National Climate Assessment

If by print you mean ink on paper, bring a lot of those things. Appendix 3 on climate science and models seems like an adequate non-technical summary. Aerosols direct and via cloud effects still get big uncertainty on their effect bars. Ocean decadal dynamics and 'what will soils do?' still don't get effect bars so I still have something to grumble about.

In general they seem to have made an effort to cite recent publications (meaning 2013). If some on the lukewarm side (or even 'ice age coming soon' side), feel under represented, I am sure they will make that known by all the usual channels.

 

How can the White House put out a publication which is so flawed?
So far I only looked at the ice and extreme weather section .
An increase in USA hurricanes?
This is a blatant lie that anyone can google.

Section on Great Lakes is another blatant lie.Omitting 2014 which has the highest level of Great Lakes ice in history is astonishing.
Same with the 2013 2014 recovery of Arctic sea ice.

When people realize they have been duped they will only become distrustful of all environmental issues and the Democrats.

 

Truth? What does that have to do with anything?

 

Read more: http://priuschat.com/threads/national-climate-assessment.140598/#ixzz31AbXYQ5r
Follow us: @PriusChat on Twitter | PriusChat on Facebook​

​

The reason for "global warming"... ​

 

What recovery? Arctic Sea Ice Monitor

Are you again confusing arctic with antarctic, and area with mass?

 

Look at the 2013 recovery.Then starting in 1-1-14 the data has suddenly been "adjusted" .

Arctic Sea-Ice Monitor

 

Yeah, how presumptuous of the WH to publicize a consensus paper of the leading US scientists in climate science ?!!??

It's almost like they have never heard of Mojo, Spidey, AustinGreen, or WattsUp, flag bearers of the head-up-the-nether-regions perspective.

 

I would not include Austingreen in the same breath with others. I may not agree with him on many subjects, but at least he knows how to think independently. (oh, and don't forget Mojo's BFF Piers Corbyn!)

Icarus

PS. apparently Mojo can't seem to read either a graph nor a spread sheet. What recovery?

PPS. Also, "history" must be pretty short for Mojo, as the ice coverage of the great lakes was greater in 1979!

Great Lakes Ice Cover Greatest in 35 Years, Levels Off - weather.com

 

If you actually read the methodology behind the changes in the linked arctic ice coverage, it makes perfect sense. Mojo would like to believe that somehow " the adjusted" numbers are somehow manipulated, but that is not the case. The new methodology shows the total coverage up a bit compared to same day measurements using he previous methods, accoss the board, and across the calendar years. If the numbers were being "manipulated" for nefarious means, wouldn't the manipulators try to use the lower numbers rather than the higher ones?

Some people can't seem to find their own nose on their own face, with help of a mirror!

Icarus

 

Please elaborate how either v1 or v2 supports your argument.

 

Who are you addressing this to?

 

I haven't read the details yet, but ...
The government is required to do this every 4 years. The federal advisory committee is the one that put it together. Just the beginning of huricanes says

All of this sounds right. The authors seem to include some of the best ones, and some questionable ones. Is there something about huricanes that you find objectionable. This chaperter head seems much better researched and more in agreement with science than the IPCC in the past that many of us found objectionable.

2014 is just beginning, you can't expect that this thing is up to the second. Does 2014 make anything in the report incorrect? Remember there is large natural variability in individual years.

Well I would say if people trust the democratic party or the republican party, they haven't been paying attention. If anything this should help those with an open mind to understand the issues better.

 

The most complete related dataset I could find for Lake Superior was about 100 years of surface water* temperature It showed no trend until about 1970, then strong upwards, with lots of interannual variability. That last point is the key, because it allows goal-oriented pronouncements to be made whenever a 'ohmygoshcrash' year comes along.

Standard Nenana River stuff. Has little effect on active minds, but that is not always the goal eh?

Happy to help you access such literature, if there is interest.

*water sampling depth is very important because this is a dimictic lake

++

For the climate assessment itself, I think the topic that separates it from IPCC is a US focus on extreme events. A rational discussion of the published (or at least quantitative) evidence both for and against that would not be at all out of place.

 

I know AG is a reformed denialist, but that is akin to a reformed idiot -- an oxymoron.

I too recognize his analytical ability. Better than most, and certainly in most respects better than mine. But he suffers from delusions of grandeur and cannot see his limits which makes him a fool twice over. A dangerous fool actually, because his pseudo-expert posts are read by the Spideys and Mojos of the world.

 

SageBrush, let us discuss the merits of the points presented, and not the perceived merits of the presenters. None are without sin.

For spiderman, about paper and global warming (even though he included a ). A file cabinet full of cellulose (read or unread) arguably reverts to CO2 more slowly than the wood it was made from. If the wood were instead left in the forest to do its wonderful things there. This excludes consideration of what we do to make wood into paper (lots of sulfuric acid) and that nice old forests are converted to young 'paper plantations' (Indonesia is now famous for that). But in the simplest sense, paper has some role in carbon sequestration.

 

Well said DAS.

Interesting. Well I guess we could just cut down all the trees now, stockpile all the paper and burn later when the earth cools and lacks CO2.

 

Holy Crap!!!
841 pages????

It's going to take me a while to chew on this, but frankly so far it looks like a Sunday School book writ large.
Lesson.
Key message intro....cute graph....photo...blah-blah-blah...key message wrap-up.
Lesson...

So far I haven't had time to wind my way through the references but that's probably the whole point.
DATA DATA DATA DATA DATA DATA DATA DATA DATA fact DATA DATA DATA DATA DATA DATA DATA DATA DATA.
I'll keep chewing on it, but so far it seems to be fodder for more "discussions" like those on this page.

Read your Sunday School Lessons, and encourage others to do the same.Question nothing or be damned!
Apostates will be eliminated from the "discussion."

I miss the 60's sometimes when the hippies used to say "Question Authority."

 

The bits that I read, were authoritative, but they didn't seem religious at all. There seemed to be spelled out questions in the text on where more research needs to be done. I think if you read it, and perhaps email some of the authors, you won't feel so bad about the research.

We know this report will be used politically, but what is new. Its at least a base for discussion, and an informed public is much better than one that simply watches cnn, fox, or msnbc. There is a lot of good research here that they will distort.