hold more CO2, so atmospheric CO2 will decrease. This cools the Earth further, leading to less CO2 in the atmosphere. A feedback mechanism.

The Earth's cryosphere also works as a feedback, and in the same direction.

#1.5.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-09-20 09:41 (Reply)

There are two possibilities: 1. Mitigation has led to a slowdown in the growth of CO2, and thus temperature is not increasing at as fast a rate as the models initially proposed, and 2. The models overstated the effect of CO2 on temperature from the beginning.

If you are willing to concede that the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere is decreasing, then we can admit option 1 as a possibility. However, reports from earlier this year were that the rate is increasing and the rate of change (2nd derivative) is also increasing.

This leaves as a possibility that the models routinely overstate the climate sensitivity, either because they use incorrect parameters internally, or because they use as input data which has been adjusted using algorithms that implicitly include the assumption that temperatures are rising.

#1.6 Another guy named Dan on 2017-09-19 16:32 (Reply)

Another guy named Dan: There are two possibilities: 1. Mitigation has led to a slowdown in the growth of CO2, and thus temperature is not increasing at as fast a rate as the models initially proposed, and 2. The models overstated the effect of CO2 on temperature from the beginning.

Millar et al: "More ambitious near-term mitigation may be more feasible than previously thought."

Another guy named Dan: If you are willing to concede that the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere is decreasing ...

When compared to previous projections.

Another guy named Dan: This leaves as a possibility that the models routinely overstate the climate sensitivity, either because they use incorrect parameters internally, or because they use as input data which has been adjusted using algorithms that implicitly include the assumption that temperatures are rising.

Increasing global mean temperature is not an assumption, but an observation.

#1.6.1 Zachriel on 2017-09-19 17:11 (Reply)

QUOTE Zero-bot:

Increasing global mean temperature is not an assumption, but an observation artifact of adjustments made to the observed data.

FTFY

#1.6.1.1 Thos. on 2017-09-20 00:13 (Reply)

Thos: FTFY

Independent statistical and scientific analysis has repeatedly supported the finding that the Earth's mean surface temperature is warming; such as the Berkeley Earth project, which works from the raw unadjusted data to determine the trend.

#1.6.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-09-20 09:34 (Reply)

True to your programming, you've misrepresented what Berkeley Earth is doing. To wit:

QUOTE ” Berkeley Earth”:

Berkeley Earth collects data from 16 different sources. Wherever a source has an unadjusted version, that version is used. If multiple data sources have records for the same location, unadjusted values are given priority over adjusted values.

In short, the Berkeley Earth Project includes raw data in their analysis, but it doesn't work exclusively with raw data.

For people capable of thinking about how data works, it should come as no surprise that any time you compare one set of findings drawn from adjusted data, with another set of findings drawn from data that includes the adjusted data used for the first findings, you're going to see some similarities in your results.

Note that I'm not arguing that Berkeley Earth is wrong about their findings; just pointing out that those findings are not quite the "independent" confirmation some would like.

Not that that matters to you. This sort of sleight-of-hand trick where whatever you are saying at the moment doesn't hold up under scrutiny (temperature "observations" when it's really adjustments; raw data when it's only partially raw; and all manner of contortions to move the discussion away from a report that climate change is not turning out to be as alarming a threat as the models predicted) has become tedious and predictable.

#1.6.1.1.1.1 Thos. on 2017-09-20 13:37 (Reply)

Thos: In short, the Berkeley Earth Project includes raw data in their analysis, but it doesn't work exclusively with raw data.

The blue line represents unadjusted data only. It's almost as if you don't think statisticians and scientists examining the data have looked at that issue.

#1.6.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-09-20 14:41 (Reply)

There you go again.

QUOTE Zero-bot:

The blue line represents unadjusted data only.

Wrong. The blue line represents Berkeley Earth's consolidated data set, which (as already established) comes from 16 different sources, not all of which are raw or unadjusted data. (For more info, see: link.)

The green and blue lines are Berkeley Earth's own adjustments (homogenization) to the data set they assembled.

