Climate change bust up: We'll launch our own damn satellites if Trump pulls plug – Gov Brown California Governor Jerry Brown promises that no matter how "absurd" the upcoming Republican presidential administration's response to climate-change science, the state of California will be ready with a robust response – with weapons ranging from satellites to databases to lawyers. Speaking at the American Geophysical Union's …
This post has been deleted by its author
"Brown is talking about potentially defying the Federal Government." - Kook
Are you trying to say that the Republicans will prevent private individuals from launching climate monitoring satellites so that they can hide and deny the reality of Global Climate Change?
Wouldn't that deceit be grounds for impeachment?
Are you trying to say that the Republicans will prevent private individuals from launching climate monitoring satellites so that they can hide and deny the reality of Global Climate Change?
Why bother?
You can get the data from the Sentinel series run by ESA anyway. It is nearly a decade ahead of USA in terms of available civilian observation precision and capacity because the NASA squeeze which Trump is threatening to do, has been done by the congress for years.
To add insult to injury, ESA publishes a lot of the data free of charge.
So in fact, if Trump and Co are to achieve their aim to prevent the observation of the Earth for climate research purposes, they will have to prohibit America access to European data and/or have a nice shoot-em-up spree testing the Aegis and other Star Wars missile systems on European targets.
"If Brown attempts to defy the Office of the President as this article implies, he could be easily charged with sedition." - Kook
Not by the definition of sedition used by the federal government.
You seem to think that the presidents whims must be followed and adherence to those whims is enforced by law.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
If Brown takes real steps to subvert the laws of the Federal government, no matter how well intentioned, from a PR standpoint not only will it go badly for him, but he faces federal charges. While Barry Obama might have been lax when his own party's governors blatantly defied him, Trump may not be so forgiving. If Brown attempts to defy the Office of the President as this article implies, he could be easily charged with sedition. Trump might provide us with the entertainment of arresting a sitting governor.
Dude, I'm British, and even I can see you haven't the foggiest idea how the US federal / state system works (or should I say "works"?) There's nothing to say state governors or Congresses have to support or align themselves with federal policy, or that it's "sedition" to do things contrary to the desires of the President. I know the country's in a hell of a mess right now, but it's not /THAT/ bad.
Bad idea. It will be too late. My governor knows what to do, and he's doing it. GO GOV MOONBEAM!!1!
Science is knowledge. Whether you like the knowledge or not, after the peer reviewing is done then it is known and available for use. No amount of political bullshit can cover up how far we've come in the understanding of how our world and universe work. Douchebags consider the what ifs when the real knowledge is already there. What if it's not man-made climate change but rather Leprechauns? That is how stupid people deal with it. Throw more bullshit to try and cover everything in it. Nice try, but people with IQs over 90 understand this.
Also, to reply to the above post; we DO know what he's up to. We can see it everyday in the shitheads he's gathering around himself for the highly paid job of Yes Man. There is no need to "wait and see." Fucking act NOW!
HACK THE USA on 1/20/17...
"Whether you like the knowledge or not, after the peer reviewing is done then it is known and available for use"
Good! I want you to keep that in mind! Because Lord Monckton just released a soon to be peer reviewed paper which details the mistakes made in the current climate model showing where it is flawed thereby proving there is no climate change.
Sorry chicken little. You're losing on ALL fronts! No more free Government money for you!
This is a three sided, rigged, FAKE debate by Alarmist BIG Darth and Luke LITTLE Warmist, both ignoring the learned Obie NO Warmists. One cannot describe a chaotic, dynamic system with a single parameter, anecdotal hypothesis, or correct that false hypothesis with a coefficient.
"One cannot describe a chaotic, dynamic system with a single parameter" - Kook
Yup. And now you know why scientists call it "climate change", while the unwashed masses call it "Global Warming".
Seems to me that you need a bath.
I am assuming Faux Science Slayer is the latest incarnation of amanfromars and as such his incomprehensible witterings are welcome.
He usually makes my head spin, and means nothing, but is harmless.
At least I think he is.
