AP Style Guide Change

Haha, and as I was writing that, Coach posts an article that references it. Here's the real data for anyone interested.

I’ve been leaning this way more and more over time. The original claim (touted mostly by the usual suspects) was that global surface temperatures had flattened since 1998, and therefore warming had stopped. Right away there are several problems with that claim; the biggest being that 1998 was an unusually warm year, so starting your measurements there is unfair (that’s called cherry-picking and is a big no-no). Another is that the average temperature of the planet goes up and down all the time, so you can’t just look at a few years and claim there’s a trend. A third is that using surface temperatures is misleading, since a lot of the heat goes into the deep ocean.

The new paper goes further than that. Applying some corrections to surface temperature measurements known to be a bit biased (more on that in a sec), they find that when you look at the warming that occurred from 1950 – 1999 you get 0.113° C warming per decade. When you look at 2000 – 2014, the warming is 0.116°C per decade, which is virtually indistinguishable from the earlier trend.

In other words, looking over the long run, warming hasn’t slowed at all.

Coach Z wrote

MSM main stream media
Fox is not considered main stream becuase they are a denier
Kind of like this guy
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/10/448344-top-physicist-bolts-global-warming-consensus-see-says-obama/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=owned&utm_campaign=morning-newsletter

Fox is MSM too, they protest too much. They are on freaking cable. Same parent company as WSJ and lots of other media too. They are also beholden to their sponsors and interests of the powers that matter to them. They are not some hard core niche outfit driven by their own personal integrity. It's sort of like when HBO makes a feature and everyone says it's an indie. It makes no sense.

I always why wondered if nutcase liberals should shift their attention pollution. The sources of so called warming are actually the biggest sources of poison in our air (coal, other FF).  Might be tougher for the good guys to make that argument that sulfur etc in the air is harmless.

Coach Z wrote

medium=owned

LOL

mattchuck2 wrote

riverc0il wrote

Good grief to both thinking Coach would change his viewpoints...

This is my real problem with the Republican Party (and people who vote for it). They never change their viewpoints, even when proven wrong.

Say what you want about Climate Change (and use whatever language you want to describe its deniers), but it's been proven that their "no increase in temperatures since 1998" talking point is pure bullshit. And they still trot it out. No shame.

 

You guys lost the high ground in this debate when the scientists were caught cooking the books to make the data match their hypothesis or risk losing government grants. That was the point when this theory was set back so that it could not be taken as a fact. Before that I had accepted it as true myself but you have to ask yourself why they did that.  After that how can you say the data is true.  The only reason to falsify the data was they found out it wasn't actually happening.  The scientist stopped being scientist and became political operatives.  The unproven theory is now being used to tax industries that are political opponents of Obama and benefit people that gave him donations.  Follow the money trail and the hoax all makes sense.  Enough said.

So what happens to man kind if it gets a little warmer - we lose a little coast line.  Warmer temps and higher CO2 means crops grow faster to feed the increased population of the planet.  What happens if it gets colder - society in our area comes to a halt.  My thinking is Harv is right the focus should be on pollution which everyone can agree on is bad.  They picked the wrong thing to focus on and no one can seem to figure out how to say the population of the earth opps it all was a Hoax but believe us sulfur and other pollutants are now really the bad stuff.  They do that and they all go to jail.

Coach Z wrote

You guys lost the high ground in this debate when the scientists were caught cooking the books to make the data match their hypothesis or risk losing government grants.

^ Another republican talking point that has been proven false: http://grist.org/climate-energy/no-climate-scientists-are-not-manipulating-their-data/

That was the point when this theory was set back so that it could not be taken as a fact. Follow the money trail and the hoax all makes sense.  Enough said.

Uhhhh....

So what happens to man kind if it gets a little warmer - we lose a little coast line.  Warmer temps and higher CO2 means crops grow faster to feed the increased population of the planet.

And now a skier is arguing for higher global temperatures. Good job letting your political ideology destroy the things you enjoy.

Google:

The indicator “Percentage of total population living in coastal areas” tells us that currently about 40 percent of the world's population lives within 100 kilometers of the coast. Jan 31, 2010


Coach says: "meh"

I did some similar googling. What I couldn't find was how many people live within:

1 foot of sea level
2 feet of sea level
8 feet of sea level

...not distance, elevation.

