[johnu]

Is global warming responsible for this???

Rush Limbaugh falsely claims Hurricane Florence is full of sharks

Reporters are being too hard on Rush. I know I have a shark damage rider on my house insurance to cover me in case a shark falling from the sky damages the roof of my house.

[PeterAlan]

 johnu, on 2018-September-13, 16:21, said:

Is global warming responsible for this???

Rush Limbaugh falsely claims Hurricane Florence is full of sharks

Reporters are being too hard on Rush. I know I have a shark damage rider on my house insurance to cover me in case a shark falling from the sky damages the roof of my house.

Are you aware of this house?

[Al_U_Card]

Interesting view of interglacials and their inception/termination over at https://judithcurry....d-milankovitch/ .

Seems like dust from cold-induced desertification lowers ice albedo and abets orbital insolation in warming the planet and ending the glaciation. Inter-glacials may end when increased CO2 (from warmer oceans, NOT SUVs) reverses desertification, lowering dust and increasing ice albedo thereby helping orbital eccentricity plunge the planet back into glacial cold.
The current inter-glacial is the longest in the geological record and perhaps human dust and soot generation is part of the reason....

[johnu]

An Alaskan village is falling into the sea. Washington is looking the other way.

Why are these Alaskans trying to make Dennison and the Republicans look bad?

[Al_U_Card]

Speaking of inter-glacials, the Younger-Dryas boundary is a most interesting phenomenon. Coming out of the last ice age about 12,600 years ago, global temperatures rose about 12 degrees C over 50 years or so (as they had numerous times before) when suddenly and unusually (as in never before seen in the paleo record) global temperatures plunged 9 degrees for a period of about 600 years. This coincided with the extinction of ALL of the mega-fauna in North America. The disappearance of the Clovis people that inhabited the region as well. It also resulted in the formation of the multitude of "Carolina bays" throughout the southeast. (An elliptical depression, axially oriented to the northwest, usually filled with a peat bog or a lake.)
Recent evidence points to a meteorite strike on or above the receding ice sheet that caused the significant global cooling.
No SUV's were seen or hurt, at that time...

[Winstonm]

https://www.axios.co...e320994dc0.html

[johnu]

Dennison Insists ‘Raking’ Will Help Stop Forest Fires; Twitter Reels

It's not global warming that caused the California's devastating fires, it was lack of raking.

As some twitter users pointed out, California was also negligent because it doesn't have has much marshland and snow as Norway.

And then there is this:

Twitter Users Baffled By Dennison's ‘Great Climate’ Promise During Wildfire Tour

Quote

fter witnessing the devastation inflicted on the community of Paradise, Dennison on Saturday was asked by reporters whether his opinion on climate change had been altered.

“No. No. I have a strong opinion: I want great climate, we’re going to have that,” he replied.

I'm reassured. Goodbye global warming. Your president has decreed great climate

[Al_U_Card]

Here comes the cold... we're gonna hafta get a few more SUV's on the road...

[johnu]

 Al_U_Card, on 2018-November-19, 06:30, said:

Here comes the cold... we're gonna hafta get a few more SUV's on the road...

Based on your extensive scientific background in climatology , what is your prediction for worldwide temperatures in 2019, just for the record?

[Al_U_Card]

 johnu, on 2018-November-20, 04:17, said:

Based on your extensive scientific background in climatology , what is your prediction for worldwide temperatures in 2019, just for the record?

That value will depend on the amount of the adjustments made to the measurements. It will definitely be less than the "projections" of the CMIP5 models. Should you go looking, be aware that Google is now "up-rating" RealClimate and even, ugh, SkepticalScience in search results so that warmist views and interpretations get prominence. Nothing to do with reality, just like the IPCC et al.

[johnu]

 Al_U_Card, on 2018-November-20, 06:49, said:

That value will depend on the amount of the adjustments made to the measurements.

I asked a question that should have been simple. Will 2019 be one of the top 10 hottest years? Top 20? Or just average?

[Al_U_Card]

It will also likely be within the range of measurement uncertainty, like most if not all of the previous ten "hottest years evah!" Hardly simple, when even Gavin Schmidt admits that they cannot determine statistical significance for their claims, it just becomes more of the same, hype.

[johnu]

 Al_U_Card, on 2018-November-21, 06:44, said:

It will also likely be within the range of measurement uncertainty, like most if not all of the previous ten "hottest years evah!" Hardly simple, when even Gavin Schmidt admits that they cannot determine statistical significance for their claims, it just becomes more of the same, hype.

Then why are you posting what you are basically admitting is useless data?

[Al_U_Card]

 johnu, on 2018-November-21, 14:32, said:

Then why are you posting what you are basically admitting is useless data?

Hardly useless. The difference between actual data and the models shows them to be inaccurate, no matter how precise their average pretends to be. This information is only unused by people who try to ignore it and its implications for CAGW hysteria.

[johnu]

 Al_U_Card, on 2018-November-21, 15:56, said:

Hardly useless. The difference between actual data and the models shows them to be inaccurate, no matter how precise their average pretends to be. This information is only unused by people who try to ignore it and its implications for CAGW hysteria.

