Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Barack Obama is now a scientist!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Barack Obama is now a scientist!

    Naming extinct lizards and parasites after a politician who played no role in identifying these species: Science or politics? The parasites are very appropriate!!!

    When naming new species it is common practice to use a latin-ized version of the discovering scientist's name or some other unique identifier related to its discovery...
    Nine Animals That Scientists Nave Named After President Obama

    [...]

    Baracktrema obamai (turtle blood fluke)

    [...]

    Paragordius obamai (hairworm)

    [...]

    Obamadon gracillis (extinct insectivorous lizard)



    http://www.realclearlife.com/nature/...esident-obama/

    The formerly respectable American Association for the Advancement of Science has apparently decided that soon-to-be-former-President Obama is now a climate scientist...
    Barack Obama, Climate Scientist
    Willis Eschenbach / 17 hours ago January 9, 2017
    Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

    I fear that Science magazine has beclowned itself as badly as the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. They’ve published a “scientific” policy paper by the noted climate scientist Barack Hussein Obama. Not a paper with Obama as one of the signatories. No, Science magazine claims that the President wrote the deathless prose all by himself, not a co-author in sight.



    Here’s an example:
    At the same time, evidence is mounting that any economic strategy that ignores carbon pollution will impose tremendous costs to the global economy and will result in fewer jobs and less economic growth over the long term. Estimates of the economic damages from warming of 4°C over preindustrial levels range from 1% to 5% of global GDP each year by 2100 (4). One of the most frequently cited economic models pins the estimate of annual damages from warming of 4°C at ~4% of global GDP (4–6), which could lead to lost U.S. federal revenue of roughly $340 billion to $690 billion annually (7).

    Ignoring “carbon pollution” will lead to loss of US Federal revenue? OMG … can’t have that.

    [...]

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/...ate-scientist/

    The economic model to which Professor Obama refers is known as DICE. It demonstrates that for a mere $44 trillion spent now, we could increase GDP growth over the next century by almost nothing...
    Just listen to President Obama. His administration developed a “Social Cost of Carbon” that attempts to quantify in economic terms the projected effects of climate change on everything from agriculture to public health to sea level, looking all the way out to the year 2100. So suppose President Trump not only reverses U.S. climate policy but ensures that the world permanently abandons efforts to mitigate greenhouse-gas emissions. How much less prosperous than today does the Obama administration estimate we will be by century’s end?

    The world will be at least five times wealthier. Zach may even live to see it.

    The Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy (DICE) model, developed by William Nordhaus at Yale University, which has the highest climate costs of the Obama administration’s three models, estimates that global GDP in 2100 without climate change would be $510 trillion. That’s 575 percent higher than in 2015. The cost of climate change, the model estimates, will amount to almost 4 percent of GDP in that year. But the remaining GDP of $490 trillion is still 550 percent larger than today. Without climate change, DICE assumes average annual growth of 2.27 percent. With climate change, that rate falls to 2.22 percent; at no point does climate change shave even one-tenth of one point off growth. Indeed, by 2103, the climate-change-afflicted world surpasses the prosperity of the not-warming 2100.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...climate-change

    Setting aside the facts that the Social Cost of Carbon is 100% mythical and that neither 2.27% nor 2.22% growth are robust… 2% growth is basically treading water… We’re supposed to gleefully spend $44 trillion over the next couple of decades based on a statistically insignificant difference between two rolls of the DICE?

    Well, the climate is certainly more important than money. Poor Zach must be terrified that the Earth will turn into Venus under President Trump. So, even though the economic benefits of CLIMATE ACTION NOW! are insignificant and mythical, the actual effect on the weather in the year 2100 will be significant… Right?
    Even with U.S. “leadership,” the commitments made by other countries under the Paris agreement look almost identical to the paths those countries were on already. Thus the agreement’s impact is at best a few tenths of a degree Celsius. MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, for instance, projected 3.9°C of warming by 2100 without the Paris agreement and 3.7°C with it.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...climate-change

    I’m not a CPA (I do pay one to do my taxes), but I’m going to go out on a limb here: $44 trillion now is worth a Helluva lot more than a mythical 0.05% annual GDP boost and 0.2°C of averted warming by 2100… Particularly since a realistic “business as usual” model wouldn’t predict more than 2.0°C of warming by 2100…

    […]

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/...limate-change/



    Any and all sarcasm is purely intentional.
    Last edited by The Doctor; 10 Jan 17, 10:15.
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

  • #2
    Another reason we should get to see Obama's college transcripts. I wonder, did he take any science classes at all in college...?