So I was correct when I said:

QUOTE:

In short, the Berkeley Earth Project includes raw data in their analysis, but it doesn't work exclusively with raw data.

You misrepresented Berkeley Earth's work. When you were called on it, you doubled down on the lies bout their data. I'm sure this isn't the last attempt at misdirection that we'll see from you (it's almost like you're unable to post without misrepresenting something), but rest assured, you aren't fooling anyone.

#1.6.1.1.1.1.1.1 Thos. on 2017-09-20 18:08 (Reply)

...but rest assured, you aren't fooling anyone.

Just themzelvez.

#1.6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2017-09-21 21:14 (Reply)

Thos: Wrong.

Here's a chart from Berkeley Earth showing just the NCDC raw data, clearly labeled, compared to NCDC and Berkeley Earth adjusted data.

#1.6.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2017-09-22 08:49 (Reply)

Here's the source files.

#1.6.1.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2017-09-20 14:43 (Reply)

Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data

#1.6.1.1.1.1.3 Zachriel on 2017-09-22 08:53 (Reply)

The BEST project's Prof Richard Muller: "There were issues of data changes. Some of the prior groups had adjusted the data and lost all record of how they had adjusted it. So we went back to the raw data and used only that."

#1.6.1.1.1.1.4 Zachriel on 2017-09-22 09:06 (Reply)

Clarification on recent press coverage of our '1.5 degrees' paper in Nature Geoscience: "A number of media reports have asserted that our recent study in Nature Geoscience indicates that global temperatures are not rising as fast as predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and hence that action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is no longer urgent.

"Both assertions are false."

#1.7 Zachriel on 2017-09-23 10:18 (Reply)

"Underreported: What Happened When Government Tried to Fix a Coal Town"

Want to know why coal miners are not tech nerds? It's because they are coal miners. The whole retraining people thing is stupid. It's like saying; let's build robotic trucks and retrain the truckers to be robotics engineers. Um, guess why they aren't already robotics engineers. This is not to disparage coal miners or truckers. The pussy coders and robotics nerds can't do their job either.

#2 Fred on 2017-09-19 11:20 (Reply)

As one who just "adopted" kittens discovered in back yard over the summer, kudos to those dogs. If we could discover the way feline's brain works, we could conquer all

to

#3 jma on 2017-09-19 11:33 (Reply)

Spending Millions to Fill Garbage Cans with Nutritious Meals leads to the article: "Chancellor Fariña Announces Free School Lunch for All"

Ironic that the Chancellor's surname is the same as possibly the most bland, un-sought-out food that has ever been milled:

http://www.elcolmadito.com/Arte/MasProductos/QuakerFarina16onz_1.jpg

#4 Dave on 2017-09-19 11:33 (Reply)

During 2nd pregnancy, I did more exercise than I had with 1st one. Nothing major, just walking on a treadmill for maybe 30 to 45 minutes 3 to 4 times a week. Easy stuff. This was first trimester. I went to appointment at 3-month mark and had lost 2 pounds. Was told to stop 'excessive' exercise.

I didn't think that was excessive, but afterwards I stopped going to the gym at all b/c I didn't know what to do. No one told me, and I was worried I was doing too much.

I should've just stuck to my routine. Big mistake to listen to doc. But when you are told weight loss is bad during pregnancy, you get scared.

It would've been better for them to say, go ahead and continue what you are doing and we'll check on you next month. A few pounds isn't that big of a deal. Especially in first trimester when you typically have morning sickness and nausea.

#5 MissT on 2017-09-19 12:27 (Reply)

Weight measured one time is a Single Point Statistic ie BS. What time of the year, what cloths, etc. Measure daily in the same state of dress, record and look at the trend. Otherwise it is just another number.

#5.1 Dorf on 2017-09-19 15:26 (Reply)

Re: The W.K. Kellogg Foundation’s Radical Leftward Drift

The Kellogg Foundation is not alone in being take over by leftists.