I am assuming Faux Science Slayer is the latest incarnation of amanfromars and as such his incomprehensible witterings are welcome.Dunno about amanfromars being Faux's sock puppet but incomprehensible is accurate, not to mention incoherent. He does have a website if you find his witterings amusing.
"This is a three sided, rigged, FAKE debate by Alarmist BIG Darth and Luke LITTLE Warmist, both ignoring the learned Obie NO Warmists. One cannot describe a chaotic, dynamic system with a single parameter, anecdotal hypothesis, or correct that false hypothesis with a coefficient."
Only those who are profoundly ignorant, ill-educated, ill-informed or who in the pay of oil and coal companies deny the reality of climate change.
When the vast majority of the world's science academies, atmospheric physicists and professional meteorologists all accept that climate change is happening and that humans are the primary cause then everyone else ought to wake up and pay attention.
"Only those who are profoundly ignorant, ill-educated, ill-informed or who in the pay of oil and coal companies deny the reality of climate change."
You just described 40 percent of the American population, and I am not sure it might be higher. At least if describes the 25 percent of the population which showed up and voted for the man of Orange.
This is USA and the anglosaxon way in general. Issue threats and bargain.
You, my friend, have been infected by Slavic thinking. It is their custom to await a potential action, not issue any threats in advance, just raise an eyebrow again and again at your continued infractions. When you finally cross the line they make sure you never ever bother them again. The place where the line is drawn may differ (from a few inches away in Poland, to parsecs away in Bulgaria), but it is a line none the less. You cross it - you understand why the old Bulgarian National Anthem starts with with "Maritza river will become a raging torrent running red with (Turkish) blood". That and the real meaning of "Farewell of the Slavic Woman" (regardless is it the Russian or the Polish Armia Kraiova version) (*).
The Anglo-Saxon way is not that. You have to lay down your threats in advance, show off your missiles and lawyers at their launchpads and demonstrate that you are ready to use the launch codes for either.
Gov Brown is operating according to the custom of his country and his upbringing, nothing new here. Move along
(*)This is why anglosaxons continuously bitch about Slavic unfathomable behavior. Nothing really unfathomable about it.
"AFAIK, Trump hasn't done anything yet...[...]"
He is appointing his administration to take over the important positions in January. He seems to be confirming his presumed denial of climate change. Whether Congress will refuse to confirm some of his appointees is a moot point.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/13/these-are-the-climate-myths-guiding-trumps-epa-team/
Quick question: wouldn't it be reasonable to call someone who disputes the reality of evolution a person who "denies" evolution? Would you call someone who disputes the reality of heliocentrism a "denier" of heliocentrism?
The basic — and may I repeat that? thanks: "basic, basic, basic, basic" — and irrefutable physics behind the blockage, absorption, and re-radiation of long-wave radiation by large, active molecules such as CO2, CH4, N2O, and the like, and how that blockage and re-radiation warms the troposphere, surface, and ocean in quite easily measurable and quantifiable amounts while concomitantly and measurably cooling the stratosphere, have been well-demonstrated for many decades. Someone who calls that solid physics into question — oh, and not the intense and active squiggling around the margins regarding future effects and considered solutions, which many reasonable scientists still debate — are, quite simply, deniers of irrefutable facts. "Truth," one might even say.
"Deniers" is not a "pejorative" term. It's simply an accurate identification.
Oh, and when you have a free nanosecond, hop aboard some of the right-wing wacko websites and see who really are the "fanatics" who want to burn their enemies "at the stake." It ain't the scientists, kiddo.
The basic — and may I repeat that? thanks: "basic, basic, basic, basic" — and irrefutable physics behind the blockage, absorption, and re-radiation of long-wave radiation by large, active molecules such as CO2, CH4, N2O, and the like, and how that blockage and re-radiation warms the troposphere, surface, and ocean in quite easily measurable and quantifiable amounts while concomitantly and measurably cooling the stratosphere, have been well-demonstrated for many decades.
Sadly their effect on climate - essentially zero - has also been demonstrated for many decades.
If you actually care to run the numbers, you will find that the physics alone gives almost no importance to CO2.