    Or, maybe he's a scientist like this guy because he said so and nobody's willing to tell him he's wrong...

    Comment


    • #3
      He is only following the fine example set by guys like PE Chump, who think that they know more about climate change than the PhDs do.
      Give me a fast ship and the wind at my back for I intend to sail in harms way! (John Paul Jones)

      Initiated Chief Petty Officer
      Hard core! Old School! Deal with it!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
        He is only following the fine example set by guys like PE Chump, who think that they know more about climate change than the PhDs do.
        Well, given those same scientists said the hole in the ozone layer would be closed by now if we stopped using CFC's and its still the same size it was, tells me they are worse at predicting things than a psychic... At least psychics can get the random average on their predictions...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          Well, given those same scientists said the hole in the ozone layer would be closed by now if we stopped using CFC's and its still the same size it was, tells me they are worse at predicting things than a psychic... At least psychics can get the random average on their predictions...
          That prediction was kind of doomed by the fact that the ozone "hole" is mostly natural...
          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
            That prediction was kind of doomed by the fact that the ozone "hole" is mostly natural...
            Didn't stop environmentalists banning a useful chemical entirely and replacing it with something less efficient and far more expensive.

            Comment


            • #7
              Still better than some child that cannot color within the lines.
              "Ask not what your country can do for you"

              Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

              you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                Another reason we should get to see Obama's college transcripts. I wonder, did he take any science classes at all in college...?

                Or, maybe he's a scientist like this guy because he said so and nobody's willing to tell him he's wrong...

                What happened to the orange rag on his head?
                "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                  That prediction was kind of doomed by the fact that the ozone "hole" is mostly natural...
                  Can you explain that, to the not-so scientifically educated among us? Thank you in advance.
                  I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                    Didn't stop environmentalists banning a useful chemical entirely and replacing it with something less efficient and far more expensive.
                    Science never stops environMENTALists from trying to ban useful chemicals...

                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                      Didn't stop environmentalists banning a useful chemical entirely and replacing it with something less efficient and far more expensive.
                      Yea really, we can still manufacture it here and export it to third world countries to use, but we can't, that will help.
                      Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
                        He is only following the fine example set by guys like PE Chump, who think that they know more about climate change than the PhDs do.
                        That would be these ...
                        ‘Scientists Now Warn Of A New Ice Age’ As Temperature Plummets to – 80°F In Russia

                        http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/01/...80f-in-russia/

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                          Can you explain that, to the not-so scientifically educated among us? Thank you in advance.
                          You're welcome...
                          Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                          The annual thinning of the ozone layer over Antarctica is an artifact of the polar winter. Although it is claimed that the ozone hole didn't exist prior to the 1980's... It has occurred during every Antarctic spring in which anyone was trying to measure it.

                          Ozone in the upper atmosphere is created when UV radiation from the Sun strikes oxygen molecules. This leads to the creation of ozone. The ozone layer doesn't so much act as sunscreen as it acts like reactive armor. During the Antarctic winter very little sunlight hits the upper atmosphere over Antarctica and the Antarctic polar vortex prevents much in the way of atmospheric mixing between the polar and higher latitude air masses. This leads to an annual depletion of Antarctic ozone from mid-August through mid-October (late winter to mid spring). As the Antarctic spring transitions to summer, there is more exposure to sunlight and the ozone layer is replenished.

                          This process has occurred since the dawn of continuous ozone measurements in 1986. NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory / Global Monitoring Division features a very disingenuous chart on their ozone page.



                          Figure 1: NOAA ESRL/GMD South Pole Ozone


                          The NOAA ESRL/GMD chart implies that the annual ozone hole did not exist during an earlier period of measurements from 1967-1971. This is wrong. The actual data from 1967-1971 clearly show that the annual ozone hole did exist. It may have been less pronounced at higher altitudes and it may have bottomed out in September rather than October; but it did exist. At low altitude (200 MB and 400 MB) it was nearly identical to the present-day...



