The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Not At My Table - Political Discussions => National & International Politics => Topic started by: Gaspar on August 12, 2010, 09:13:47 am



Title: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on August 12, 2010, 09:13:47 am
Good grief.  Not again.  This time it's NOAA perpetrating the fraud.\
http://www.examiner.com/x-50809-Boston-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m8d9-US-Government-in-Massive-New-Global-Warming-Scandal--NOAA-Disgraced

Global warming data apparently cooked by U.S. government-funded body shows astounding temperature fraud with increases averaging 10 to 15 degrees Fahrenheit.

My favorite:
Together the two institutions show temperature maps for northern Lake Michigan registering an absurd 430 degrees Fahrenheit -yes, you read it right –that’s four hundred and thirty degrees-and this is by no means the highest temperature recorded on the charts.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change
Post by: nathanm on August 12, 2010, 05:51:51 pm
You probably think the reports on the lack of any kind of wrongdoing with regards to the veracity of the data at the University of East Anglia are just a bunch of lies, too.

Even if it turns out that satellite was providing faulty readings, we have these fine ground stations, some of which have been collecting data for over a century which provide an equally compelling case for global warming.

http://ams.confex.com/ams/90annual/techprogram/paper_159905.htm

And in 2005, noaa warned that "users of climate monitoring and application should exert caution in using the NOAA-16 OLR data."

http://www.weather.gov/ost/climate/STIP/NOAA16_olrdeg_080305.htm

Edited to add: And this is why they shouldn't provide unfiltered data sets to the public. People who can't bother to read about the limitations of the system presume all sorts of things that aren't true. Apparently the wild readings have to do with cloud cover.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change
Post by: Hoss on August 12, 2010, 07:48:22 pm
You probably think the reports on the lack of any kind of wrongdoing with regards to the veracity of the data at the University of East Anglia are just a bunch of lies, too.

Even if it turns out that satellite was providing faulty readings, we have these fine ground stations, some of which have been collecting data for over a century which provide an equally compelling case for global warming.

http://ams.confex.com/ams/90annual/techprogram/paper_159905.htm

And in 2005, noaa warned that "users of climate monitoring and application should exert caution in using the NOAA-16 OLR data."

http://www.weather.gov/ost/climate/STIP/NOAA16_olrdeg_080305.htm

Edited to add: And this is why they shouldn't provide unfiltered data sets to the public. People who can't bother to read about the limitations of the system presume all sorts of things that aren't true. Apparently the wild readings have to do with cloud cover.

Dem damned ol' fax!


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disturbance/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on February 04, 2011, 09:50:39 am
I can't keep up.  According to HuffPo, and RealClimate.org,  Global Warming Climate Change Global Climate Disturbance is now called “Global Weirding”.  Apparently due to the fact that none of the other nomenclature applies.

The increase in polar bear population, combined with the fact that Manhattan has not sunk 20+ feet under sea level, children do obviously still know what snow is, and the combined global temps seem to be flatter than predicted have really caused quite a stir in the movement.

I wonder if they will have to reprint T-shirts?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on February 04, 2011, 10:33:36 am
Braaaaains!


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on February 04, 2011, 11:03:50 am
The recent example of Global (word of your choice) will probably spur snowblower and SUV sales.  SUVs to get the ground clearance.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: patric on February 04, 2011, 11:12:01 am
Weren't more sever winters in North America one of the earliest predictions of Global Warming?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on February 04, 2011, 12:19:51 pm
Weren't more sever winters in North America one of the earliest predictions of Global Warming?
Yes. More moisture in the atmosphere means more snowfall in the places where it's cold enough to support snow. Warmer temperatures generally mean higher jet stream amplitude, leading to arctic temperatures farther south on occasion. (and unusually warm weather farther north)

It's all part of why weather is not climate and why one ought not listen to meteorologists when trying to learn about climatology and why one ought not listen to climatologists if you want to know what the weather is going to be like.

That said, blaming this weather on global warming is as silly as blaming a given record high temperature or given hurricane on global warming.

Weather patterns are governed far more by sea surface temperatures in various locations around the globe than any other factor. Sometimes that means the overall warming trend can be masked, which is why headlines about what the average temperature has been like this year or last year or even for the past 5 years are also silly. You have to look at the trend over 30 years or more to see the broader pattern that is being masked by the various SST anomalies.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on February 04, 2011, 12:44:21 pm
Good grief, not again, Gaspar!

It takes about 30 seconds to check this crap out.  But even that small effort would entail too much effort and would again leave the RWRE agenda with nothing to spew about.  And what fun would that be?

Here is the notice posted about a month after the satellite problems developed.  And it was posted when the misleading starting post of this thread was made.

NOTICE (8/11/2010): Due to degradation of a satellite sensor used by this mapping product, some images have exhibited extreme high and low surface temperatures. Please disregard these images as anomalies. Future images will not include data from the degraded satellite and images caused by the faulty satellite sensor will be/have been removed from the image archive.

And the website;
http://www.coastwatch.msu.edu/




Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on February 04, 2011, 12:53:59 pm
Apparently nobody noticed my zombie callout. ;)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on February 04, 2011, 12:58:31 pm
Braaiinns??  I saw it and it slipped right by - I didn't catch it.  Sorry!






Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: we vs us on February 04, 2011, 01:02:48 pm
Gassy, was this (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1314036) the article you cribbed the "weirding" reference from?

In actuality, it stems from an op-ed by Thomas Friedman (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/opinion/17friedman.html) written around this time last year.  As he says in the article,

"I prefer the term “global weirding,” because that is what actually happens as global temperatures rise and the climate changes. The weather gets weird. The hots are expected to get hotter, the wets wetter, the dries drier and the most violent storms more numerous."

It ain't really part of the super-secret climato-pinko-Muslim Brotherhood-liberal democrat Star Chamber Commission on World Domination, and it's not a scientific term.  But it is a useful description of what's happening.

In any event, Friedman, who's generally a practical centrist has become a frothing climate change supporter because, as he says at the end of the article:

" . . . . I suspect China is quietly laughing at us right now. And Iran, Russia, Venezuela and the whole OPEC gang are high-fiving each other. Nothing better serves their interests than to see Americans becoming confused about climate change, and, therefore, less inclined to move toward clean-tech and, therefore, more certain to remain addicted to oil. Yes, sir, it is morning in Saudi Arabia."

As Friedman says, as we dither and argue and over-parse, our competition has reached consensus and is moving ahead.  





Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on February 04, 2011, 01:17:01 pm
I want some damned global/climate/weirding or whatever right now!!!


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on February 04, 2011, 01:19:05 pm
You got about 14" of right outside your door.  And more on the way.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on February 04, 2011, 01:36:18 pm
You got about 14" of right outside your door.  And more on the way.



Ah yes, the more it snows, the more we blame global whatever. Didn't we hear that having less snow was caused by global whatever? Why, yes we did...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d70iXVN5EVM[/youtube]


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: waterboy on February 04, 2011, 02:34:00 pm
It comes down to this. Some people mix a little whiskey with their 7. Others prefer a splash of 7 with their whiskey. G & G prefer to mix a little science with their politics. Very little.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on February 04, 2011, 03:13:46 pm
If it snows too much, it's global whatever. If it snows too little, it's global whatever. Too much rain, too little rain...blah blah blah. Everything is global whatever's fault.

Face it. Those dems in the video I posted put their collective foots in their mouths.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on February 04, 2011, 03:19:20 pm
Attention all. If you disagree with waterboy, you apparently are now a drunk.
(http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b27/gettingdangerous/lol/revelation_thankyou.jpg)

Edited to add: Nice..guido edited his post..

(http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b27/gettingdangerous/lol/lolwut.jpg)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: we vs us on February 04, 2011, 03:26:06 pm
If it snows too much, it's global whatever. If it snows too little, it's global whatever. Too much rain, too little rain...blah blah blah. Everything is global whatever's fault.

Face it. Those dems in the video I posted put their collective foots in their mouths.



I'm actually interested in who's blaming this snowstorm on global warming.  So far I've only seen you and Gassy do it, as well as select moronic talking heads on (right leaning) TV.  Has anyone with any sort of scientific rep at all put the two together?  

Related:  a great article from the Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0203/Winter-storm-raises-the-question-What-s-going-on-with-the-weather) on weather/climate variations that doesn't once mention climate change.

