Hmmmm. This almost belongs in the thread about who Republicans are going to blame for climate change in the future.
D. We need a cap and trade or other system to make nuclear power more competitive so we can reduce greenhouse gases.
R. NO! NO! We are the party of NO!
D. But we need some kind of way to economically encourage nuclear p…
R. NO!
Later….
R. The Democrats stopped Nuclear power. This is their fault.
I haven’t read most of this thread, but I believe that mass deforestation is the major human factor in the aspect of climate change that is caused by us. Draining wetlands is a distant second.
Anyway, I heard on NPR earlier today that the low temperature in Phoenix this morning was 97 degrees. That’s just insane.
Deforestation is the 2nd largest contributor to CO2 emissions, after burning fossil fuels
Some tweets:
Yes, and it leads to the reduced reuptake of CO2 by plants.
Well, yeah. That way the Rs get to have their shit and eat it too. Makes perfect sense from their point of view.
“We” do. You, apparently, do not. That entire post is a complete unmitigated pile of horseshit, but I’ll just focus on this one bit of idiocy to prove the point. Papers that challenge the consensus (no need for scare quotes around the word “consensus”) on the fundamental facts of climate change are rightly criticized because they’re invariably very bad papers filled with misinformation. And the people who publish them are rightly vilified, not because scientists can’t stand criticism, but because they’re terrible scientists doing a disservice to science. One comes to this conclusion quite readily by the simple means of objectively applying the rigor you claim you value.
In fact, the publishers of such drivel are usually part of a well-known small group of crackpots, and while one or two have occasionally landed one of the less egregious papers in a reputable journal, most have to settle for second-rate journals. And, indeed, since many of them can’t get published at all, their medium of choice tends to be their own website or blog.
A couple of examples illustrate the point. Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas are two such notorious crackpots. About 20 years ago a couple of really bad papers were produced by this duo, one of the them with a small cadre of others – papers so bad, so wrong and misinformed, that they seriously damaged the already rocky reputation of two small journals, Climate Research and Energy & Environment, and ultimately forced the resignation of the editor of one of them. But not before one climate denier in particular, George W. Bush, had seized on the misinformation in these papers – purporting to show that the climate was actually warmer in the recent past – as an excuse to roll back EPA regulations. These two pseudo-scientists are frauds with a long history of climate disinformation.
Or for another example, a couple of home-grown lunatics, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. They’re not even climate scientists (neither are Soon or Baliunas, BTW) – McKitrick is an economist and McIntyre is a former mining engineer. Their “challenge to the consensus” came with their first attack on a landmark paper by Michael Mann et al clearly showing the extent of post-industrial temperature rise, in the form of what came to be known as the “hockey stick” graph. Their claim was largely based on the fact that Mann had used an unconventional form of principal component analysis (PCA).
PCA is a mathematical technique for exposing patterns in data, leading to claims from deniers that the hockey stick was a spurious creation of the analysis and not real. McKitrick and McIntyre also attacked Mann’s selection of proxies, though I don’t remember if it was in that first paper or it came later. Essentially they were saying, on one hand, that the hockey stick shape was just a consequence of bad math, and on the other hand, OK maybe the graph is real, but it’s because of bad data. 
The upshot of it all is that because the Mann paper was so important and had become so famous, and critics like McKitrick and McIntyre were making so much noise, the Mann paper was subject to some pretty intense scrutiny. One paper some time later definitively showed that Mann’s results held even when de-centered PCA was not used, and indeed when PCA was not used at all. They also vindicated the quality of the proxies Mann had used. Other researchers showed a strong correspondence between Mann’s temperature reconstruction and those of other groups, using different proxies and techniques. Mann’s work was even explicitly reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences. In short, Mann was completely vindicated. And McKitrick and McIntyre? AFAIK, they’re still at it, though last I saw they had descended to low-quality journals and, ultimately, McKitrick ranting just on his own blog. And when you come across any of their stuff, @Sam_Stone, may I suggest that you apply to it the kind of rigor you claim we should apply to all papers.