Matt is the one true believer that no matter what I post he will immediately find a liberal dogma piece from a highly questionable source to prevent his belief system from collapsing in on itself

You can set your watch by it and he always claims victory.  Despite hundreds of news posts that covered the well documented case of scientists caught falsifying data to keep thier govt study grants.  Plus there is billions of Obama hand outs going to marginally capitalized solar firms that soon fold or move thier operations to China after taking the dough.

The effects of climate change are hard to predict. People who look for evidence of global warming point to melting glaciers and the artic ice pack but what they fail to point to are the glaciers that are actually growing at record rates and the increase in the ice pack in the center of Greenland. Mount Baker in Washington state apparently has had record snow packs over the last 20 years. I believe that all this is consistent with global warming and in many cases it will actually be good for skiers. When coastal storms become more intense and there is an increase in available moisture it means more snow and this is consistent with the observations. Global warming may actually be good for skiers as we all know that super cold temps mean no snow. I do believe the evidence is to strong to deny that the planet is warming, but just what the effects will be - no one really knows. Some effects may be positive, some negative - but change is like that.

PeeTex wrote

The effects of climate change are hard to predict. People who look for evidence of global warming point to melting glaciers and the artic ice pack but what they fail to point to are the glaciers that are actually growing at record rates and the increase in the ice pack in the center of Greenland. Mount Baker in Washington state apparently has had record snow packs over the last 20 years. I believe that all this is consistent with global warming and in many cases it will actually be good for skiers. When coastal storms become more intense and there is an increase in available moisture it means more snow and this is consistent with the observations. Global warming may actually be good for skiers as we all know that super cold temps mean no snow. I do believe the evidence is to strong to deny that the planet is warming, but just what the effects will be - no one really knows. Some effects may be positive, some negative - but change is like that.

that is totally false.... for every one that is growing there are dozens that are disapearing rapidly. And I haven't heard of one that is increasing at record pace. For the record, there will be no more glaciers in the tall volcanoes of south america and no perennial ice at Killi soon, which was a mile deep at first recording,.

night.

FWIW, General George Washington used to march his troops, men/horses/ wagons on American frozen rivers. I would like to see that tried now. New York and London harbors use to freeze over solid every year. People would walk across to the other side on the ice. Winter carnivals used to be held on the ice at London. They don't do any of that anymore.

I was in Rye beach NH 10 years ago. At the light house there they had old pictures showing people, trucks, etc out on the bay ice which froze out to the islands. Lady there said it hasn't happened for quite some time.

It strikes me as odd that none of these scientist whiz bangs have figured out the other very serious consequence of increasing CO2 levels. It's a biggie. I shall enlighten all.

CO2 increases are sequestering oxygen making it unavailable for respiration. Not good. As CO2 levels climb there is less atmospheric oxygen. 7 billion + people are daily converting oxygen to CO2. Billions of livestock animals, billions of vehicles, billions of flames, etc. Every day-hour-minute, all are steadily, incessantly  converting mass oxygen to CO2 non-stop.

But wait Snowballs, plants convert CO2 back into oxygen !

Yep, but Ma Nature isn't keeping up, otherwise CO2 levels would not be rising. To make matters worse, forests etc are disappearing removing them from the reconversion cycle.

Then there's lowly plankton who produces a very large share of our oxygen. Tiny organisms like plankton can be very susceptible to changes in their habitat. How much pollution, acidity increases, etc can plankton withstand until he starts dying off ? If this happens, how could we reverse or even arrest it ?  Oxygen levels used to be much higher than they are today so it's level is already falling.

Lastly, whether one agrees there's man made global warming or not, you pretty much have to agree we're putting way too pollution into the environment.

ml242 wrote

PeeTex wrote

The effects of climate change are hard to predict. People who look for evidence of global warming point to melting glaciers and the artic ice pack but what they fail to point to are the glaciers that are actually growing at record rates and the increase in the ice pack in the center of Greenland. Mount Baker in Washington state apparently has had record snow packs over the last 20 years. I believe that all this is consistent with global warming and in many cases it will actually be good for skiers. When coastal storms become more intense and there is an increase in available moisture it means more snow and this is consistent with the observations. Global warming may actually be good for skiers as we all know that super cold temps mean no snow. I do believe the evidence is to strong to deny that the planet is warming, but just what the effects will be - no one really knows. Some effects may be positive, some negative - but change is like that.

that is totally false.... for every one that is growing there are dozens that are disapearing rapidly. And I haven't heard of one that is increasing at record pace. For the record, there will be no more glaciers in the tall volcanoes of south america and no perennial ice at Killi soon, which was a mile deep at first recording,.

night.