EDIT:  your youtube link may have that in it . . . I can't view them at work.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on February 04, 2011, 03:29:44 pm
I'm actually interested in who's blaming this snowstorm on global warming.  So far I've only seen you and Gassy do it, as well as select moronic talking heads on (right leaning) TV.  Has anyone with any sort of scientific rep at all put the two together?  

Related:  a great article from the Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0203/Winter-storm-raises-the-question-What-s-going-on-with-the-weather) on weather/climate variations that doesn't once mention climate change.

EDIT:  your youtube link may have that in it . . . I can't view them at work.

I was making a joke about the cold outside and essentially how I would like some warming. Not taken well by the true believers in here. As for the concept of global whatever, the facts are so all over the place that its impossible for me to know the truth--much less care.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on February 04, 2011, 03:34:36 pm
Any issue that can rally people around a cause gives politicians power. 

You can support causes or pursue goals.  The difference is that goals have an alpha point and omega point, a start and finish.  Causes go on forever because no amount of achievement can satisfy them. No information can discredit them.  They are emotionally driven.

I pursue my goals while I watch liberals writhe, twist and bend in the eternal dance to push the boulder up the hill.

If a million scientists publish a million studies using a million data sources showing that the world was actually cooling, it would make no difference.  The cooling would be backwards engineered to be a product of the warming.  The cause is eternal until the politicians behind it move on or lose interest and the grants that drive the research evaporate.

The dance is entertaining but expensive.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: we vs us on February 04, 2011, 03:48:15 pm

If a million scientists publish a million studies using a million data sources showing that the world was actually cooling, it would make no difference.  

This is probably the nut of your comment.  And maybe all the comments on this thread.  It would make no difference.  You can't be proven anything to.

EDIT:  "proven anything to" is pretty tortured syntax.  That's what I get for trying to type while on hold with a client. 


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on February 04, 2011, 03:48:32 pm
If a million scientists publish a million studies using a million data sources showing that the world was actually cooling, it would make no difference.  The cooling would be backwards engineered to be a product of the warming.  The cause is eternal until the politicians behind it move on or lose interest and the grants that drive the research evaporate.
This statement is so ridiculous, this can be my only response:

(http://yummymenandkickasschicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/wtf4.png)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on February 04, 2011, 03:56:42 pm
Any issue that can rally people around a cause gives politicians power. 

You can support causes or pursue goals.  The difference is that goals have an alpha point and omega point, a start and finish.  Causes go on forever because no amount of achievement can satisfy them. No information can discredit them.  They are emotionally driven.

I pursue my goals while I watch liberals writhe, twist and bend in the eternal dance to push the boulder up the hill.

If a million scientists publish a million studies using a million data sources showing that the world was actually cooling, it would make no difference.  The cooling would be backwards engineered to be a product of the warming.  The cause is eternal until the politicians behind it move on or lose interest and the grants that drive the research evaporate.

The dance is entertaining but expensive.

I think there is something more at play here. As folks in this forum know, I am deeply Christian and anti-abortion. Now, if I talk publicly about people changing traditional Christmas themes, I'm apparently intolerant. If I applaud efforts to restrict or ban abortion on demand rights, I'm a right wing nut job. In this case, because I do not give a crap about global whatever, I'm what: a knuckle-dragging neanderthal idiot? It doesn't matter that I have more education than those who think of me that way. Why is it that the left can't be tolerant of the opinions of those folks with whom they disagree?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on February 04, 2011, 04:02:27 pm
To footnote my previous point, I freely admit that I have gone after many people in this forum whose beliefs are counter to mine--particularly when it comes to tax policy. To that end, I think Gaspar's post that has triggered this sh!tstorm is spot on. Emotion can get in the way of rational discussion.

Oh, and Nate, thanks for proving my point.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on February 04, 2011, 04:04:43 pm

EDIT:  your youtube link may have that in it . . . I can't view them at work.

The video was a compilation of several dem leaders (Byrd, Boxer, et. al.) complaining about how little amounts of snow proves climate change. That's all.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on February 04, 2011, 04:07:17 pm
This statement is so ridiculous, this can be my only response:

(http://yummymenandkickasschicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/wtf4.png)

You think?
Look at what is happening now.  By 2010 we were supposed to be in dire straits with shoreline disappearing, extinctions, and a multitude of other warming related catastrophes.  Instead we find ourselves leveling out on temperature even though our carbon output globally has increased.  Manhattan is still around, as is the California coast.  The polar bears are still eating seals and their population is higher than ever. 

As all of these things have come to pass. . . gently, the definition of the movement has been re-tooled.  The effects may be different but the root-causes must remain the same.  Industry = bad.

Global Warming by whatever name they generate remains a powerful political force, re-tooled, re-engineered and colorized for a new generation to enjoy!  ;) 



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on February 04, 2011, 04:15:11 pm
Whatever happened to the global cooling from the 1970s. Just askin.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on February 04, 2011, 04:16:29 pm
Whatever happened to the global cooling from the 1970s. Just askin.

It evolved into Global Warming.  Please try to keep up!


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on February 04, 2011, 04:23:05 pm
You think?
Look at what is happening now.  By 2010 we were supposed to be in dire straits with shoreline disappearing, extinctions, and a multitude of other warming related catastrophes.  Instead we find ourselves leveling out on temperature even though our carbon output globally has increased.  Manhattan is still around, as is the California coast.  The polar bears are still eating seals and their population is higher than ever. 
I think you've been listening to too much utter bullshit. The only thing we should be seeing now according to long-held predictions are melting ice caps, increasing global average temperatures, and possibly some ocean acidification. The dramatic effects you seem to think were predicted for now are 50-100 year effects. Even Al Gore's hyperbolic movie didn't claim that these effects would be apparent by 2011.

Global average temperature temporarily slowed its increase because we had the deepest solar minimum since the 1600s! Even with the sun putting out significantly less energy than it normally does, the Earth continues to warm. Funny, that.

It's no wonder you refuse to acknowledge the facts. You don't have them at hand.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on February 07, 2011, 11:05:12 pm
Manhattan and California are still around but there are several Pacific Island's that are going, going, gone.  Marshall Islands has one that is just about ready for evacuation.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: HazMatCFO on February 08, 2011, 04:21:38 am
The Weirding Module at work.

(http://mimg.ugo.com/201003/39157/cuts/dune-weirding-module_480x360.jpg)

Can the Kwisatz Haderach reverse global warming using the weirding module to save Earth?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on February 08, 2011, 08:45:03 pm
Nothing can stop it.  It is inevitable!  All is futile!  Give up now, avoid the rush!





Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on February 18, 2011, 04:56:11 pm
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s&feature=player_embedded#at=30[/youtube]


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Breadburner on February 18, 2011, 05:16:32 pm
Manhattan and California are still around but there are several Pacific Island's that are going, going, gone.  Marshall Islands has one that is just about ready for evacuation.



Not.....


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on February 18, 2011, 05:44:15 pm
Inhofe vs. Environmental Ambushers:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vmoErFbHao&feature=player_embedded#at=165[/youtube]

Love the smackdown of that snotty girl at 2:25


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: patric on February 18, 2011, 06:23:28 pm
The Weirding Module at work.

(http://mimg.ugo.com/201003/39157/cuts/dune-weirding-module_480x360.jpg)

Can the Kwisatz Haderach reverse global warming using the weirding module to save Earth?

Muad'Dib !
(it was worth a try...)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on February 18, 2011, 07:06:23 pm
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s&feature=player_embedded#at=30[/youtube]
Amazing. Stupidity of a video producer proven in record time: 5 seconds!


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on February 19, 2011, 10:20:44 am
Amazing. Stupidity of a video producer proven in record time: 5 seconds!

You still need to work on your sense of humor.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Breadburner on February 19, 2011, 10:37:38 am
You still need to work on your sense of humor.

He needs to change his name to "Ostrich Boy".....


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on February 19, 2011, 12:15:51 pm
The House kills funding for the IPCC.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9853/Another-victory-for-science-House-votes-244179-to-kill-US-funding-of-UN-IPCC-It-no-longer-wishes-to-have-the-IPCC-prepare-its-comprehensive-international-climate-science-assessments


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on February 19, 2011, 12:27:01 pm
He needs to change his name to "Ostrich Boy".....
a) You obviously have a grave misunderstanding of the whole ostrich head in sand thing. (you were looking for chicken little)
b) Hi there, Polyanna.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on February 21, 2011, 07:29:34 am
Your vehicle has arrived.  It's a Huff.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on February 22, 2011, 08:11:56 pm
Nathan,
Gotta cut Bread some slack.

