There is no Planet B

[Lake-Effect]

The Venezuelan government recently burned truckloads of humanitarian aid that had somehow gotten through their border controls because they didn't control it. Are they still Socialists or have they become Communists?

The current ruling party in Venezuela are despots clinging to power in a time of grave crisis. Their professed political orientation is irrelevant at this point.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Cherry picking time frame and miss construing features. Greenland is getting more snow because ther is more moisture. Doesn’t mean the ice cap is growing over any statistically significant period.

As to the Antarctic that has explained to you repeatedly in recent posts. The ice shelf’s are disintegrating and you know it.

That is one of your problems, you confuse weather with climate change. You grab onto some factoid and blow it out of proportion. You’ve no sense of systems or trends.

When you muff some expalanation you excuse yorself for poor writing skills. Weaseling. Yet you are the best of the crowd, I’ll give you that. Your CRC has enough merit to watch it.

It is statistically evident that on any given subject, no matter how clearly explained and documented there will be some fringe who just absolutely refuse to accept the evident facts. Even today here are those who argue the Earth is flat. This is the real of deniers.

I quoted sources you seem to like unless they are not supporting your narrative.

The glaciers calve it is a natural part of a glacier. You really should read up on the relevant sciences you are commenting on .
The agw / no agw debate covers about 10 different sciences. Most are dismissed because they don't support the ipcc narrative that its all due to co2. Why don't their graphs show the effects of water vapor?? ( can't tax nature)

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by jmorrison146

A positive human impact would be for those that believe to do whatever they feel they need to do while leaving me alone to do what believe I need to do in my life. I believe in a need to defeat socialism, primarily because capitalism has benefitted mankind far more through promoting innovation, rewarding (not suppressing) initiative, and bringing people out of poverty. "All enemies foreign and domestic".

I assume you include in your simplistic characterization of both capitalism and socialisn the Communist Chinese capitalism which has 'lifted' more (an order of magnitude) people, more quickly out of poverty than Western capitalism ever has?

Or that, if you live in the US, by financial metrics, you live in the largest socialist country on earth, since around the early 70's? Ever drive on the interstate?

As for innovation, not since the 50's (even including your Jetson/Startreck phone); indeed most innovation in the West has exacerbated global problems, unrestricted and unregulated 'capitalism' (more accurately, 'corporate capitalism' [+advertising]) have together, in less than 100 years, created a culture of consumerism on a scale as unprecedented as it will be short-lived.

Leaving out the role of 'innovation' on the declining US life expectancy rate...

So....carry on with your self-serving goal. All children will remember you fondly I'm sure.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

* John Christy & Roy Spencer are climate scientists, at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, whose chief interests are satellite remote sensing of global climate and global climate change. They best known for the first successful development of a satellite temperature record.
John Christy and Roy Spencer rose to public attention in the mid-1990s when they reportedly showed that the atmosphere was not warming and was actually cooling. It turns out they had made some pretty significant errors, and when other researchers identified those errors, the new results showed a warming. But, despite being wrong, they continue to claim Earth’s warming isn’t something to be concerned about. It’s relevant to be reminded of these revisions; because had we believed the results from the 1990s, we’d still think the world has been cooling, and we’d still be wrong.

No doubt all true, but aren't you forgetting something? Like how the integrity of the satellite based temp datasets they've produced are now accepted by the mainstream community, produce results similar to those of the other two sat-based datasets, and generally show a more modest warming trend than the terrestrial datasets? Like Jackdale, my problem is generally not with the scientific evidence you guys present, but with the evidence you don't present.