The AGW theory has had to 'improve' on the physics by adding the completely unjustified concept of 'positive feedback' whose presence should have been revealed by atmospheric hotspots and particular distributions of temperature that have absolutely never been observed.
'Climate sceptics' do not deny climate change, or the physics of IR absorption. And its significant that these are always the straw men used to discredit them.
In reality the 'climate deniers' are those who cling to theories based on a feedback system supported by commercial and political interests, but sadly not by the data.
I'm quite sorry, but you are quite seriously, scientifically, and undeniably quite in error. You assert without evidence.
If you could do me the kind favor of citing peer-reviewed, well-supported, and non-moronic papers supporting your silliness, I'd be more than happy to refute them, one by one.
M'kay?
"I'm quite sorry, but you are quite seriously, scientifically, and undeniably quite in error. You assert without evidence."
We've all heard the arguments many times. Face it, your horse is dead. You can beat it all day long but it ain't gonna plow. Far too many intelligent commentors here disagree with you for you to be so categorically correct.
Get back to us when the temps start to rise again, okay? Heck, just the ocean would be enough.
@Big John: "Get back to us when the temps start to rise again, okay?"
Hmmm ... here's one dataset in which you might be interested: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Or do you not believe that one simply because it's "from duh gub'mint?" If not, how 'bout http://bit.ly/1ot2Lpu
Still too governmental? Then how 'bout the satellite dataset that climate-science deniers — okay, "contrarians" — seem to prefer: http://bit.ly/2hQksAC
Or what datasets are you talking about?
I don't recall "Birther" ever being okay, except to those leftists trying to stick it on people who have a serious problem with the veracity of Obama's digital birth certificate. Obama was more or less forced to release a file of a photocopy,but only after Obama quietly fought the release in court for two years.
That was suspicious enough, but then people started noticing obvious signs of forgery within the supposed "photocopy."
This was not going to end well for Obama, so the entire Left went into battle mode against anyone who dared utter these thoughts. "Birther" was a direct copy of Denier, which is also used against the Left's enemies on the AGW front. To this day it's verboten for anyone to mention the subject without being labeled 'insane' by the howling mob. Victory!
I wouldn't say you are called insane anymore. Just 'a racist wanker' covers it nicely.Because my father was an Ashkenazim? I think the shoe might belong on the other foot.
Isn't it amazing what passes for "scientific" argument among The True Believers?
Arctic Ocean is cooling -- and so the Arctic ice sheet isn't so small these days? The photos are doctored by evil henchmen?You might wish to read what NASA has to say. Summarised:
1. Eight times during the ~30 years of satellite monitoring, the ice sheet has been broken up by summer storms.
2. The wind has driven the disintegrated icepack out of the polar circle.
3. Ice is an insulator, so heat can escape the now open ocean, warming the atmosphere by convection and radiation.
4. When heat leaves, whatever it's leaving cools, in this case the ocean and this is corroborated by in situ temperature measurements..
5. Some of the radiative heat goes straight to space, some is absorbed by molecules of CO2 in the atmosphere. Somewhat more than 50% of this heat is reradiated to space.
6. Heat is exiting the planet via the poles. Not a novel observation in climatology.
You swallowed that one? Looks like you've just demonstrated your scientific illiteracy. You can't declare any year the warmest when the difference in measured temperature is less than the margin of error. You probably won't understand what I've just typed which makes the whole thing even more hilarious.
You can't declare any year the warmest when the difference in measured temperature is less than the margin of error.Er, actually you can and the evidence suggests that they do declare year XXXX "the warmest evah" with considerable frequency. It's worth understanding what's going on here. First, it's an average temperature. Note bene "an", not "the" average. There are ever so many different averages: arithmetic, root mean square, median etc. When the "highest temperature evah" is declared, it's the arithmetic mean of a mixture of arithmetic means and medians.
Second important point is that the rise is almost entirely due to overnight temperatures in winter and mostly where temperature recordings are sparse. Quite how that's causing the planet to "burn" escapes me.
If you could do me the kind favor of citing peer-reviewed,
Since 97% of peer-reviewing is done by the plas of the authors of the papers being reviewed saying that makes it 'correct' is nonsense.
