Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 9

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 7

Unread postby litesong » Wed 26 Oct 2016, 20:51:29

pstarr wrote:I'll bet none of you (excepting dohboi. He eats vegan) have done a damn thing about global warming other than complain about it here at po.com. Am I right?


"pee-stare" continues to be WRONG in almost all its posts.
litesong
permanently banned
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri 31 Jul 2009, 10:15:52

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 7

Unread postby ralfy » Wed 26 Oct 2016, 20:58:59

pstarr wrote:rock, they don't like science. They must like government control . . . by themselves. (I can't believe I am talking like that yikes :shock: I used to be a whiny green myself :-x :lol: But I grew up)

litesong wrote:
pstarr wrote: you have no evidence climate change has reduced aggregate US crop production.


AGW deniers keep hiding behind scientific increase in crop growth, that could off-set adverse climate changes for decades. As for poor countries unable to implement science improvements to crops..... well most AGW deniers aren't in such countries.
The studies have nothing to do with crop science. The observations (by landsat satellites) show that all vegetation on the earth, particularly dry-land vegetation has increased with CO2 emmissions. That means the CO2 is being taken up by natural processes. It's all about ecology and planetary stasis.

I'm going to shoot my wad here and take a guess as to why you guys are so angry. I'll bet none of you (excepting dohboi. He eats vegan) have done a damn thing about global warming other than complain about it here at po.com. Am I right?


No single effort will stop AGW as well as environmental damage; rather, a concerted effort among the global population. But that it is not likely given most people's reliance on a global capitalist economy for both needs and wants.

Given that, attempts at stopping AGW will take place involuntarily, i.e., through the effects of peak oil and generally limits to growth. In which case, the global population will feel the effects of AGW coupled with environmental damage and peak oil for a lengthy period. Unexpected results of these, including the spread of disease, species die-offs, and war brought about by failure of financial systems, may make matters worse.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4585
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 7

Unread postby ralfy » Wed 26 Oct 2016, 21:04:44

pstarr wrote:I will tell you this yellowcanoe: it feels good to finally admit ones errors. I was a global warming fanatic but had the good graces to mostly keep it to myself. I did my job by living a simpler, smaller, less energy intensive life.

It's good to act, and not just talk. You can stop being defensive and relax a bit. These guys/gals are angry probably because they are too committed to one point of view. And if they admit they are wrong, they might have to go back and apologize for bullying people. That's hard to do.

Science is about observing the natural world, guessing how it works, making models and predictions, testing those model. If something isn't right, you change you assumptions, rework the model, try a different direction.


My sense is that most are not aware of how serious the problem is because they are not talking about it, and I think it's because they believe that this problem is either a hoax, something minor, or something that can easily be solved in case it's neither.

I'm not surprised that similar reactions take place in response to peak oil, or even chronic financial crisis.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4585
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 7

Unread postby Synapsid » Wed 26 Oct 2016, 21:06:30

yellowcanoe,

Thank you for presenting an important point.
Synapsid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 20:21:50

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 7

Unread postby Synapsid » Wed 26 Oct 2016, 21:09:31

rockdoc,

Someone else who remembers Meyerhoff!

At the time, as a grad student, I thought "Who is this dinosaur?" It took me a while to understand that he, almost alone, was doing what we should all have been doing.

Thanks for this.
Synapsid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 20:21:50

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 7

Unread postby pstarr » Wed 26 Oct 2016, 21:18:39

litesong wrote:
pstarr wrote:I'll bet none of you (excepting dohboi. He eats vegan) have done a damn thing about global warming other than complain about it here at po.com. Am I right?


"pee-stare" continues to be WRONG in almost all its posts.

nice insult. So how about it, how have you reduced your carbon footprint? I guarantee you I can go molecule for molecule gaseous emission for gaseous emission anytime. Do you wash and reuse your plastic bags? How about your toilet paper? Do you hang it to dry?
There's nothing deeper than love. In fairy tales, the princesses kiss the frogs, and the frogs become princes. In real life,the princesses kiss princes, and the princes turn into frogs

“Bitterness is like cancer. It eats upon the host. But anger is like fire. It burns it all clean.”
― Maya Angelou
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 25737
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 7

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 26 Oct 2016, 21:40:17

At the time, as a grad student, I thought "Who is this dinosaur?" It took me a while to understand that he, almost alone, was doing what we should all have been doing.