Just because he doesn't understand reality, doesn't mean it isn't true.

Like the Marshall Islands.  They are being flooded, but he doesn't believe.  Even though they are making plans for evacuation as we speak.  He doesn't believe in evolution, either.  And yet, if there was ever a better example of missing link....







Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on March 03, 2011, 10:07:13 am
Hey, whatever happened to the on-coming Ice Age?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btTvJKqpKLo&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on March 03, 2011, 10:14:56 am
(http://c0016417.cdn2.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/jvn.jpg)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: TheArtist on March 03, 2011, 02:49:39 pm
Hey, whatever happened to the on-coming Ice Age?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btTvJKqpKLo&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]



I have explained this several times on here but apparently there are some that just ignore it, hope everyone else will forget or will not know, and then "falsly" ask the question all over again at a later date as if the question never got answered and as if the question itself somehow debunks global warming/climate change.

Lets go back to the 70s shall we.  To a time when scientists were just really beginning to get a grasp on the idea that human activity might possibly, actually be able to have an effect on the entire earths climate.  An astounding notion at the time.  But there it was right in front of us SMOG! everywhere and growing worse.  Smog was choking our cities, we were increasingly spewing out more and more lower level Ozone and CFC's.  Do any of you remember seeing photos of the Grand Canyon that were so choked with pollutants from far away cities that you could barely see across it?  And in many cities it was far worse. Some scientists looked at what this could do if we continued and drew some conclusions.  Some of these things would deplete our upper level ozone, and over time some would have a cooling effect on the earth.  Extrapolate this out over time...

BUT Guess what? WE DID put government efforts into place and reduced the ozone destroying chemicals.  WE DID avert what the scientists predicted could have happened. We saved the ozone that helps protects life on earth.

As for the smog and lower level ozone, we, through government regulation, DID indeed reduce their outputs.

Neither of the above actions destroyed our economy.  But they did help us.

While all of this was going on, there were also scientists who were beginning to take note of other chemicals and pollutants that we can not see.  We humans tend to pay attention to the stuff right in front of us, easily seen, before we take note of the "unseen". Its just easier to believe I guess.  But, they started doing more and more research on the things that we are spewing into the atmosphere that act to warm the earth.  

To say that scientists did not know everything is true.  Some were more concerned with and paid attention to the cooling stuff we were spewing out.  But as a more sophisticated datasets started falling into place AND as we started decreasing the cooling chemicals, THEN the warming chemicals came ever more to the fore.  For instance they began to notice that these warming chemicals lasted MUCH longer in the atmosphere than the cooling ones. We were decreasing the cooling stuff all the while increasing the warming stuff.  Oh, and we cant go back to spewing out the "cooling" smog to counterbalance things.  Its just unhealthy folks lol.

In science when a new field or endeavor begins, there are often large swings in what the data seem to say.  As more and more information is added, as time passes and various hypotheses are weighed, added or discarded, a concensus begins to emerge.  The "swings" become smaller and smaller. The 60s and 70s were the beginning, and even then scientists weren't completely wrong (we did change the equation by reducing certain types of emissions, while increasing others), and ever since then more and more information has been piling up.  First people argue one side then the next, then one side seems to gain the fore, then over time as more and more information is critiqued, they may say "we don't know yet" or " we are more and more certain".  In the instance of human induced global warming/climate change,,, We have become more and more certain.  The warming effects do indeed far outweigh the cooling, and if we continue on our current path, will actually cause the average global temerature to warm (though yes, some areas may actually cool lol, hence "climate change").

 To somehow point back at the beginning and the knowledge we had then in order to somehow lay suspect the decades and decades and decades of science that have steadily built a consensus, is to be disingenuous.  The situation today is different for many reasons than it was in the 70s.  A. We have indeed decreased our "cooling emissions", but B. have increased the "warming emissions" AND learned ever more about them and the earths climate system.

When I see people playing this "what about global cooling" card, I know that they aren't being truthful.  They aren't seeking the truth. They are trying to create a lie of misinformation. They can spout out in one or two sentences something that causes people who aren't that informed, to cast doubt.  A doubt that they then know requires a lot of explanation to debunk (see above).  They are counting on the the short lie, that people want to believe, winning out over the long truth. 


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on March 03, 2011, 03:20:50 pm
We need a government funded program to develop non-toxic smog.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on March 03, 2011, 03:31:03 pm
Thanks for explaining it to him. I may have to replace "Knowledgeable Neil" with "Knowledgeable TheArtist" ;)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on March 03, 2011, 03:45:27 pm
Lets go back to the 70s shall we.  

Been there, done that.  NO THANKS.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on March 03, 2011, 06:58:44 pm

BUT Guess what? WE DID put government efforts into place and reduced the ozone destroying chemicals.  WE DID avert what the scientists predicted could have happened. We saved the ozone that helps protects life on earth.

As for the smog and lower level ozone, we, through government regulation, DID indeed reduce their outputs.

Neither of the above actions destroyed our economy.  But they did help us.

They are counting on the the short lie, that people want to believe, winning out over the long truth.  

Inhofe keeps shoveling the s*** and Oklahoma keeps lapping it up.

Artist,
You are correct of course, but there is very much more related to not destroying the economy.  Not only did all these regulations NOT destroy the economy and very much help our environment, that actually did massive amounts of good for the economy.  They spurred the development of a wide range of new industries and technologies that would never had occurred without that drive.  People go on and on about how the space program has driven our technical development, and it is true, it has.  

But government regulation related to conservation and pollution control have done much, much more.  An incredible array of electronics, material science, service industries, and even business management methods have added literally trillions of dollars to our economy at the cost of a few hundred billion over the same few decades.

Remember when points and plugs in a car had to be changed every 10,000 miles?  Now it is 100,000.
Remember when oil had to be changed every 2,500 miles.  Now it is 7,000.
Remember when 300 hp engine got 6 mpg.  Now it is 18 mpg.
Remember when the river in Ohio caught on fire?  Now you can fish in it and eat the fish.
Remember when most of the country had no safe water, or sanitary toilets?  Now missing those things is the exception rather than the rule.
Remember when it was no big deal to kill a railroad worker?  Union Pacific could just find another one down the street a little ways.  Now we have predominantly safe workplaces.  I can drive down the interstate in OKC and there are a few companies that brag about their safety records.  Banners stating 1,000,000 man hours without a lost time accident.  That is incredible especially when compared to as recently as 30 years ago or so - NO company could brag that.  In particular, pre-OSHA.

All due to the RWRE so called "unwarranted government intrusion".

Just a tiny handful of examples.  There are so many more!  And here is a sweeping statement for you...EVERY Federal regulation related to environment preservation and safety has generated savings OR increased economic activity and opportunities OVER the actual cost incurred.  

Don't think so?  Show me an example where it hasn't?  (You can't, because there isn't one.)




Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: we vs us on March 04, 2011, 02:48:10 pm
Caught NPR's Science Friday as I was driving around between client meetings, and they were interviewing a Rear Admiral who also happened to be a meteorologist about the Navy's contingency plans for global warming, specifically what to do with much higher, much warmer seas.  He was discussing the Navy's (very detailed, it turns out) plans for how much seas will rise in the next century, some of their operational solutions and then specific ideas about how they are currently prepping for climate change.  Much of it had to do with how to prepare their bases, docks and dry docks, and how to move through potentially rougher and stormier seas.

I found this article (http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=53562) that tracks what he was saying fairly closely, but in the phone conversation on the radio today, he was very pointed in saying that data is pushing the rate of climate change higher and higher, and melting is happening much much faster than originally thought.  They're currently preparing for a total sea rise of about a meter by the end of the 21st century, and he said that, if he's wrong, he's wrong on the low side. 

Interestingly, the first outside caller to the show was from Oklahoma, and asked the Admiral how he, when confronted by the like of Inhofe and other climate-change deniers, can continue making the assertions that he does.  The Admiral said that he doesn't believe in politics or parties or big money donors, he only believes in ice and how fast it melts.  Which happens to be faster and faster every year.  That's what's driving his operational planning. 

A very very interesting listen.  (http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201103042)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on March 06, 2011, 09:44:51 pm
I missed that one, sadly.  Will listen to the link when get some time.

Yeah, leave it to an Oklahoman.  Suppose this one had the mythical 8th grade education??  (Another thread...)