It’s hard to know what to make of this meaningless equivocation. The reason you get characterized the way you do, Sam, is because of the kinds of drivel you post, like all the rest of that post and the previous one. You like to imply that there is some great battle raging between the consensus on the fundamentals of climate change, as summarized for instance in the latest IPCC reports, and the critics of it who, apparently, are being demonized by climate scientists jealously protecting their turf – or something like that. There is no such Great Battle going on regarding the fundamentals. Climate scientists just go routinely about their business, adding to our knowledge every year through papers that are usually pretty nuanced and esoteric, while the crackpots continue to rant, usually in lower quality journals at best, but mostly in their own disreputable blogs.
I think what is meant by “rigor “ by our esteemed colleague Mr Stone amounts to “read the title and a bit of the abstract and conclude it agrees with me”. (Even if it doesn’t)
Record temperatures in the Florida Keys. Perfect hurricane weather.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xb_BlJqnYzs
I used to hate winter. Now I’m actually looking forward to it.
I went to the Keys many years ago and was shocked at how warm the water was (I’m used to the Pacific on the west coast), but it wasn’t 100 freaking degrees warm. Holy shit!
In addition to the effect on hurricanes, consider what it will do to the temperature of the gulf stream, and consequently, the northern coast of Europe.
Gulf Stream? We won’t have to worry about that much longer. It may not be here in a couple of years.
Oh, God! I wish they wouldn’t do that! Both the scientific community and the media.
Now, in 2025, if when the Gulf Stream still exists, all the numbskulls will be asking, “Don’t all the scientists ever get tired of being wrong?” and by all, they mean every single one of them. All they really need to say is “soon” and if pressed on when “soon” is, say perhaps before the end of the decade, if not, the next one.
Yes, I know it is stated being “as early as…” but that will be ignored. In trying to be a whistle-blower, these scientists are hastening our own demise by allowing numbskulls to say they’re crying wolf.
More on the hot-tub sea water in south Florida…
Scientists were careful to say there is some uncertainty with the reading. But the buoy at Manatee Bay hit 101.1 degrees Fahrenheit (38.4 degrees Celsius) Monday evening, according to National Weather Service meteorologist George Rizzuto. The night before, that buoy showed an online reading of 100.2 F (37.9 C).
You can’t even go in the ocean there to cool-off - you will just sweat even more. I cannot even imagine what this is doing to wildlife, even beyond the coral.
Sous Vide?
Bouillabaisse.
The sad thing is there will be no satisfaction in telling the likes of HC and SS, “we told you so”.
I agree with the sentiment, but don’t blame the scientists. The problem is almost always with the media. The media tends to oversimplify, exaggerate, and often outright misunderstand scientific findings, the end result of which is often sensationalist headlines about how “scientists say …” when no scientist has ever said any such thing. The basic facts here are that there is solid evidence that the AMOC may be weakening; that loss of the AMOC would create major disruptions to the entire global thermohaline circulation system and have disastrous consequences for the global climate; but that there are very significant uncertainties around the likelihood and timing of such an event, and indeed even about the extent to which climate change is contributing to it.
Yes and no. Sea surface temperatures are the fuel that powers hurricanes, and temperatures of this magnitude should indeed be very concerning. But there’s also the possibility that the same forces warming the oceans may create atmospheric disturbances like wind shear that prevents hurricanes from forming, at least in some areas. This may lead to a regime where we get fewer hurricanes, but when they do form, look out – because they’re statistically more likely to be fierce. For this reason the correlation between SST and hurricanes is often assessed in terms of overall annual hurricane energies rather than the number of hurricanes. The overall annual hurricane power dissipation has been dramatically increasing in the North Atlantic basin since the early 70s, and in the North Pacific since the 50s.
One thing I don’t think has been noted in this thread is that AMOC (Atlantic meridional overturning circulation) is not the Gulf Stream and the Gulf Stream is not at risk. That particular error can be safely laid at the feet of the media–not the scientists.
Perhaps scientists should have predicted that “a timescale for the collapse of between 2025 and 2095, with a central estimate of 2050” would be rendered by the media as “as soon as two years from now” but I don’t know what else they could have done.