Art was a guest lecturer for a semester while I was instructing at one of the Universities. I got to be well acquainted with him and remember when I invited him to speak at a conference many years later it was when he was in his final months of terminal illness. He wrote one of the most gracious, memorable letters I have seen. Without a doubt someone to be missed and remembered.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5310
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 7

Unread postby dissident » Wed 26 Oct 2016, 22:23:09

Only people who don't actually read scientific papers would be impressed by the rock analyst's attempt to look like an expert in climate.

Satellite estimates of surface processes have to be presented in context and not invoked as "proof". There are top-down estimates (based on satellite products) and there are bottom-up estimates based on surface station data analysis. It is routine for these two types of estimates to grossly disagree. For example, the estimates of secondary organic aerosol production globally are off by a factor of 100 from each other.

Do not make the mistake of assuming that satellites measure variables like one would measure length with a ruler. They measure EM fluxes (radiances) which need to be converted into other variables using models and in many cases these model are empirical. If the rock analyst is going to poop on climate models and their submodels (e.g. for cloud processes) as being unreliable and uncertain, I can throw his excrement right back at him and argue that the satellite measurement papers he invokes above are just as uncertain. In fact, they are even more uncertain.

Let's take the claim about vegetation volume based on the emission of visible light in the green band (and some other bands). The transmission of this colour depends the atmospheric aerosol distribution, in particular the organics based part. It will absorb these wavelengths and some estimate of the AOD (aerosol optical depth) needs to be made to infer the magnitude of the flux. Measuring AOD from from satellites is a type of voodoo. Only some advanced variants of LIDARs can measure AOD properly. For satellite instruments some hand-wavy calibration based on typical scenes has to be made. There has been improvement with multi-angle instruments but don't expect every satellite to carry the latest and greatest suite of instruments that concurrently produce precise and accurate measurements.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1014009583

When looking at long term trends the problem with satellite data becomes even more serious:

1) satellite missions do not last decades but mostly a few years.

2) any collection of satellites spanning some long period of time will have major instrument changes from one satellite to the next; so calibration is a nightmare from hell.

3) instruments are not constant in their measurement properties, and all of them drift/degrade while in orbit.

I am not going to take any 14% trend estimate from satellite data seriously. The error bars are larger than this even for a set of measurements at a given time. If you try to put error bars on the trend spanning several instruments you are looking at errors over 30%. Satellites are not so bad for bulk emission measurements such as those that can be used to infer temperature. But for refined products such as the trend of vegetation colour in scene pixels it is another ball game.

Getting back to the green colour trend, we have some sort of hypothesis here that these colour trends reflect total vegetation mass and not specific plant colour trends combined with overlying atmosphere attenuation trend (from aerosols and other components such as gases and vapours). This is clearly a degenerate problem (in the mathematical sense). For a given pixel colour there can be several explanations and not a unique one. Ground based field studies could help narrow down the possibilities by doing more accurate AOD measurements and plant by plant analysis. Ground based studies can directly measure the plant mass in a way that no remote sensing approach can.

I just don't see this sort of joint observational measurement process in these studies. I also have a direct counter-example to the whole premise: south-central Ontario gets marginal rain rates (it is not the Sahel, but the shallow loamy soil dries out completely over the metamorphosed sedimentary rock). This region has seen the overgrowth of a lot of vacant former farmland that was cleared over 100 years ago. This sort of land use change can and is occurring elsewhere. In Ukraine and much of Russia there was a vast amount of formerly cultivated farm land that was abandoned. This land clearly experienced a greening trend since 1991. BTW, semi-arid is what the Great Plains and the Steppe are. Colour me unimpressed with this greening. It means precisely zip for AGW and climate change.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4894
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 7

Unread postby yellowcanoe » Wed 26 Oct 2016, 22:29:53

rockdoc123 wrote: One only has to stay up with the continual flood of literature to realize there is nothing "settled" about climate science nor for that matter many other areas of science. I had the pleasure of interacting with Art Meyerhoff decades ago when he was labelled as the crazy guy who didn't believe in plate tectonics. That of course wasn't true but Art had taken it upon himself to identify the uncertainties in what was then a newly formed science. It had not taken very long for it to become "bandwagon science" and everyone who was either seeking tenure or additional research grants was rushing to publish something that agreed or supported the theory. Art, on the other hand, spent his time pointing out some of the errors or holes in the arguments. For all the pain he went through dealing with critics who had stakes in the game he was given the forum to discuss his beliefs. Through time most scientists in the field came to the conclusion....opps maybe we went to far down the rabbit hole...Art had some important points. But in the early days his critics spent time talking about his support for Immanuel Velikovsky and his theories that were way out there. Art never really believed all of that but pointed out all theories need to be addressed and discussed as that is how true scientific learning progresses. I think we could all learn from that attitude.