The islands in the Pacific are still getting flooded regardless of what Inhofe says.  Am   not   NOW  hearing predictions that north polar ice may be melting completely soon during the summer.  That would really bite.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on March 07, 2011, 11:54:41 am

Remember when oil had to be changed every 2,500 miles.  Now it is 7,000.


It's been 7500 for as long as I can remember per most manufacturer's recommendations unless it was more frequent prior to better filtration which came about in the '50's and later.  It more recently became 3000 to 3500 miles when dealerships, Jiffy Lubes, and lubricant manufacturers began to realize they were missing out on a great revenue stream.  Go get your oil changed at any commercial establishment and take a look at the mileage you are supposed to return at 3000 to 3500.  Read your owner's manual it says 7000 to 7500.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on March 07, 2011, 12:35:01 pm
It's been 7500 for as long as I can remember per most manufacturer's recommendations unless it was more frequent prior to better filtration which came about in the '50's and later.  It more recently became 3000 to 3500 miles when dealerships, Jiffy Lubes, and lubricant manufacturers began to realize they were missing out on a great revenue stream.  Go get your oil changed at any commercial establishment and take a look at the mileage you are supposed to return at 3000 to 3500.  Read your owner's manual it says 7000 to 7500.



My Dodge recommends every 6 months/6000 miles.  The 6 months always comes first for me.  My car uses synthetic oil.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on March 07, 2011, 12:39:01 pm
It's been 7500 for as long as I can remember per most manufacturer's recommendations unless it was more frequent prior to better filtration which came about in the '50's and later.  It more recently became 3000 to 3500 miles when dealerships, Jiffy Lubes, and lubricant manufacturers began to realize they were missing out on a great revenue stream.  Go get your oil changed at any commercial establishment and take a look at the mileage you are supposed to return at 3000 to 3500.  Read your owner's manual it says 7000 to 7500.


I am fairly sure our 1960s cars recommended 3000 mi on the oil change.  More often if driven in town or heavy use.  I remember that 3000 mi was my target.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on March 07, 2011, 12:53:01 pm
It has been a mix of numbers for a long time, with a lot of people still saying 3,500.  Detergent oils (additives) can all go for many thousands of miles.  Relative in early '60s at Sunoco (west Tulsa) was involved in testing and basically, if start with clean engine, can pretty much go 20,000 to 30,000 miles before full change IF (and it's a big one) you use a good filter (NOT Fram) and change it every 5,000 or so, with a quart of new makeup oil for the filter. 

Cadillac recommended 10,000 in 2000.  Ford went to 7,500 in 2007.

Filters are huge part of this and they have gotten much better - some of them.  Wix is probably the "best" for gas engine.  As mentioned, Fram is built to the lowest common denominator - sales at WalMart.  Wix is also good for diesel.

If you buy new GM, you are gonna get hosed on that new dexos oil they are pushing.  Enjoy the view between your ankles when they bend you over.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on March 07, 2011, 12:58:47 pm
Hoss,
Synthetic??  You got a 6.1 liter?  Turbocharger.

Or do you just like the idea of synthetic?








Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on March 07, 2011, 01:23:47 pm
Hoss,
Synthetic??  You got a 6.1 liter?  Turbocharger.

Or do you just like the idea of synthetic?





Nope, 2.7l Flex.  That's what the dealership puts in it.  That's what's recommended in the owner manual.  I have lifetime 19.95 oil changes with the dealership so I'll let them do it.  Plus, they wash my car like noone else can when I have it serviced.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on March 07, 2011, 02:17:54 pm
I have lifetime 19.95 oil changes with the dealership so I'll let them do it.  

Don't let that ever get away from you.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on March 07, 2011, 02:45:27 pm
Don't let that ever get away from you.

Bet yer azz I won't.  They've already tried it once.  I made it clear in no uncertain terms that I would make life for them hell if they did.  That meant loss of potential business for them.  I know many people whom I've referred to this dealer.  They didn't feel like losing the potential business.  They tried to up the price to 29.95.  That's when the swearwords came out.

 ;D


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on March 07, 2011, 02:56:19 pm
I finally put my truck into semi-retirement Thursday before last.  Seems like each vehicle I've owned since the first new car I bought in 1982 7000 to 7500 has been the recommendation.  That's been several Fords, several Hondas, a VW, and now a Hyundai.  I notice though there's a "severe duty" recommendation from most manufacturers for filters and oil of 3000 to 3500.

I had guessed a 2000 to 3000 recommendation prior to the mid-50's as oil filter technology was fairly non-existant to ones made with horse hair.  Air cleaners were oil bath and then oiled wire mesh prior to paper pleated filters.  With the old Harleys I used to restore, oil changes and air filter service were supposed to be about 500 to 1000 miles.  However, pre-1965 on the big twin, excess crankcase pressure was used to spray oil on the primary drive chain (there's a chain which goes from the crank to the clutch hub) and there was a simple drip tube to allow excess oil in the primary chain cover to drip out on the ground.  More or less you simply kept adding oil to the bike.  Harley didn't offer an oil filter until 1947 and that was purely optional for many years.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on March 07, 2011, 03:15:23 pm
I finally put my truck into semi-retirement Thursday before last.  Seems like each vehicle I've owned since the first new car I bought in 1982 7000 to 7500 has been the recommendation.  That's been several Fords, several Hondas, a VW, and now a Hyundai.  I notice though there's a "severe duty" recommendation from most manufacturers for filters and oil of 3000 to 3500.

I had guessed a 2000 to 3000 recommendation prior to the mid-50's as oil filter technology was fairly non-existant to ones made with horse hair.  Air cleaners were oil bath and then oiled wire mesh prior to paper pleated filters.  With the old Harleys I used to restore, oil changes and air filter service were supposed to be about 500 to 1000 miles.  However, pre-1965 on the big twin, excess crankcase pressure was used to spray oil on the primary drive chain (there's a chain which goes from the crank to the clutch hub) and there was a simple drip tube to allow excess oil in the primary chain cover to drip out on the ground.  More or less you simply kept adding oil to the bike.  Harley didn't offer an oil filter until 1947 and that was purely optional for many years.

I remember changing the oil on my dad's old 1963 3/4 ton Chevy pickup.  It had a 283 with an old oil-bath airfilter and the dropin style oil filter.  Weirdness, even for then.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on March 07, 2011, 06:29:21 pm
I checked my 1963 Buick Shop Manual (the oldest one I have).  It recommends 60 days or 6000 miles on the oil and filter change.  I guess I just couldn't make myself wait that long. 


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on March 08, 2011, 09:39:35 am
61 chevy 283 car had the cartridge oil filter, with a dry air filter.  I think they kept the oil air filter in pickups until 64/65 change over.

My Shovelhead says to change at 2500 miles.  And use HD filter (designed for low volume, high flow rate).  There is an alternate that will fit, but it is for something like an Austin America or something - still a high volume, low flow filter.  Tried them for a while, but didn't really feel "right". 

Have been using the diesel's oil in car, too.  Working well so far - started at 170,000 miles and now at 240,000.  Diesel at 245,000 also.  Biggest point is to get the better filters.  Used to use Fram long ago, until saw a "cut apart" side by side test of the different brands.  Never again.  Some versions are just about like putting a roll of toilet paper in the can.  Their high mileage premium filter is almost viable.  It is almost as good as the low end of the good ones.  (Wix being the most readily available of the better ones.)


Conan,
What oil did you use in the old HD's??  Have been using the HD oil and don't really like that - mainly due to price.  (right at 100,000 miles on the shovel).  Have used diesel oil quite a bit and it seems to do well.  Valvoline heavy duty and Delvac.








Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on March 08, 2011, 11:42:35 am
61 chevy 283 car had the cartridge oil filter, with a dry air filter.  I think they kept the oil air filter in pickups until 64/65 change over.

My Shovelhead says to change at 2500 miles.  And use HD filter (designed for low volume, high flow rate).  There is an alternate that will fit, but it is for something like an Austin America or something - still a high volume, low flow filter.  Tried them for a while, but didn't really feel "right".  

Have been using the diesel's oil in car, too.  Working well so far - started at 170,000 miles and now at 240,000.  Diesel at 245,000 also.  Biggest point is to get the better filters.  Used to use Fram long ago, until saw a "cut apart" side by side test of the different brands.  Never again.  Some versions are just about like putting a roll of toilet paper in the can.  Their high mileage premium filter is almost viable.  It is almost as good as the low end of the good ones.  (Wix being the most readily available of the better ones.)