From https://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/who-funds-the-radical-left-in-america/

QUOTE:

What’s sad is that many of these foundations were originally endowed by America’s first generation of great capitalists but have decided to spit on the legacy created by these captains of industry. It is very doubtful William Randolph Hearst, J.P. Morgan, John D. MacArthur, Andrew Carnegie, Richard Mellon, Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller, or W. K. Kellogg, would support efforts to move America toward socialism or assist terrorists who desire to destroy America. These foundations have been captured by the left and now use the money created by free enterprise to attack the very system which created such wealth.

#6 mudbug on 2017-09-19 12:50 (Reply)

"with donations to trendy left-wing causes, including the racist polemicists of Black Lives Matters and other radical groups promoting open borders with Mexico."

Who do you think buys sugar cereal these days?

#6.1 DrTorch on 2017-09-19 13:22 (Reply)

The tax revision needs to eliminate tax deductions for donations to any "foundation" which engages in any way in politics, or supports or espouses "social engineering" or "thought leadership", or serves as employment welfare for political cronies (eg, the Clinton pay-for-play enterprise).

Government grants to "foundations" in general should cease completely - why should our government borrow 40% of our budget, and yet pay grants to any"foundations"? Let them borrow money directly.

#6.2 jaybird on 2017-09-19 13:46 (Reply)

You will be gratified to know there is a name for it, O'Sullivan's Law. http://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/2006/02/osullivans-law-hits-habitat-for.html

#6.3 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2017-09-19 13:47 (Reply)

In re Benjamin Franklin: they characterized it as looking for Confederacy connections, but in actuality it will be researching whether James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, or Benjamin Franklin ever owned slaves, tolerated the ownership of slaves, or if they were friends with, related to, or acquainted with (in any non-adversarial way) anyone who owned slaves or tolerated the ownership of slaves.

#7 BornSouthern on 2017-09-19 13:17 (Reply)

Ultimately both Judaism and Christianity will have to be investigated of course.

The Bible is full of personalities who "owned slaves, tolerated the ownership of slaves, or if they were friends with, related to, or acquainted with (in any non-adversarial way) anyone who owned slaves or tolerated the ownership of slaves".

And since more or less everybody's ancestors (see my note below) at one time or another in history "owned slaves, tolerated the ownership of slaves, or if they were friends with, related to, or acquainted with (in any non-adversarial way) anyone who owned slaves or tolerated the ownership of slaves", I suppose we are all going to have to wear hair vests and flagellate ourselves.

Note: I once watched one of those genealogy shows on PBS in which an African-American family wanted to learn if the family lore that claimed they were descended from some of the earliest free blacks in the Carolinas was true.

It turned out that it was indeed true - they were already freemen at the beginning of the 19th Century. However, they learned something else which clearly caused a bit of consternation amongst them: their ancestors owned a number of slaves.

As freemen, they were perfectly entitled to purchase their own slaves of course. And so they did.

#7.1 JJM on 2017-09-19 14:28 (Reply)

It doesn't support the straw man you pretend is the skeptic's POV, but it absolutely does support the skeptics' POV.

1. There has been slight warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. Shocking.
2. There is some consensus that humans might have some influence on that. That's how the pollsters word those questions, in order to pad their numbers and spread alarm.
2A. There is not a majority consensus that humans have definitely been most of that.
3. There is little evidence of a looming catastrophe, and some counter-evidence that it will actually be beneficial.

The alarmists are the real deniers.

#8 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2017-09-19 13:56 (Reply)

Assistant Village Idiot: It doesn't support the straw man you pretend is the skeptic's POV

The study says that warming is occurring at 0.2°C per decade, concluding that "Our analysis suggests that ‘pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C’ is not chasing a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require a significant strengthening of the NDCs (Nationally
Determined Contributions) at the first opportunity in 2020 to hedge against the risks of a higher-than-expected climate response and/or economic, technical or political impediments to sustained reductions at historically unprecedented rates after 2030.

No. Their scientific findings do not support the skeptics point-of-view.

#8.1 Zachriel on 2017-09-19 16:10 (Reply)

You consistently have trouble answering all objections, but just choosing the ones you like, and usually twisting even those 30 degrees at every ratchet. Now you are saying that mitigation must have worked, a little, kinda, because the numbers might be better. Sure, what else could it be, eh? With no evidence, you declare your theory to be obviously true.