No - because you failed to actually read what I stated. First of all I did not say there were more or less glaciers growing rather than retreating - I said there were both. As far as South America, do you not count the Pio XI the largest Glacier in the Patagonia chain - http://www.visitchile.com/en/pio-xi-glacier/, and what about the Argentina's Perito Moreno Glacier - maybe you don't read National Geographic http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090622-glaciers-growing.html - but then I don't think you can read at all. The Glacier on Mt St Helens in Washington state is growing, although I gather that does not register on your list as a volcano.

As I said, I believe there is an overwhelming body of evidence that the average temp is on the rise, I don't however agree that we understand what the effects will be, the system is too complex. So don't get you nickers in a bunch when someone presents evidence that is contrary to your belief system, fact check it and then use it to get smarter.

Snowballs wrote

FWIW, General George Washington used to march his troops, men/horses/ wagons on American frozen rivers. I would like to see that tried now. New York and London harbors use to freeze over solid every year. People would walk across to the other side on the ice. Winter carnivals used to be held on the ice at London. They don't do any of that anymore.

I was in Rye beach NH 10 years ago. At the light house there they had old pictures showing people, trucks, etc out on the bay ice which froze out to the islands. Lady there said it hasn't happened for quite some time.

It strikes me as odd that none of these scientist whiz bangs have figured out the other very serious consequence of increasing CO2 levels. It's a biggie. I shall enlighten all.

CO2 increases are sequestering oxygen making it unavailable for respiration. Not good. As CO2 levels climb there is less atmospheric oxygen. 7 billion + people are daily converting oxygen to CO2. Billions of livestock animals, billions of vehicles, billions of flames, etc. Every day-hour-minute, all are steadily, incessantly  converting mass oxygen to CO2 non-stop.

But wait Snowballs, plants convert CO2 back into oxygen !

Yep, but Ma Nature isn't keeping up, otherwise CO2 levels would not be rising. To make matters worse, forests etc are disappearing removing them from the reconversion cycle.

Then there's lowly plankton who produces a very large share of our oxygen. Tiny organisms like plankton can be very susceptible to changes in their habitat. How much pollution, acidity increases, etc can plankton withstand until he starts dying off ? If this happens, how could we reverse or even arrest it ?  Oxygen levels used to be much higher than they are today so it's level is already falling.

Lastly, whether one agrees there's man made global warming or not, you pretty much have to agree we're putting way too pollution into the environment.

The era when Washington marched his troops across frozen rivers was in an era called a mini Ice Age, it lasted from about 1300 to 1850 although that too is suspect. You cannot use it as a comparison period anyway, that is fudging the data to prove your point. You can however say that historical records show that the average temperature is much  higher now than it was then and most likely higher than it has been for 1000 years. But then I would question any records of temperature prior to mid 1700's, no accurate instruments and the data teased from the geological record is too noisy - it can be made to say anything you like. So what do we know, the planet is changing, and it is happening rapidly because we can measure these changes in a (short) generational time scale with some degree of accuracy. Pumping CO2 changes the refractive index of the atmosphere which inhibits re-radiation of solar energy into deep space. Burning hydrocarbons releases vast amounts of water vapor into the system and when combined with higher temperatures and carbon soot particles, creates ice crystals (clouds) which tend to reflect solar energy back into deep space. The system is somewhat self regulating - in the long term. However we live in the short term and will we be able to survive the actions our ecosystem will take to restore the planet to it's normal operating point?

There is speculation a foot that says we are going to enter a cycle of lower solar output (that is the thing that really sets the operating temperature). That we are really protecting ourselves from that event by warming the planet now. I think that is wishful thinking. I have to agree with Z on one point, much of the data in the scientific community is BS and being used to support PhD thesis' and research grants. We are surrounded with bad science (both left and right), we all need to learn to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Coach Z wrote

Matt is the one true believer that no matter what I post he will immediately find a liberal dogma piece from a highly questionable source to prevent his belief system from collapsing in on itself

If you could actually produce any evidence at all (not cherry picked or anecdotal stuff, actual hard data) to support your claims, then we could have a different conversation. But these threads usually go one way:
1. Coach makes outrageous claim like Global warming is BS or Hillary Clinton is going to jail
2. Matt refutes outrageous claim with well researched article or obvious counterpoint
3. Coach refuses to admit defeat, and claims my sources are biased, even though the outrageous claim he originally made came from breitbart or Red State or some BS republican propaganda site.