That's a great story and it certainly illustrates how the scientific method should work. I agree that climate science is not yet fully settled. However, there is a fundamental difference between studying plate tectonics, a force that has operated continuously over a very long geological time period and AGW which has the potential to radically change our climate within a human lifetime. We are in the position of having to make decisions before we fully understand the science behind climate change. It may be a moot point though because world society does not appear to be willing to accept the reduction in living standards that would be required to significantly reduce fossil fuel consumption.
yellowcanoe
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2013, 13:42:27
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 7

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Wed 26 Oct 2016, 22:42:09

yellowcanoe wrote: We are in the position of having to make decisions before we fully understand the science behind climate change. It may be a moot point though because world society does not appear to be willing to accept the reduction in living standards that would be required to significantly reduce fossil fuel consumption.

Yes it most certainly is a moot point for the reason you state.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 7

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 26 Oct 2016, 23:01:11

However, there is a fundamental difference between studying plate tectonics, a force that has operated continuously over a very long geological time period and AGW which has the potential to radically change our climate within a human lifetime.


I would disagree. The concept of Plate Tectonics came into it's own thanks to J. Tuzo Wilson back in the seventies. For many decades previously this theory had been completely discounted by the general community. After a few papers and presentations coupled with support from the scientists working on issues like this at Caltech and Berkley it became a big theory. Everyone bought into it as explaining everything. This is not that dissimilar to what has happened with the AGW theory. It has become "band wagon" science regardless of what your political leanings are. The holes in the theory are big enough to drive a very large truck through but that goes largely unnoticed amongst the "believers". At the same time there are a lot of scientists out there doing their research who have not jumped onto the gravy train and publish continuously. They are largely ignored by the press and the scientists who seem to have political views. The concept of "consensus" does not blend well with scientific investigation, never has, never will.
And when speaking about climate and comparing it to plate tectonics. Climate has been changing for as long as plate tectonics has been active. The natural forcings that caused all of the climate change up until the fifties (when the anthropogenic contribution of CO2 become important) are still active. Trying to discern how important the AGW component is is a large part of what the continuing research is looking into. This is why post AG5 there has been a number of peer reviewed papers published that speak to lower climate sensitivity than even AG5 imagined (and they lowered their previous numbers). What that means is natural variation may be as important or moreso than anthropogenic contributions. Ignoring the research and just assuming "we are guilty" is not a very scientific approach to my mind.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5310
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 7

Unread postby pstarr » Wed 26 Oct 2016, 23:09:29

diss, to your point that aerosols are clouding the pictures. You apparently did not review the study the Rock posted:
The GIMMS (Global Inventory Modeling and Mapping Studies) data set is a normalizeed difference vegetation index (NDVI) product available for a 25 year period spanning from 1981 to 2006. The data set is derived from imagery obtained from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) instrument onboard the NOAA satellite series 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, and 17. This is an NDVI dataset that has been corrected for calibration, view geometry, volcanic aerosols, and other effects not related to vegetation change.

NDVI is normalized for atmospheric effects, including water vapor and aerosols, clouds, minimized by forming composite images from daily or near-daily images, soil effects ie moisture, anisotropic and other spectral effects. Landsat is decades old and yes perhaps the optics, sensors, or transmission protocols have changed. But that has been accounted for also.

diss, you put a lot of time into that last post, a subject you have not previously shown much interest in. Curious? You're not one of the greenie plants like Al Gore? Or perhaps under the employ of the Russkies, trying to drain us of our oil, our precious bodily fluids?
There's nothing deeper than love. In fairy tales, the princesses kiss the frogs, and the frogs become princes. In real life,the princesses kiss princes, and the princes turn into frogs

“Bitterness is like cancer. It eats upon the host. But anger is like fire. It burns it all clean.”
― Maya Angelou
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 25737
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 7

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 26 Oct 2016, 23:38:41

Only people who don't actually read scientific papers would be impressed by the rock analyst's attempt to look like an expert in climate.


Well first off, unlike you, I have never suggested I am an expert in climate. I am, however, an earth scientist and have taught at university and at the first year level where basic climate physics are dealt with. I am not an expert but I have the science background, I do know how to do research and I do know that when that research is published after peer review and there is no formal Discussion published in that journal then the original paper is likely a valid assessment. I have, out of interest, spent the last decade and a half studying various aspects of climate science out of interest. I am familiar with the literature and open to opposing views if backed up with something other than opinion.