Conan,
What oil did you use in the old HD's??  Have been using the HD oil and don't really like that - mainly due to price.  (right at 100,000 miles on the shovel).  Have used diesel oil quite a bit and it seems to do well.  Valvoline heavy duty and Delvac.


HD SAE 50 in the winter, 60 in the summer, no multi viscosity.  Those are actually pretty good oils and formulated specifically for air cooled engines.  Other key to that was I had a great discount at Rte. 66 HD, so it was less expensive than other off the shelf oils.  

I worked on Pan, Knuckle, and Flat and the occasional Shovelhead or Evo for really close friends.  On late model stuff for customers and myself, I used multi vis.  I use Valvoline 20/50 in my Evo.  I never wanted to get into service work, it's hard enough to make a living in the restoration business without assuming responsibility for other people's lack of common sense and maintenance on their daily rides.

I had some people swear by AeroShell aviation oil, it's ashless and made for air-cooled engines.  No idea how much that costs these days.  If the diesel oils have worked and you still have good compression, stick with 'em.

Edited to add: I'm a big believer in K & N air filters, I even used them in the old J-hook air cleaners unless the owner of the bike was overly freaky on detail- even stuff judges wouldn't see at AMCA events.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on March 08, 2011, 11:48:22 am
Good compression.  Bad electrical.  Leaky - to be expected.  That's how you know when to add oil to a Harley - the dripping stops.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on March 08, 2011, 11:58:48 am
Good compression.  Bad electrical.  Leaky - to be expected.  That's how you know when to add oil to a Harley - the dripping stops.



Bahahahaha!  At swap meets, if I picked up one of the old sheet metal primary covers and it didn't have a curb scrape under the derby cover, I'd tell them it wasn't original.  Naturally, that would get the eyebrows of the seller to pop up.  "Oh yeah? How do you know that?"  "Simple, the factory curb scrape is missing!"  ;D

What year/model?  Mostly original or rat/chopped?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on March 08, 2011, 12:08:24 pm
I had some people swear by AeroShell aviation oil, it's ashless and made for air-cooled engines.  No idea how much that costs these days.  

About $5. to $6.50/qt depending on additives and whatever is going on in the Mid-East.  I bought a case (12 qt) of straight weight 40 with the (extra) antiwear additives (W80 Plus) last fall locally for about $65.

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/aeroshelloils.php



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on March 08, 2011, 12:14:29 pm
Good compression.  Bad electrical.  Leaky - to be expected.  That's how you know when to add oil to a Harley - the dripping stops.

HD must have either learned from or taught the British sports car makers how to seal an engine/tranny.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on March 08, 2011, 12:28:05 pm
HD must have either learned from or taught the British sports car makers how to seal an engine/tranny.

And don't forget Lucas Electrics found on most British cars back then, AKA "The Prince Of Darkness"


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on March 08, 2011, 12:36:08 pm
And don't forget Lucas Electrics found on most British cars back then, AKA "The Prince Of Darkness"

And positive ground rather than negative.  (I know, used to be on some American cars long ago, along with 6V systems.)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on March 08, 2011, 01:45:13 pm
HD SAE 50 in the winter, 60 in the summer, no multi viscosity.  Those are actually pretty good oils and formulated specifically for air cooled engines.  Other key to that was I had a great discount at Rte. 66 HD, so it was less expensive than other off the shelf oils.  
It's no wonder the engines needed a rebuild every five and a half miles with oil that thick. ;)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on March 08, 2011, 02:35:10 pm
It's no wonder the engines needed a rebuild every five and a half miles with oil that thick. ;)

My boss loves to tell the story of a leaky old WWII era flathead his dad traded in to the dealer in Hammond, Indiana.  It leaked so bad, he filled the oil tank with 90W gear lube to help slow the leaking long enough to pass a cursory inspection by the dealer.  Ran fine, but after the bike had cooled for several hours in sub- 20's temps (yep, people rode them year round back then if that's all they had to get around), legend is the dealer just about broke his ankle trying to get that viscous goop to loosen up enough to kick start it and was ready to kill Joe next time he came around the dealership.

I'm sure the story has been embellished over the years, but still a good one nonetheless.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on March 08, 2011, 03:40:45 pm
It's no wonder the engines needed a rebuild every five and a half miles with oil that thick. ;)

It thins out pretty much when the oil temp gets up around 200F+.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on March 08, 2011, 03:50:38 pm
Oh, and one more trick to thinning out the oil during the winter was to add a little diesel to it to thin it out.

That's actually done still do this day with some bunker C oil to come up with a #4 or #5 which will pump and atomize easier for asphalt kilns, boilers, and the like.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on March 08, 2011, 04:02:32 pm
It thins out pretty much when the oil temp gets up around 200F+.
And until then, there's very little lubrication. :(


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on March 08, 2011, 04:10:42 pm
And until then, there's very little lubrication. :(

Depends on temperature and internal clearances.  Remember we are not dealing with modern materials and tolerances.  Thin stuff runs off of things like cam lobes and lifters.  OK if you run the engine frequently.  Not so OK if it sits much.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on March 08, 2011, 10:44:07 pm
Harley used cam bushings until the mid- 50's on most models rather than needle bearings and even up to 1973 on the 45" flathead they used in the Servicar.  It was really rare to see spalling problems with them.  I believe part of the reason they used the heavier weight oils, aside from it being needed for primary chain lube was it formed a pretty durable film on the engine parts.  The lubrication systems were actually quite sophisticated considering they didn't have the advantages of computers to design or manufacture them.  Most of the engine wear was the result of poor air filtration.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: TheArtist on March 09, 2011, 06:23:48 am
  Ok, where is the moderator on this forum?  Its frustrating to go to a thread that is carrying on a conversation thats something totally different than its title.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on March 09, 2011, 09:32:52 am
  Ok, where is the moderator on this forum?  Its frustrating to go to a thread that is carrying on a conversation thats something totally different than its title.

Sorry Artist, it's the usual TNF thread drift.  I'll behave right after this shameless plug for Marshall's Beer.  8)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on March 09, 2011, 01:10:51 pm
Me too.  In a minute...

No curb scrape.  '82 Tourglide all oregano - sits up higher.  Rode a friends '66 Electraglide one time - kicker only.  Scraped.

Only one rebuild at 2,500 miles - tighter tolerances on shovel that year led to worse lubrication.  Swallowed a valve.  Yum.  Have about 95 and change on it now with no further problems with engine.  Electrical, yes.  (I have a household light switch wired into the headlight/taillight circuit to get lights.  Wonky.

Last dinner ride I went on, everyone came around looking at it.  Just a plain ole shovel, with plenty of wear and tear on body.  What they were looking at was the shovel.  Culture shock - suddenly realized how far behind the curve I am.  Ain't gonna get rid of it though.  Told the kids they are gonna have to dig a deeper hole to bury me in.  Since I will be sitting on that bike.  Yeah, I know...makes for a cumbersome coffin, but I got that worked out already.  Building my own.


Now, back to global climate change - every time we have an ozone alert in town, I do my part by taking the bus ('70s International).  My own bus.  Can't really understand how driving that with just me in it will help, but hey, I try to do my part!






Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on March 09, 2011, 07:02:12 pm
  Ok, where is the moderator on this forum?  Its frustrating to go to a thread that is carrying on a conversation thats something totally different than its title.
It's actually not "totally different than its title." It's hyperfocused on one aspect of the issue. Automakers are using lighter and lighter lubricating oils specifically because it reduces emissions. ;) (less friction=more go per gallon)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on March 09, 2011, 10:45:05 pm
Good stretch, Nathan.  Works for me.

Hyperfocused....yeah, that's the ticket.

Back to climate change.  It's long overdue.  An ice age may be just what we need to give us the incentive to do something real in this country for renewable energy.  Instead of depending on the Germans, Dutch and Pacific rim to do it for us.




Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on March 09, 2011, 11:15:21 pm
The Middle East has been increasingly unstable over the last 50 years, yet we've done very little in the way of sensible energy policies in order to lessen our dependence Middle Eastern oil other than token efforts or throwing money at one lobby or another or creating yet more clever farm subsidies by propping up alt fuel manufacturing from virgin feed stock.

It's basically the same problem we have in just about every other motive for legislation.  if it's not going to help re-elect someone with votes, put money into their re-election campaigns, or enrichen their closest cronies, it's simply not going to happen.  This is what happens when we leave it up to government to pick the winners and losers instead of the free market.  Then there's the unelected officials who run the bureaucracies...