It's easy Coach, there are two major parties in the U.S. right now. One is a science based party that uses facts and data to formulate new plans to adjust to changing world problems. One is a religion based party where the documents of the past (the bible, the constitution, and Hayek's economic theory) are treated as gospel (demonstratively wrong parts are just ignored) and the solutions of today are the same solutions of yesterday, and the same solutions of tomorrow - cut taxes (especially for rich people), the free market is all powerful and can never be questioned, people are in the position they are in because they deserve it, and government is inherently bad and has never done anything good ever. Which party do you think the thinking people of the future are going to support?

Despite hundreds of news posts that covered the well documented case of scientists caught falsifying data to keep thier govt study grants.  Plus there is billions of Obama hand outs going to marginally capitalized solar firms that soon fold or move thier operations to China after taking the dough

Here's your chance to prove me wrong. Go ahead and let me know when you find the "hundreds of posts" that prove that scientists "falsified data" to keep their grants (no cheating, now - anything that says that they just corrected for temperature anomalies that occurred in different mediums is a valid scientific correction in a mathematical model - you have to actually give examples of scientists changing their numbers from one thing to another).

And that's a nice Solyndra reference. Here's the truth about that program, from the liberal-biased source, Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-12/u-s-expects-5-billion-from-program-that-funded-solyndra

I know all of your stupid right wing "scandals" because I read The Corner and Fox News and George Will and Ross Douthat. I also know they continue to exist because those sources never go back and correct things when they were wrong. So millions of people in this country think that the IRS was targeting tea party groups and nobody else (it wasn't), that there's some vast conspiracy involved with Benghazi (there isn't), and Obamacare is an abject failure (complete opposite of the truth). Keep living in your bubble if you want, but you're going keep being surprised when Democrats keep winning the Presidency.

Finally, PeeTex, you don't have to assume this dumb centrist stance with everything. The truth isn't always "somewhere in the middle". If one person said the world was an oblate spheroid, and another said it was flat, that doesn't mean the truth is in the middle. Use your brain. Do you think there's more money in it for a climatologist who supports the theory of man made climate change, or one that opposes it?

Even the Pope thinks Climate Change is the real deal.  I would like to see us do something rather than to just sit around and wait and see.  

fahz wrote

Even the Pope thinks Climate Change is the real deal.  I would like to see us do something rather than to just sit around and wait and see.

I think we are doing things, tier 4 diesel emission standards is a big thing as an example. I drive a lot less, my gasoline consumption is down about 75% of what it was 10 years ago, I live in a much smaller house and travel less. I think VW sales should be banned in the US for several years as punishment.
What are you doing?

Check out the documentary "Chasing Ice" on Netflix. Just make sure you watch it all the way through. Sobering in the extreme.

mattchuck2 wrote

 Do you think there's more money in it for a climatologist who supports the theory of man made climate change, or one that opposes it?

You bet there is. The feds are spending over $20B (with a B) on climate change programs and over $3B in direct research in support of this agenda https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf.  

The money being spend by Industry to counter this is estimated to be less than $200M and most of that is going towards advertisement and lobbying. http://www.fossilfreemit.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/FossilFreeMIT-Lobbying-Disinformation.pdf. So you are right that the research will follow the money but wrong in your conclusion that the money is on the side of the anti global warming lobby.

So Matt - maybe you should start using your head before you make unsubstantiated claims - as you accuse Z - I don't expect a retraction, simple more vitriolic demagoguery.  

PeeTex wrote

You bet there is. The feds are spending over $20B (with a B) on climate change programs and over $3B in direct research in support of this agenda https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf.  

Nice job misleading with statistics. According to your link, a lot of that spending is going toward clean energy programs, described as:

 Clean Energy Technology incorporates a variety of technology research, development, and deployment activities – including voluntary partnerships and grant programs – that support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reliance on fossil fuels. This category comprises work on clean energy systems and sources such as geothermal, solar, wind, biomass, nuclear, and emerging sources such as water power. It also includes programs or technologies or practices that help improve energy efficiency or reduce energy consumption, such as building efficiency, more effective transmission or distribution of electricity, and vehicle technologies that improve engine efficiency or fuel economy.