Originally Posted by GordMay

NOAA Climate Science & Services Monthly Climate Update:
February 2019 (summary, in brief)
- Global Land + Ocean: +0.88°C / +1.58°F
- Tied with 2007 as the third warmest Jan in the 140-year record
- The 10 warmest Jan have all occurred since 2002
– Jan 2019 marks the 43rd consecutive Jan, and the 409th consecutive month with temperatures above the 20th century average.
- Global Land: +1.51°C / +2.72°F
- 4th warmest on record
- Global Ocean: +0.65°C / +1.17°F
- 3rd warmest on record The global temperature record dates to 1880 (140 years)
- Almost certain (99.9% chance) 2019 will end among the 10 warmest years on record
Much More ➥ https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201902.pdf

Are the sat-based datasets included in formulating these record-setting temperatures? As has been pointed out many times before, it's axiomatic that warming records would be set whether a long-term warming trend has been caused by natural or human forces. Your own, twice-posted graph (thanks) showed remarkable stability in avg. global temps. since the planet emerged from the last big ice age. So whether the earth has, on average, warmed or cooled over a given period of time depends on where you start & end your "trend," and what timeline your "trend" of avg. temps covers that you're comparing to. Easily manipulable using different start & end dates given how stable the earth's temps have been over the past 10-15,000 years.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by hpeer

When you muff some expalanation you excuse yorself for poor writing skills. Weaseling. Yet you are the best of the crowd, I’ll give you that. Your CRC has enough merit to watch it.

It is statistically evident that on any given subject, no matter how clearly explained and documented there will be some fringe who just absolutely refuse to accept the evident facts. Even today here are those who argue the Earth is flat. This is the realm of deniers.

I guess thank you for at least looking into the merits of the as you coined it the crc theory
The issue is there are relevant facts that support both sides of the climate change debate.

The flat earther theory does go against established facts .

The proof that the earth is basically a sphere is not debatable in any real scientific way.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by hpeer

... Post something that shows the oceans are cooling, the Artic is having record ice extent/volume, the glaciers are increasing, the Antarctic ice masses are increasing.

NOAA Climate Science & Services Monthly Climate Update:
February 2019 (summary, in brief)
- Global Land + Ocean: +0.88°C / +1.58°F
- Tied with 2007 as the third warmest Jan in the 140-year record
- The 10 warmest Jan have all occurred since 2002
– Jan 2019 marks the 43rd consecutive Jan, and the 409th consecutive month with temperatures above the 20th century average.
- Global Land: +1.51°C / +2.72°F
- 4th warmest on record
- Global Ocean: +0.65°C / +1.17°F
- 3rd warmest on record The global temperature record dates to 1880 (140 years)
- Almost certain (99.9% chance) 2019 will end among the 10 warmest years on record
Much More ➥ https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201902.pdf

So posted.

Oh wait, that's not what NASA is saying.
Oh well, facts don't seem to matter.

[jimbunyard]

Or how about this seems like its at the long term average with the exception of the bearing sea.

Another nonsense statement? Oh look, it's normal, except where it's not.

As par, you leave out the relevant graphs, in a vain-to-anyone-but-you attempt to validate your incorrect opinion.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Another nonsense statement? Oh look, it's normal, except where it's not.

As par, you leave out the relevant graphs, in a vain-to-anyone-but-you attempt to validate your incorrect opinion.

really him you are backing my assertion that in the majority of the arctic region the sea ice is at or real close to the multi decadal norms.

Thank you for the assist.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

...
Btw I am looking at the long game you are looking at the short one.
This little short term warming period is well within the normal cyclical of the planet.

OK, so what alternative starting date, for climate trend studies, would you recommend? [2017?]

Is our planet warmer, cooler, or roughly the same, as we were at that stated starting date?

If warmer or cooler (specify), are we (humanity) better off, worse off, or about the same due to that change/stability?
Are our atmospheric GHCs higher, lower, or roughly the same, as at that stated date?

PS: I'd welcome a response from anyone who believes that "cherry picking" a time frame to study, is a fundamental problem with anyone's science.

[Exile]

Socialism and Communism have never worked because they are inconsistent with the nature of humankind. By removing individual humans' natural self-interest as an incentive to work for the interests of the collective, such natural incentives have to be replaced by coercion, repression, and the subversion of individual liberties, thought, and a free press. There's good reason for the old quip that communism starts with a gun in your face and socialism ends with one. Either way, whatever benefits they both profess to offer never materialize, and they both wind up in repression, economic dysfunction, misery and eventual rebellion.