I realize the EPA has done a lot to clean up industrial practices for the benefit of all of us, yet they've also demonstrated a pattern of overly restrictive practices which have stifled practical solutions to domestically produced energy which has helped prolong and actually increase our dependence on foreign oil.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on March 09, 2011, 11:54:16 pm
It's basically the same problem we have in just about every other motive for legislation.  if it's not going to help re-elect someone with votes, put money into their re-election campaigns, or enrichen their closest cronies, it's simply not going to happen.  This is what happens when we leave it up to government to pick the winners and losers instead of the free market.
The government doesn't dictate how you meet pollution targets or whatever, only that you do. That's pretty much leaving it up to the free market.

As for the cause of dysfunctional government, it largely stems from the two party system that makes it trivial for a person or organization to support candidates from both major parties and be ensured that someone whose palm they have greased is in office. You'll note that most business PACs don't go past 60/40 in favor of the party in power or that they think will shortly be in power most of the time.

Make it easier for third (and fourth) party candidates to be elected, and the problem should be lessened somewhat.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on March 10, 2011, 12:48:06 am
The government doesn't dictate how you meet pollution targets or whatever, only that you do. That's pretty much leaving it up to the free market.

As for the cause of dysfunctional government, it largely stems from the two party system that makes it trivial for a person or organization to support candidates from both major parties and be ensured that someone whose palm they have greased is in office. You'll note that most business PACs don't go past 60/40 in favor of the party in power or that they think will shortly be in power most of the time.

Make it easier for third (and fourth) party candidates to be elected, and the problem should be lessened somewhat.

You don't think tax credits to promote certain "clean" technologies isn't the government dictating how you will meet targets?  Think again. 

Except when a serious third party challenge emerges, it's summarily shot down as fringers or nutbags.  If you really want a three or four party system, you are going to have to accept and embrace what you like most about a movement rather than focusing on a minority of vocal miscreants who really have no idea why they are following such a movement.  Everyone is so afraid of being labeled a racist these days, that's the worst epithet you can hurl at a movement.  Unfortunately, what is keeping racism alive seems to be those on the left working overtime to discredit conservative movements as being heavily populated by gun-toting racists.

Hate to say it, but a workable third or four party system would mean all parties being more moderate, yet that still doesn't get rid of corruption.  The only thing which will do that is term limits, tossing out the paid lobbying process, etc. ad nauseum.  Rinse, spit, repeat.  Actual results may vary.  Items in mirror may be bigger than they appear.

I think you get my drift.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on March 10, 2011, 01:05:10 pm
If oil were not such a fungible commodity, it might make sense to worry about the source.  As it is, why not use up all their oil first.  It leaves local oil in the ground like a savings account.

But then you have to rein in big oil to make it work.  And wouldn't that be an unwarranted government intrusion?

Hearing more again about 'local' supply of oil/gas.  Drill, baby, drill routine one more time.  Ok, sounds good.  Why aren't they already doing that?  Big oil is just sitting on 3/4 of the leases and known reserves that are already permitted in this country. There is no reason to open up any more until those resources are being produced.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on March 10, 2011, 01:34:55 pm
If oil were not such a fungible commodity, it might make sense to worry about the source.  As it is, why not use up all their oil first.  It leaves local oil in the ground like a savings account.

But then you have to rein in big oil to make it work.  And wouldn't that be an unwarranted government intrusion?

Hearing more again about 'local' supply of oil/gas.  Drill, baby, drill routine one more time.  Ok, sounds good.  Why aren't they already doing that?  Big oil is just sitting on 3/4 of the leases and known reserves that are already permitted in this country. There is no reason to open up any more until those resources are being produced.



It's getting smaller companies to invest in new technology to increase production out of marginal wells which have been capped for some time and it's spurring new drilling here in the states.  We are involved directly in some of those projects right now.

Ironically, a very large biodiesel plant sits mothballed right in the heart of one of these regions I'm talking about in west central Missouri.  Not enough tax credits to make it viable again.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on March 10, 2011, 07:05:19 pm
So, that would mean it is not economically viable yet.  Hmmmm, maybe a little government funding would help move the process along?  Overcome the hurdles of investing in new technology with unknown returns.

Or just keep on letting big oil have their way and their subsidies to keep on doing what they been doing to us.

And if it were such a critical issue of 'national security' as the RWRE says when talking about ANWAR, then why would they not be doing it already.  Or a year or two ago, like we beat to death then?

I guess I would still submit that $100 per barrel oil is what is spurring drilling.  Back a couple years, when oil was at $30, you remember then how the Baker drill rig count was dropping.  Late 2008.  I guess home drilled oil wasn't such a matter of national security to Exxon, Chevron, or BP back then.  Or else, being the good corporate citizens they are, there would have been MORE drilling going on - in the name of national security.

Rig count history.
http://intelligencepress.com/features/bakerhughes/


Would one of those projects be coal bed methane?  Or shale oil?



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on March 10, 2011, 11:17:15 pm
So, that would mean it is not economically viable yet.  Hmmmm, maybe a little government funding would help move the process along?  Overcome the hurdles of investing in new technology with unknown returns.

Or just keep on letting big oil have their way and their subsidies to keep on doing what they been doing to us.

And if it were such a critical issue of 'national security' as the RWRE says when talking about ANWAR, then why would they not be doing it already.  Or a year or two ago, like we beat to death then?

I guess I would still submit that $100 per barrel oil is what is spurring drilling.  Back a couple years, when oil was at $30, you remember then how the Baker drill rig count was dropping.  Late 2008.  I guess home drilled oil wasn't such a matter of national security to Exxon, Chevron, or BP back then.  Or else, being the good corporate citizens they are, there would have been MORE drilling going on - in the name of national security.

Rig count history.
http://intelligencepress.com/features/bakerhughes/


Would one of those projects be coal bed methane?  Or shale oil?


That's the kick in the pants though.  Biodiesel, ethanol, coal to liquids, CNG etc. are nowhere new technologies.  Most of them have been around about as long as we've been using petroleum for fuel.  In a nutshell, it seems to be the cost of extracting the usable fuel and up to around gas getting to $3.50 or so a gallon, it just makes better economic sense to keep using petroleum.

As well, there are undesirable byproducts of biofuels production you don't have near as much of with petroleum which also creates yet one more disposal problem.  I wish there was a single magic solution, but with every benefit of a certain technology, there's just as many drawbacks it seems.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on March 11, 2011, 01:54:08 pm
We have come full circle yet again!!

There IS a magic solution and it has been discussed here as well as around the nation for the entire time of my life and well beyond.  Quick recap; in about 1910 the technology existed - and was perfected - to extract about 50 gallons per ton of ethanol from biomass.  (I would submit that we could easily develop technology to increase that).  

Now, where to get enough biomass?  Well, that too has been a known factor for at least the last 200 years - back when George Washington was the single biggest producer of that magical biomass in this nation!  It was, and is, marijuana.  The previous threads about this showed the production and the economic viability of growing pot for fuel.  Couple of our plains states growing pot would be WAY more than enough!

Yeah, switchgrass is pretty good, too, but nothing approaches good old pot for cost effectiveness.  Nothing.  Not even our cheap oil and natural gas we enjoy today - even at $100 per barrel.

So why haven't we used this massively abundant resource??  Well, look to DuPont, Hearst, and big oil.

All this wringing of hands and fretting and stewing is an unnecessary distraction from solving the problem.  First, get Congress out of the pocket of big oil  (can you spell Jim Inhofe to the tune of over 1.5 million?).  Then step back and allow a little bit of personal liberty coupled with a big old dose of "Yankee Ingenuity" and there would have been NO energy crisis!  EVER!!!

And with a little bit of anaerobic digestion, the extremely DESIRABLE byproducts of bio-fuels production become feedstock for many new items, including building materials (replace slash pine for OSB), fertilizers, animal feed, textiles, and going back to the basics - hemp rope!  

But we can't have that, because it would not allow the 1%'ers their well deserved position in life!


Plus after a hard week's work making fuel to save the world (clean burning ethanol - global warming problem solved), one could sit back and roll up a nice big fat dooby!










Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on March 11, 2011, 03:25:05 pm
Miscanthus delivers 3 times as much ethanol, and doesn't make people as lazy. :D



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on March 12, 2011, 08:37:27 pm
Except for that whole non-native invasive plant thing.  Can you spell "kudzu"?