And a few more billions having to do with Tax credits (nice of you to include that total, but not the tax credits that the oil industry gets), International aid to help other countries modernize, and preparation for the climate change that is already affecting the U.S. Seems like a good use of funds to me, and really kind of a stretch to say that any of those programs are direct payoffs to scientists that give them incentive to concoct a global warming conspiracy. In fact, a lot of people working in solar installation, building efficiency, and international aid might not believe in climate change at all, but want the paycheck for working in that industry. Hardly seems like the action of people involved in some vast conspiracy.

Which brings me to the $2.7 billion in direct research, described like this:

• The Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is a leading sponsor of oceanic and atmospheric research and is one of the key sponsors of climate science capabilities in the Federal government. The 2014 Budget allocates $371 million for the Department of Commerce’s USGCRP efforts, predominantly from NOAA; this represents an increase of $55 million or 17 percent over the FY 2013 enacted level.
• The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) budget includes a sustained investment in climate science, with $1.5 billion proposed for FY 2014. NASA’s Earth Science program conducts first-of-a-kind demonstration flights of sensors in air and space in an effort to foster scientific understanding of the Earth system and to improve the ability to forecast climate change and natural disasters. The 2014 Budget supports several research satellites in development, an initiative to monitor changes in polar ice sheets, enhancements to climate models, and NASA contributions to the USGCRP’s National Climate Assessment. NASA will continue to develop a replacement to the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO).
• The National Science Foundation (NSF) provides funding for academic basic research across the entire spectrum of the sciences, engineering, and the social sciences. NSF USGCRP support totals $326 million in the 2014 Budget.
• The Department of Energy (DOE) conducts research on climate modeling and predictability that also involves advancing climate and earth system models with improved resolution and uncertainty quantification; DOE also supports long-term atmospheric and terrestrial research experiments. The 2014 Budget allocates $220 million coordinated through USGCRP, with a $7 million increase over FY 2013 dedicated to major field experiments at Arctic, tropics, and oceanic sites. DOE also partners with NSF to support the Community Earth System Model.
• The 2014 Budget provides $72 million for USGCRP programs in the Department of the Interior, an increase of $14 million or 24 percent over the 2013 funding level. Interior’s lead science agency, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), funds several programs in coordination with other USGCRP agencies to understand the impacts of climate change on natural resources, including the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center, which supports a network of Climate Science Centers (CSCs). The CSC supports development of actionable science linked to resource management decisions on climate adaptation.

That all seems like significant research to me, but if it doesn't to you, then you have to explain this: if, after doing this research, it turns out that a scientist finds that the earth is cooling, do you think he would a.) ignore that data, because he would no longer receive funding? Or b.) do you think he'd trumpet it from the rooftops as a possible savior of the human race? Because you're implying that he would do a., whereas I am convinced that he would do b. You seem to be arguing that global warming science is a money grab, to which I say, what science isn't looking for funding? And if you're interested purely in making money from your research, climate science is hardly the best idea. Here are some scientific research fields with more cash available:
1.) Pharmaceutical Research and Development Spending by NIH: $30 Billion
2.) National Science Foundation: 7.3 Billion
3.) Department of Defense R&D: $64 Billion
(Source: https://m.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/Fy%202015%20R&D.pdf)
Throwing around big numbers is easy!! But you have to have a better reason than "scientists are cooking the books on global warming for the money", because if it was just about the money, obviously, there are better paths to success and, being scientists, they're probably smart enough to understand that.

I'm not going to dignify the second part of your answer with a response. obviously fossil fuel companies are not sponsoring research that looks at global warming (they did in the 80s, found it was occurring, and swept it under the rug - http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding). And even iif they weren't funding climate deniers (they are, according to that last link), the work that Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and others do in promoting and propping up climate change "skeptics" makes it an extremely lucrative hustle (if you can get around the moral dilemmas easily, which most can).

Also,what if I believe your numbers? Fine, lets say that $3 Billion goes to people that say there is climate change, and only $200 million goes to those that don't. Let's say there are 200 climate change deniers in the world, and they each get $1,000,000 each. That means there are 6,666 climate change believers (97% of climate scientists agree), divided by $3,000,000,000 = $450,000 each. So even using your ridiculously biased numbers, being a denier is more than twice as lucrative as being a supporter.

So Matt - maybe you should start using your head before you make unsubstantiated claims - as you accuse Z - I don't expect a retraction, simple more vitriolic demagoguery.

Sorry, buddy. You just got owned by both science and math. Give up and log off. You're on the wrong side of this one.