You, on the other hand are arguing that these published scientists are all wrong. I have a number of papers outside of the ones I mentioned that speak to the same greening effect so I suspect you have a lot of work to do. Please show us the research that refutes that. Arguing that satellite data is suspect and then pointing to surface data that has been shown to be both inaccurate and imprecise is a classic approach by people who are familiar with the climate arguments but are not scientists. Of course there is uncertainty with satellite measurements but if you bothered to read the papers you would see they did address them. I have a difficult time taking you to be an expert in this field given the tirade you just made about "deniers". This has no place in science and that tirade pretty much puts you in a very bad light. Why should we all take you as the authority here? Please post the relevant papers and we can discuss as scientists normally would.

I am not going to take any 14% trend estimate from satellite data seriously. The error bars are larger than this even for a set of measurements at a given time. If you try to put error bars on the trend spanning several instruments you are looking at errors over 30%. Satellites are not so bad for bulk emission measurements such as those that can be used to infer temperature. But for refined products such as the trend of vegetation colour in scene pixels it is another ball game.


fine, post the references to the literature that show this to be the case, stating errors are over 30% requires a reference to my mind. Better yet point to where in those publications I posted that the error bars overwhelm the signal.

If the rock analyst is going to poop on climate models and their submodels (e.g. for cloud processes) as being unreliable and uncertain, I can throw his excrement right back at him and argue that the satellite measurement papers he invokes above are just as uncertain. In fact, they are even more uncertain.


well first off my discussion about the uncertainties with respect to how clouds were handled was base on a quote from the IPCC AR5 research section and a number of papers which I am more than willing to point to if needed. It is not my opinion, it is the opinion of all the scientists who contributed to that chapter and those papers. The difference is you are talking about errors with respect to satellite measurements whereas they are talking about uncertainties about processes with respect to clouds. Completely different aspects and completely unrelated.

Also I need to point out the satellite studies were done as reference research, ie. comparing to older studies. Given the same errors present in each vintage of study the empirical observations are valid without concern over error bars (unless you can establish measurement error has declined between the periods).
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5310
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 7

Unread postby litesong » Thu 27 Oct 2016, 07:00:33

dissident wrote: deniers who are childish and deserve no respect.....No amount of refutation will matter because they systematically ignore it and continue to spout the same old tired lies.....To claim that they need to be argued against in some civilized manner when they personally take a dump on such discourse is simply absurd. It is like demanding autistics to be treated like Einsteins. Some of these autistics need a straight jacket and a padded room instead of deference and coddling.


Aye!! Aye Aye!!!! https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ay ... ajaxhist=0

In the past I mentioned that AGW deniers are even worse on other websites, even threatening AGW advocates to get them to leave websites (which they did). AGW deniers brag that they have no science chemistry astronomy physics algebra or pre-calc education, so they are not affected by the liberal education system.
Aye Aye!!!! https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ay ... ajaxhist=0
AGW deniers aren't affected by education!!!!!!!!
litesong
permanently banned
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri 31 Jul 2009, 10:15:52

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 8

Unread postby Subjectivist » Fri 16 Dec 2016, 14:22:29

InverseInverse
Follow
Share This
NEW YORK, NY - NOVEMBER 17: Anthony Scaramucci, a member of the transition team executive committee and founder of investment firm SkyBridge Capital, speaks to reporters at Trump Tower, November 17, 2016 in New York City. President-elect Donald Trump and his transition team are in the process of filling cabinet and high level positions for the new administration. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Trump's Adviser Thinks Climate Change Is Like the Flat Earth Hoax
Sarah SloatDonald TrumpDecember 15, 2016
According to NASA, 97 percent of actively publishing climate scientists agree that global warming is due to human activities. Despite this fact, Donald Trump advisor and total non-scientist Anthony Scaramucci compared climate change to the idea that the world is flat on the CNN program New Day.

The topic came up after the show’s host, Chris Cuomo, asked Scaramucci why Trump’s transition team has asked the Department of Energy for the names of individuals working in the department on climate change. Scaramucci evaded the question, choosing instead to explain that Trump’s team doesn’t want climate change to be “ideologically based” and that maybe 97 percent of scientists have gotten climate change wrong.

“There was an overwhelming science that the Earth was flat, and there was an overwhelming science that we were the center of the world,” Scaramucci said. “We get a lot of things wrong in the scientific community.”