You must also look at exactly how much of the 'warming' data is produced. For example, Dr Gavin Schmidt caught fudging data by wayback machine which makes thinking people wonder how much else these climate scientists have 'adjusted' their data to fit the narrative rather than fitting the narrative to the data.
Since 97% of peer-reviewing is done by the plas of the authors of the papers being reviewed saying that makes it 'correct' is nonsense.
I have reviewed papers. Without being a pal or anything. Most cases, where the paper was so sh*t that my Dad decided that it is bad for his blood pressure. His kill ratio (not counting the ones he gave to me to disembowel) was somewhere around 70%.
I have had papers reviewed. I do not recall any of the reviewers being a pal of mine. I have worked (and have publications) in 3 completely unrelated scientific fields by the way - Organic Chemistry, Molecular Biology and Numerical Methods (Applied Mathematics).
You, my friend, have never worked in R&D and Science and I suggest you locate your hot air valve and drop the pressure a bit.
I have had papers reviewed. I do not recall any of the reviewers being a pal of mine. I have worked (and have publications) in 3 completely unrelated scientific fields by the way - Organic Chemistry, Molecular Biology and Numerical Methods (Applied Mathematics).I have absolutely no doubt that what you write is true. But that doesn't mean that skulduggery never takes place.
Climatology has been pretty smelly for several decades now. Von Storch attributes this to a remarkably small clique, only perhaps 30-40. But then until Hansen's 1988 paper it was a discipline few aspired to.
Happily there appears to be some turning of the tide and there's been several interesting papers published of late.
"Sadly their effect on climate - essentially zero - has also been demonstrated for many decades."
What has been demonstrated for many decades is the existence of several carbon sinks and heat sinks that to this day have kept the issue relatively in check by acting as carbon and/or heat buffers. The deniers side claims that those sinks will hold for ever against anything we throw at them, which is clearly contrary to all the currently available data and also to elementary logic.
Just to give an example, one of these sinks -probably the most important- is the oceans, which have been capturing and storing carbon for thousands of millions of years, causing climate to support life as we know it. The bad news is that this carbon sink is already failing, causing the oceans to acidify very noticeably, as proved by many -scientific, peer reviewed- studies.
This acidification is caused mainly by CO2 dissolved in seawater, and has caused already noticeable and well documented effects*. There are very strong hints that for this particular carbon sink, the tipping point may already have been reached. There are many studies regarding how this acidification is affecting coral reefs (which store teratonnes of carbon in coral skeletons), sea animals shells (ditto), and phytoplankton (that stores huge amounts of carbon in microscopic algae's bodies, frees a big fraction of the O2 we need to breath and is the base of the oceans food chain).
So, yes, in this context, "Deniers" is a pejorative term, but also very precise, as they are denying lots and lots of very strong scientific evidence. Whether they're doing it because they're stupid, scientifically illiterate, just crazy, or have vested interests in the matter and don't give a shit about the consequences for the survival of life on Earth -including human life- is a different matter. If you define yourself as an AGW denier, the next time you feel ill you should ignore all this Science thing and go straight to a bloodletter, for the sake of consistency.
Note*: as an example, I provide you with a few links to peer reviewed articles and studies (there are many many more, google them yourself) regarding the effects of human activity on coral reefs:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/expeditions/the-effects-of-climate-change-on-coral-reef-health/
http://208.180.30.233/lib/reefs_endangered.071214.pdf
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coralreef-climate.html *
The last link includes a nice graphic explaining the issue in very simple terms. If you disagree with any part of that graphic, please explain why. Else, STFU.
<I>The bad news is that this carbon sink is already failing, causing the oceans to acidify very noticeably, as proved by many -scientific, peer reviewed- studies.</I>
Now I know you are a nutter!
<b>The oceans can only become acidic if the earth runs out of rocks!</b>
Most of those peer-reviewed studies were total rubbish where eg researchers chucked large doses of hydrochloric acid into the water to see how fish or coral reacted and found that it didn't go well. The fact that this research got past peer review shows that peer review is not doing what you and other people think it is doing and is a crock.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