Yeah, it gives about 10 tons per acre.  And marijuana, which is native to this continent gives from 12 to 14 tons per acres.

Hands down hemp is best.

Switchgrass could be a contender at 6 to 8 tons per acre, but requires much more fertilization.
http://www.cias.wisc.edu/crops-and-livestock/switchgrass-production-for-biomass/



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on March 12, 2011, 09:44:38 pm
Except for that whole non-native invasive plant thing.  Can you spell "kudzu"?

Yeah, it gives about 10 tons per acre.  And marijuana, which is native to this continent gives from 12 to 14 tons per acres.

Hands down hemp is best.

Switchgrass could be a contender at 6 to 8 tons per acre, but requires much more fertilization.
http://www.cias.wisc.edu/crops-and-livestock/switchgrass-production-for-biomass/


But, but, but,.... if we grew hemp someone might make a rope from it and do nasty things.     ;D

Actually, synthetic rope is usually superior for most applications except UV exposure.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: TulsaMoon on March 13, 2011, 09:28:15 am
If oil were not such a fungible commodity, it might make sense to worry about the source.  As it is, why not use up all their oil first.  It leaves local oil in the ground like a savings account.

/Agree...

Look at helium, its a good lesson to learn and understand when when comes to other resources.

http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2010/10/17/scientists_warn_worlds_supply_of_helium_close_to_depletion/


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on March 13, 2011, 08:42:28 pm
I have a length of rope that I bought about 20 years ago at Burgess hardware.  It is about 1 1/2 " diameter and the really strange thing is that it is woven in a square shape.  Can't remember his name, but the guy that ran Burgess until they closed told me that his dad (if I remember right) had gotten a bunch of that right after WWII and it had been something used by the Navy.  Was made of hemp.

I have been using small pieces of it for decorative trim applications.   Wish I had a large spool of the stuff.  Stands up outdoors for 8 to 10 years with no treatment before it need replacement.  Good stuff.  Interesting, too.

Too bad we have become so insane in this country that the good things God has given us have become "bad", or "incorrect", or illegal.  Shame on us for rejecting Him and His gifts!

Some synthetics.  Depends on application, of course.  But NONE have so minimal an adverse impact on our world, oil usage, balance of payments, and economic development and activity.


Helium;  Oh, NO!!  No more chipmunk voice parties!!!!







Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on March 13, 2011, 09:32:20 pm
I have a length of rope that I bought about 20 years ago at Burgess hardware.  It is about 1 1/2 " diameter and the really strange thing is that it is woven in a square shape.  Can't remember his name, but the guy that ran Burgess until they closed told me that his dad (if I remember right) had gotten a bunch of that right after WWII and it had been something used by the Navy.  Was made of hemp.

I have been using small pieces of it for decorative trim applications.   Wish I had a large spool of the stuff.  Stands up outdoors for 8 to 10 years with no treatment before it need replacement.  Good stuff.  Interesting, too.

It's good stuff if you keep it dry.  Hemp is/was also better than the more common manila rope.  Hard to keep rope dry in marine service.  I haven't checked the numbers lately but I believe you can get the strength of that 1-1/2" rope in a significantly smaller size in synthetic.  The world is a trade-off.  I think in many cases that synthetic rope is a good trade.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on March 13, 2011, 09:54:32 pm
Hemp worked well for thousands of years.  Yeah, there are places where I definitely prefer synthetic, but not all.  And even George Washington was a huge advocate of hemp!  If we aren't gonna listen to the foremost of our founding fathers, who ARE we gonna listen to???

Don't know about the strength of my little rope.  Would never put much of a load on it, since it is about 70 years old!  (I think it is pre-war manufacture.)  Just like I wouldn't count on a Model A for a cross country road trip, even with a complete rebuild/overhaul!!  (Family member had T and A and told me about trips from Kansas City to Tulsa in early '30s.  Very much more adventure than I want for routine trip.)





Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on March 13, 2011, 10:05:34 pm
Hemp worked well for thousands of years.  Yeah, there are places where I definitely prefer synthetic, but not all.  And even George Washington was a huge advocate of hemp!  If we aren't gonna listen to the foremost of our founding fathers, who ARE we gonna listen to???

Don't know about the strength of my little rope.  Would never put much of a load on it, since it is about 70 years old!  (I think it is pre-war manufacture.)  Just like I wouldn't count on a Model A for a cross country road trip, even with a complete rebuild/overhaul!!  (Family member had T and A and told me about trips from Kansas City to Tulsa in early '30s.  Very much more adventure than I want for routine trip.)

A lot of things worked well for thousands of years because we had nothing better.  George Washington didn't have nylon, kevlar, polypropylene.... to choose among. How do you know he wouldn't have chosen something synthetic?  The choice did NOT exist.

If you are just using rope for decoration, its strength doesn't matter.  I know that when we had a boat on the Chesapeake Bay I didn't want to worry about the strength of our anchor rope in bad weather.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on March 14, 2011, 07:41:54 am
I suspect he would have chosen the synthetics if they had been available for many applications.  But I doubt he would have thrown out the old just for the sake of padding the pockets and power of DuPont, William Randolph Hearst, and J Edgar Hoover.  But maybe he would.  Hard to say.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on March 14, 2011, 11:01:33 am
I suspect he would have chosen the synthetics if they had been available for many applications.  But I doubt he would have thrown out the old just for the sake of padding the pockets and power of DuPont, William Randolph Hearst, and J Edgar Hoover.  But maybe he would.  Hard to say.

I believe he would have been a big stake holder in synthetics.  He could well have pushed synthetic rope over the old relliable stuff if it put more money in his pocket.

Isn't this fun, making up whatever you want about what people who have been dead a long time would do with a modern situation to support your position.   You're a good teacher.  Maybe you should seek employment in Madison, WI. 

 ;D


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on March 14, 2011, 11:52:47 am
George was a leader in many things.  Marijuana, whisky, leading the country.  Very progressive kind of guy.  Acquaintance of Jefferson, who was also at forefront of many things agricultural.  I wonder if they knew Jethro Tull (another progressive farmer - different continent), or their paths ever crossed?

And yes, to answer your question.  It is.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on November 08, 2011, 01:16:34 am
I'm beating a dead horse, I know, but I couldn't resist sharing this image:

(http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: we vs us on November 08, 2011, 09:15:02 am
I'm sorry, Nate.  If you can't come up with a consistent term to describe the phenomenon, then it isn't happening and I won't be paying attention to any of your so-called "data," or "charts," or "graphs," or that fellow "Al Gore." 

Because after all, science is just like politics:  totally and utterly spinnable.   And therefore utterly untrustworthy.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 08, 2011, 09:25:46 am
Not a dead horse at all.  Cute cartoon, but doesn't really express very much of value.  400,000 year data set would be much more enlightening (so I brought one to the topic - see below.)  The problem is a chicken/egg question.  Does CO2 rise, causing a rise in temperature, or do temperatures rise leading to rise in CO2 from increased organic matter?

The Vostok core data  shows what I consider to be a strange phenomena.  For 400,000 years, the graphs show temp and CO2 going up and down.  The problem is, it shows the temperature rising before the CO2 goes up.  (Graph included for your viewing pleasure - 400,000 years ago is on the right, so as move to left, you come to the present.)  I printed out a copy and drew pretty little lines to make sure it wasn't an optical delusion.  It's not.  Dust also seems to accumulate during the down cycles, then is cleaned out by the up.

There is NO doubt the earth temp is rising, and I believe absolutely that we are contributing to it - which will tend to make things worse.  We did not start the process - there is too much past history of these cycles.

And I probably am repeating myself, but there are only two points to consider when wondering what can be done;  one, it won't matter.  Two, it is too late to do anything.  

And when you add in the fact that we have found not just one, but several mammoths who were in mid-bite, chowing on some grindage, when they were instantly freeze dried, it is obvious that things can and will happen very quickly.  This is several tons of well insulated animal - two feet of fat plus lots of hair for protection from cold.  Who is munching on fresh grass that is growing, so the temperature had to be fairly moderate, since a freeze kills grass.  And then some time later - before he has as chance to finish chewing and swallow, is now a big mammoth-sicle.

The net effect is that if you want to see what happens, watch the movie, "The Day After Tomorrow".