#8.1.1 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2017-09-19 18:21 (Reply)

Assistant Village Idiot: With no evidence, you declare your theory to be obviously true.

The evidence is in the paper. Did you read it? Millar et al., Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C, Nature Geoscience 2017.

We were pointed indirectly to the paper by the original post, and took a look at it to see what it actually says. We've quoted it several times. There is nothing in the study which supports the skeptical view that anthropogenic global warming is not a significant problem. Rather, it's all about what it will take to limit such warming.

Myles Allen, co-author: "Do I think we’re doomed to disastrous warming? Absolutely not. But do I think we are doomed if we persist in our current approach to climate policy? I’m afraid the answer is yes."

#8.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-09-19 19:10 (Reply)

Zzzzz: The evidence is in the paper.

Andy: Barney why are you covering all the office furniture with newspaper?
Barney: To keep the elephants away.
Andy: Barney we don’t have any elephants around here.
Barney: See it’s working.

Yep, evidence indeed.

Give it up kidz.

#8.1.1.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2017-09-19 23:43 (Reply)

Previous comment was in reply to Zachriel, above.

Re: The NYT asking if Trump is a white supremacist. I think the real question is "Is The NYT looking for every opportunity to put Trump and white supremacist in the same headline?"

#9 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2017-09-19 14:03 (Reply)

Using historical environmental temperature records you need to account for errors of accuracy built into the thermometer and errors of resolution built into the instrument as well as errors of observation and recording of the temperature. In a typical high quality glass thermometer, the accuracy would be +/- 1.4F. (2% of range) The resolution of the observer would be around +/-1F. So the total error margin in weather station temperatures would be a minimum of +/-2.5F, or +/-1.30c.
The temperature measurements at weather stations were not made by precision laboratory instruments in a laboratory so the accuracy is unknown. That's why I don't get excited about the global average temperature calculations.

#10 Ray on 2017-09-20 17:39 (Reply)

Ray: Using historical environmental temperature records you need to account for errors of accuracy built into the thermometer and errors of resolution built into the instrument as well as errors of observation and recording of the temperature.

Sure. That's what statisticians do when they examine observational data.

#10.1 Zachriel on 2017-09-21 10:31 (Reply)

Ray: In a typical high quality glass thermometer, the accuracy would be +/- 1.4F.

Standard, high quality thermometers of the 19th century were accurate to approximately +-0.2°F (precision laboratory thermometers were good to +-0.01°C), but not all observers were equally careful, so you would be safe assuming an accuracy of +-0.5°F. The larger problem is the poor distribution of measuring stations, changes in instrumentation, and other factors, such as time of day when measurements were taken.

#10.2 Zachriel on 2017-09-21 10:32 (Reply)

Ray: The temperature measurements at weather stations were not made by precision laboratory instruments in a laboratory so the accuracy is unknown.

That's less important than you might think. Multiple measurements can improve precision, and statistical techniques can be used to determine trends in the data.

Assume a thousand thermometers distributed over a region. Assume an error rate of +-1°C. If 950 of the thermometers are showing a positive trend of 1°C over time, the rest showing either no change or a small decline, what is the probability that this is due to chance observational error alone? (One way to determine this would be to calculate the mean and standard distribution.)

#10.3 Zachriel on 2017-09-21 10:34 (Reply)

(precision laboratory thermometers were good to +-0.01°C)
Come on Zach. Platinum resistance thermometers are known for their high accuracy but they are only good to +- .03 degree. We were thinking of using them on a project but the problem was calibration. You need a cal standard which is 10 times more accurate than what you are calibrating.

#11 Ray on 2017-09-21 16:43 (Reply)

Ray: Come on Zach.

We granted a high observational error, and showed how we can still detect a trend in the data. Indeed, even with an error of ±1°C, with a large sample, we can detect a trend of much less than 1°C.

According to British Standards, correctly calibrated, used and maintained liquid-in-glass thermometers can achieve a measurement uncertainty of ±0.01 °C in the range 0 to 100 °C

#11.1 Zachriel on 2017-09-22 08:42 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Tuesday, September 19. 2017

Tuesday morning links