[johnu]

More buffoonery

Scientists Slam Dennison's Clueless Climate Change Tweet: ‘He’s A Clown’

I would like to take a moment to defend clowns worldwide for these libelous comparisons to Dennison.

[Al_U_Card]

 johnu, on 2018-November-21, 20:06, said:

More buffoonery

Scientists Slam Dennison's Clueless Climate Change Tweet: ‘He’s A Clown’

I would like to take a moment to defend clowns worldwide for these libelous comparisons to Dennison.

Anyone that subscribes to the consensus that "climate is changing rapidly..." (from the Huffpost link) is more buffoon than scientist. Rapidly, indeed as rapid as it has always been, no more no less. Real analysis based on actual data supercedes any opinion especially ones that advocate for changing the weather.

[johnu]

 Al_U_Card, on 2018-November-22, 16:11, said:

Anyone that subscribes to the consensus that "climate is changing rapidly..." (from the Huffpost link) is more buffoon than scientist. Rapidly, indeed as rapid as it has always been, no more no less. Real analysis based on actual data supercedes any opinion especially ones that advocate for changing the weather.

Beware the fickle finger of buffoonery for it points at you.

You post presumably actual data since I won't waste time fact checking, and then claim "you" can't make predictions. Presumably because you need to wait until the actual time period data has been gathered and you can claim victory if your data correlated with the result, and that adjustments needed to be be made if the data doesn't correlate with the result. That's (un) "real" science.

Then a ridiculous diversion about the definition of "rapid". I'm sure rest of the climate change deniers are suitably pacified by this type of argument to be completely satisfied.

[johnu]

 Al_U_Card, on 2018-November-22, 16:11, said:

Anyone that subscribes to the consensus that "climate is changing rapidly..." (from the Huffpost link) is more buffoon than scientist. Rapidly, indeed as rapid as it has always been, no more no less. Real analysis based on actual data supercedes any opinion especially ones that advocate for changing the weather.

What a coincidence The Federal Climate report was just released today as many expected (because releasing this in the middle of the 4 day Thanksgiving holiday will effectively bury it for much of the public).

Climate change will shrink US economy and kill thousands, government report warns

David Easterling is the director of the Technical Support Unit at the NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information.

Quote

"The global average temperature is much higher and is rising more rapidly than anything modern civilization has experienced, and this warming trend can only be explained by human activities," Easterling said.

I leave it to other readers to make their own conclusions about who is a buffoon.

[Al_U_Card]

Drilliing down, (3 layers from the CNN report that starts with a smokestack "spewing" water vapor) we find the heart of the issue. Where are they finding all these doom and gloom scenarios? Well, try the (Climate is a non-linear, chaotic system whose future states cannot be predicted - IPCC ) standard of "excellence" in climate impact "framing" and you get this.

"NCA4 authors have grounded their assessment in an analysis of the widely-used scenarios termed “Representative Concentration Pathways,” or RCPs, that form the foundation for the majority of recent coordinated global climate model experiments. (RCPs are also discussed in this report’s Front Matter.) Consistent with previous NCAs, NCA4 relies in part on climate scenarios and modeling efforts generated for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments. In May 2015, USGCRP released a memo outlining the decisions regarding climate-related scenarios and the rationale around them.2 Specifically, USGCRP decided to use the RCPs3 ,4 and associated model results from the Climate Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5)5 that underpinned the IPCC 5th Assessment Report (AR5), completed in 2013–2014.

The CMIP model results, as driven by the RCP scenarios, have similarly become standard reference inputs for virtually all work in the United States and internationally concerning climate change science, impacts, vulnerability, adaptation, and mitigation. It is, therefore, reasonable, practical, and in line with the expectations of the research community for NCA4 to use the most recently available model outputs from CMIP5, associated with the RCPs. CMIP5 climate data were widely available during the development of NCA4; products from the next phase of the CMIP project (CMIP6) were not available in time to support NCA4.

USGCRP further decided that NCA4 would focus primarily on RCP8.5 and RCP4.5 for framing purposes, while also considering other scenario information where appropriate (for example, RCP2.6). These RCPs capture a range of plausible atmospheric concentration futures that drive climate models. RCP8.5 is the high-end scenario (high emissions, high concentrations, large temperature increase) in the IPCC’s AR5; it likewise serves as the high-end scenario for NCA4, similar to the use of IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report (AR4) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) A2 scenario in NCA3.6 RCP4.5 is not the lowest scenario in AR5, but it is similar to the AR4 SRES low-end B1 scenario that was used in NCA3. RCP2.6 represents the low end of the range considered by AR5, but it also assumes significantly greater emissions reductions, even for current and near-term emissions, than previous low-end scenarios used by the IPCC. The range represented by RCP8.5 and RCP4.5, therefore, provides the most continuity and consistency with the IPCC scenarios used for framing purposes by the previous NCA3."


Same old, same old. Perhaps buffoon might also mean gullible?