But comparing climate change to the beliefs of flat-earth truthers like B.o.B and Tila Tequila is an inaccurate and very bad analogy, reminiscent of the time Ted Cruz compared “global warming alarmists” to Galileo. To equate a scientific reality like climate change to the disproved theory that the world is flat not only compares fact to fiction but gives a semblance of credibility to the idea that the world is flat.


https://www.inverse.com/article/25291-a ... earth-hoax
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4026
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 8

Unread postby dissident » Sat 17 Dec 2016, 10:51:41

US Republicans are clearly totally blinkered by their ideology when it comes to climate change. Thanks to Exxon, Koch brothers and other funded propaganda climate science has been politicized. So there is no more attention to the science but attention to the supposed leftist agenda of the researchers. The above post shows this rather well. The new crew taking over is worried about the ideological purity of climate researchers and not the clearly evident climate change. Even if they believe it is natural, there is zero effort to adapt or mitigate the impacts. The fixation is all on some conspiracy by leftists.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4894
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 8

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 17 Dec 2016, 11:09:23

"US Republicans are clearly totally blinkered by their ideology..." Nicely put!
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16459
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 7

Unread postby dissident » Sat 17 Dec 2016, 11:22:29

pstarr wrote:diss, to your point that aerosols are clouding the pictures. You apparently did not review the study the Rock posted:
The GIMMS (Global Inventory Modeling and Mapping Studies) data set is a normalizeed difference vegetation index (NDVI) product available for a 25 year period spanning from 1981 to 2006. The data set is derived from imagery obtained from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) instrument onboard the NOAA satellite series 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, and 17. This is an NDVI dataset that has been corrected for calibration, view geometry, volcanic aerosols, and other effects not related to vegetation change.

NDVI is normalized for atmospheric effects, including water vapor and aerosols, clouds, minimized by forming composite images from daily or near-daily images, soil effects ie moisture, anisotropic and other spectral effects. Landsat is decades old and yes perhaps the optics, sensors, or transmission protocols have changed. But that has been accounted for also.

diss, you put a lot of time into that last post, a subject you have not previously shown much interest in. Curious? You're not one of the greenie plants like Al Gore? Or perhaps under the employ of the Russkies, trying to drain us of our oil, our precious bodily fluids?


You clearly have no clue what you are spouting off about. It is easy to measure bulk land use changes. Forest here one year, open field the next. That is what LANDSAT was designed to measure. The problem is determining the vegetation bulk trends from pixels which are vegetated. Just because some product is released with all sorts of corrections does not imply that those corrections have enough accuracy to establish 14% level trends. In particular, there have been no proper attribution studies that causally link CO2 to the pixel vegetation volume amounts. You avoid dealing with the fact that there have been large land use changes globally which have nothing to do with CO2 but directly contribute to the appearance of more vegetated pixels. The study being discussed does not even correct for this effect. It just willy nilly assumes that all greening is directly due to CO2. Look at Figure 1 in

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/ ... e3004.html

The peak LAI (leaf area index) trend overlaps all the regions I brought up in my post. Being a credulous and smug snot you wouldn't understand this nuance. The correlation with all the zones with abandoned farms is incredible. This includes southern Ontario, the eastern USA (yes it is quite similar and I have driven through enough of the US east to confirm this), the Steppe overlapping Russia and Ukraine, eastern China. Over most of Canada, the western USA, Alaska, Siberia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Australia, Argentina, and significant parts of southern Africa the trend is negative. The paper uses three LAI datasets (GIMMS LAI3g, GLASS and GLOMAP) and the disagreement between them is substantial. GIMMS disagrees with the other two over the Amazon basin, showing much less greening, but instead shows much more greening over Australia. GLASS clearly overestimates overall the greening trend compared to the other two datasets. I am not talking about little differences, I am talking about going from positive to negative trends. Also, the regional details of the trends are different between all three datasets. There are bulk similarities but the patterns are nowhere near identical.

There is no way that a 14% level trend can be inferred from datasets that vary so much. This variation also demonstrates all the points about correction uncertainties I was making. And that is before the whole attribution to CO2.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4894
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 8

Unread postby Subjectivist » Sat 17 Dec 2016, 11:23:30

I think there has been some adaptation, just not nearly enough. We should be federally buying up all property in southern Louisiana and specifically New Orleans and removing all permanent structures. The swamp is disapearing into the sea, fighting this losing battle with sea level rise is expensive and pointless. There is a reason private insurers have or are pulling coverage.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4026
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 8

Unread postby dissident » Sat 17 Dec 2016, 11:49:33

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 00635/full

Satellite derived LAI products have serious problems over forested regions. And abandoned farmland is where there is forest regrowth.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4894
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Environment

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Tuike and 13 guests