                          Figure 2: Comparison of 1967-1971 and 1986-1991 Antarctic ozone (Oltmans et al., 1994)


                          There are a lot of reasons why earlier measurements differ from the modern data:
                          1. The older data were sparsely sampled (1/4 the number of profiles) and the earlier ozonesonde balloons rarely, if ever, reached higher altitudes (40 MB and 25 MB).

                          2. The error bars of the two data sets almost overlap.

                          3. Natural climate oscillations. 1967-1971 was during a period of global cooling. 1986-1991 was during a period of global warming. Without having a continuous series of profiles across a full wavelength of the ~60-yr PDO/ENSO cycle, it's impossible to know if the annual ozone depletion has a cyclical nature.

                          4. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's). It is possible that CFC's did exaggerate the Antarctic ozone hole. However, the data clearly show that CFC's did not create it.

                          The ozone hole scare cost many people a lot of money. Refrigerating fluids, particularly in automobile air conditioners, had to be replaced. If you were the owner of a 1980's motor vehicle in need of air conditioner repairs in the 1990's, you may as well have traded your vehicle in; because the cost of repairs became almost prohibitive due to new environmental regulations related to CFC's.

                          The economic cost of this particular chapter of environmental junk science was minuscule in comparison to that of the current environmental swindle (anthropogenic global warming)... But this should serve as one more reminder that no one ever bothered to check the work of these Enviromarxist con men prior to Steve McIntyre's debunking of Mann's Hockey Stick.

                          References:

                          Data Visualization >> South Pole Ozone Hole >> South Pole Total Column Ozone

                          Oltmans, S. J.; Hofmann, D. J.; Komhyr, W. D.; Lathrop, J. A. Ozone vertical profile changes over South Pole. NASA. Goddard Space Flight Center, Ozone in the Troposphere and Stratosphere, Part 2, p 578-581
                          Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                          The thing that bugs me the most about the current NOAA ESRL/GMD chart is the total lack of integrity in the use of the 1967-1971 data. The data should either be depicted as annual series like the modern data or not used at all. Averaging it all together is simply wrong and highly misleading.

                          If you look at the input data, the 1967-1971 profiles are similar to the later ones at low altitude. They differ most at the highest altitude (40 & 25 MB) - Where there were almost no data! The earlier data had 1/4 the sampling rate and the balloons from those already sparse samples rarely ever reached the higher altitudes.

                          Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                          NOAA is perplexed by the fact that the annual Antarctic ozone hole has thus far failed to heal itself in response to the drastic reduction in CFC emissions over the last 30 years...
                          Antarctic Ozone Hole Persists, At Least for Awhile
                          Major success in reducing ozone-depleting substances may not pay off in the Antarctic for several more years


                          August in Antarctica means the Sun starts rising over the horizon again, following four months of darkness. For NOAA Corps officer Nick Morgan (GMD), stationed at the South Pole, the month also marks the moment when he begins measuring ozone in earnest.

                          For most of the year, Morgan and his colleagues launch giant plastic balloons into the air about weekly. Tethered to the balloons are instruments that take ozone readings up to about 18 miles high.

                          Then, in the Antarctic spring (August through October), sunlight-sparked chemical reactions begin eating away at ozone. Scientists start making measurements more often, and by October, Morgan or his colleagues are outside in minus 80°F temperatures about every other day. Morgan and other scientists around the world are watching those data carefully, looking for evidence that the Antarctic ozone hole is beginning to heal after decades of hurt.

                          There’s scant evidence yet, from the balloon-borne instrumnets or others on the ground and on satellites: At the end of September, total ozone was at its annual low of 122 Dobson units. Typical fall, winter, and summertime levels are 250-300 Dobson units. The worst-of-the-year ozone levels have averaged 108 during the last 24 years.

                          It will be difficult to establish a clear-cut recovery trend in Antarctic ozone levels because seasonal cycles and other variable natural factors...

                          [...]

                          http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/news/quarte...s-least-awhile


                          The annual Antarctic ozone depletion is almost 100% of natural origin.
                          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            ^ So presumably there's a similar hole over the North Pole during its winter too?
                            I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                              ^ So presumably there's a similar hole over the North Pole during its winter too?
                              Only a very subtle thinning. Arctic air masses freely mix with the rest of the atmosphere year-round.

                              The difference is largely due to the fact that Antarctic is a big land mass and the Arctic is mostly oceanic.
                              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X