As for Lake-Effect and others who (predictably) make the usual excuses, this is why events in Venezuela are so instructive and relevant, especially in light of their previous prosperity. There are certainly more effective ways of addressing problems such as wealth inequality and poverty other than acceding to extreme ideology that's only been proven viable in textbooks. As Churchill once said,

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” —House of Commons, 22 October 1945.

Capitalism, for better or worse, is a system that is consistent with humankind's nature & current state of evolution, namely that individuals are primarily incentivized by self-interest, but by using the marketplace the largest number of people can benefit. This is why socialism & communism continue to fail and will always fail, whether under the cloak of a despot or in the more benign (but similarly failed) attempts in Scandinavia and other parts of W. Europe.

China's economic system has prospered because it is capitalistic in almost every degree, even though it's political structure remains communist in name and consequently totalitarian in every other respect. This may be the one significant exception where a capitalistic economic system fails to produce democratic governance. Normally they go hand-in-hand since they are really the flip-side of each other.

In the West we'd be much better off sticking to the never-ending debates over social safety nets and how best to boost the middle class. We already have, after all, many features of a socialist economy and it's those very features that may eventually be our undoing. Given the abysmal history of attempts at actual socialism & communism over the past century, it's mind boggling that we have fringe elements that are actually identifying themselves as such. Let's hope they stay on the fringe.

“Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.” —Perth, Scotland, 28 May 1948, in Churchill, Europe Unite: Speeches 1947 & 1948 (London: Cassell, 1950), 347.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

OK, so what alternative starting date, for climate trend studies, would you recommend? [2017?]

Is our planet warmer, cooler, or roughly the same, as we were at that stated starting date?

If warmer or cooler (specify), are we (humanity) better off, worse off, or about the same due to that change/stability?
Are our atmospheric GHCs higher, lower, or roughly the same, as at that stated date?

PS: I'd welcome a response from anyone who believes that "cherry picking" a time frame to study, is a fundamental problem with anyone's science.

for the climate study why not use the lady 5 k years as a baseline .

The issue of picking any timeframe as a start point . If it doesn't fit the narrative of others it will be attacked as cherry picking.
Just like this one will .

[newhaul]

Or if you would prefer to keep it in the modern age how about starting at 1870 we do have good climate data from then to present.
The issue I'm sure will be that it shown no warming over the long term.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by swampbush

There are plenty of others who have issue with his data. I am not qualified to express an opinion on his data. I simply point out that he has a stated agenda that is to prove that global warming is not man made, rather than investigating the cause of it.

Please post a reference to that "stated agenda" in his own words.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by GordMay

OK, so what alternative starting date, for climate trend studies, would you recommend? [2017?]

Is our planet warmer, cooler, or roughly the same, as we were at that stated starting date?

If warmer or cooler (specify), are we (humanity) better off, worse off, or about the same due to that change/stability?
Are our atmospheric GHCs higher, lower, or roughly the same, as at that stated date?

PS: I'd welcome a response from anyone who believes that "cherry picking" a time frame to study, is a fundamental problem with anyone's science.

Perhaps start at the end of the last little ice age - 1790sish. Starting warming then, long before CO2 was identified as a tax source. Been warming ever since, although recently, it has slowed down in the face of increased atmospheric CO2. Now that would suggest to the scientific mind that increasing CO2 doesn't cause warming; a notion supported by all the ice core data showing that increased CO2 in the atmosphere always follows, not precedes warming. To the political mind, not so much.

Or, if a couple centuries arent long enough, then you could start the time period at the beginning of the Middle Ages Warming when the temps were about the same as today without the benefit of enhanced CO2. Same result, same conclusion. Atmospheric CO2 is at best a very weak driver of climate, or simply an effect of warming.

[jmorrison146]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The current ruling party in Venezuela are despots clinging to power in a time of grave crisis. Their professed political orientation is irrelevant at this point.

Except that their political orientation (Socialist) in hat ran a rich, prosperous country into the ground.