Graph;

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Vostok_Petit_data.svg



(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Vostok_Petit_data.svg)



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on November 08, 2011, 09:27:26 am
I'm sorry, Nate.  If you can't come up with a consistent term to describe the phenomenon, then it isn't happening and I won't be paying attention to any of your so-called "data," or "charts," or "graphs," or that fellow "Al Gore." 

Because after all, science is just like politics:  totally and utterly spinnable.   And therefore utterly untrustworthy.

I hate to rain on your sarcasm parade but collection and interpretation of data is not always as black and white as you might like to think.  Al Gore has little credibility in the world of science for me.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Townsend on November 08, 2011, 09:51:14 am
I hate to rain on your sarcasm parade but collection and interpretation of data is not always as black and white as you might like to think.  Al Gore has little credibility in the world of science for me.

Some folk believe cavemen rode dinosaurs to work.  There's a "museum" dedicated to it.

http://creationmuseum.org/ (http://creationmuseum.org/)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on November 08, 2011, 09:54:42 am
Some folk believe cavemen rode dinosaurs to work.  There's a "museum" dedicated to it.

http://creationmuseum.org/ (http://creationmuseum.org/)

Is parking at the museum free?  ;D


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Townsend on November 08, 2011, 10:03:10 am
Is parking at the museum free?  ;D

Looks like it's included in the price of admission.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 08, 2011, 10:05:04 am
Is parking at the museum free?  ;D

Free parking.  Big admission.

http://creationmuseum.org/

This one is closer - just outside of Ft. Worth.

http://www.creationevidence.org/


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Townsend on November 08, 2011, 10:07:35 am
Free parking.  Big admission.

http://creationmuseum.org/

This one is closer - just outside of Ft. Worth.

http://www.creationevidence.org/


Pilgrimage!


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on November 09, 2011, 03:27:58 pm
Not a dead horse at all.  Cute cartoon, but doesn't really express very much of value.
I think it does. To me, it shows quite clearly one of the tricks deniers use to justify their denial to other people. Yes, there still are some ultramaroons out there who can't even agree that there is a warming trend. The term global warming is somewhat inapt because it fails to account for the changes which will occur in the various climate zones. The poles will likely warm the most, but other areas at lower latitudes may see local cooling due to shifts in weather patterns and ocean currents.

Regardless of what is causing it, it's a trend we need to slow if we would like to have the time necessary to shift our food production to other areas. At the rate of increase, we simply won't have the time to make the necessary observations to determine how weather patterns will change in enough detail. At present, we're only amplifying the existing trend. We got a temporary reprieve thanks to unusually low solar activity over the past few years. (some might call that divine intervention), but deniers just used the temporarily slowed temperature increase to further justify their position.

RA, Al Gore isn't a scientist and never claimed to be. He's a showman. He does what showmen do, he shows you things other people created in a (hopefully) entertaining and engaging way. His position on the subject is completely irrelevant to his validity. You're right that data collection isn't necessarily black and white, but when you get not only the majority of climatologists, but the vast majority of the scientific community, saying that the data does in fact appear to be valid, you ignore it at your own risk. Well, in this case, you ignore it at our collective risk. Even a former denier who attempted to find holes in the (recorded, not reconstructed) temperature record failed to do so.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on November 09, 2011, 03:51:23 pm
Even a former denier who attempted to find holes in the (recorded, not reconstructed) temperature record failed to do so.

Wow! One.

I remember when the majority of medical doctors believed that stomach ulcers were not caused by bacteria (or whatever it is that is now common knowledge).


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on November 09, 2011, 04:05:15 pm
Wow! One.

I know, right! Amazing that someone with such an anti-science mindset would bother to do a rigorous analysis. First time ever, at least in this field. (Well, it was actually a team, but hey, who's counting) Needless to say, their compatriots quickly became former compatriots after they failed to convince him to fudge his conclusions. One of the biggest things the deniers have been harping on in the last year or two is the temperature record. Most ironically, the study was funded by Charles Koch in an attempt to validate the claim that the urban heat island effect was biasing the data.

Other than being done by a team of deniers, there's not any new ground broken in the study, as climatologists aren't idiots and previous assessments already corrected for it.

In other news, IPCC atmospheric carbon dioxide predictions turned out to be off. Too low, as it turns out.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on November 09, 2011, 04:26:32 pm
Amazing that someone with such an anti-science mindset would bother to do a rigorous analysis.

Got it.  Everyone not agreeing with the favorite answer is anti-science and an idiot.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on November 09, 2011, 04:44:42 pm
Got it.  Everyone not agreeing with the favorite answer is anti-science and an idiot.

Nope. Everyone not agreeing with the results of the literally hundreds of studies that caused consensus to form in the scientific community are anti-science, since they can't point to any reasoning behind that refusal beyond deliberate misinterpretations of the data as indicated in that nifty animation I posted. They may or may not be idiots. I don't think Charles Koch is an idiot, although he may be anti-science when it's in his best interest to be.

It's less settled, although still fairly clearly established, that human additions to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are causing warming. Denying the temperature record, on the other hand, is just being willfully blind to reality.

What would it take to convince you of the correctness of the present consensus?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on November 09, 2011, 06:40:12 pm
Nope. Everyone not agreeing with the results of the literally hundreds of studies that caused consensus to form in the scientific community are anti-science,

I disagree that they are anti-science.  One of my uncles followed this subject a lot closer than I did (until he passed away 2 years ago).  He pointed to opposing studies which I unfortunately cannot recall. Yea, I know, how convenient.  He was an engineer, not a politician or entertainer so I trusted his judgement.

Quote
It's less settled, although still fairly clearly established, that human additions to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are causing warming. Denying the temperature record, on the other hand, is just being willfully blind to reality.

Climate change has been happening forever.  It may be warming now.  I will agree to that possibility.  Satellites have better capability to integrate information over the globe than previous technologies.  That leaves us with a lot less years of directly comparable evidence.  I do not believe that mankind's contribution to warming is significant when I see the effects of volcanos present and past.  I see the global warming/climate change as almost a religious cause.  You must believe.....

Quote
What would it take to convince you of the correctness of the present consensus?

You probably cannot, at least not to the part where man is contributing to warming to the point where we could stop it or even significantly change anything.  This may in part be due to the theatrics presented by the true believers.  That kind of action flat turns me into a skeptic.  When exaggerations and distortions are intentionally made to make a point, I am suspect of the whole point.

I'm going to have to spin this back on you.  What would it take for you to believe in a possibility that at least man's contribution is insignificant?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on November 09, 2011, 07:16:30 pm
It would take evidence to the contrary that hasn't been debunked by people respected in the field, a lack of consensus among climatologists, or strong indication that most of the currently accepted data was fraudulent.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on November 09, 2011, 07:36:58 pm
It would take evidence to the contrary that hasn't been debunked by people respected in the field, a lack of consensus among climatologists, or strong indication that most of the currently accepted data was fraudulent.

A decent response except that I don't believe the current "people respected in the field" are presenting the facts, just the facts, and nothing but the facts. 

They have a credibility problem for me.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on November 09, 2011, 08:17:02 pm
I'm sure I've said this before, but we have built our society around the weather patterns dominant in the 20th Century. I don't really care whether we're causing the change or not, I would just like to not starve to death because the rain quits falling on our agriculturally productive areas. Thus, I think it behooves us to counteract the changes regardless of the cause. We have the capability, but lack the will.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on November 09, 2011, 09:26:22 pm
Thus, I think it behooves us to counteract the changes regardless of the cause. We have the capability, but lack the will.

That's where we disagree.  I don't believe we have the capability.

That doesn't mean I want to go back to 10 mpg cars and making styrofoam with CFCs.  Nor do I want to go back to living in caves.  Finding the line which is economically feasible (at whatever time you look at) and gets the best bang for the $ will always be a point of contention.  Going past the point of diminishing returns is a waste of money that could be used to develop something else less polluting.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on November 11, 2011, 11:53:21 am
I've only read the first few pages (I should be working instead of reading), but this paper, released yesterday, attempts to apply statistics to global warming: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20111110_NewClimateDice.pdf

Not too sure what to make of it yet, but it seems to make an argument that you can in fact relate some extreme weather events as to the overall warming trend, based on their relation to the 1951-1980 baseline. I don't know why the author chose those years.

It may or may not be bunk, but it definitely provides some food for thought.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 11, 2011, 12:06:28 pm
I've only read the first few pages (I should be working instead of reading), but this paper, released yesterday, attempts to apply statistics to global warming: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20111110_NewClimateDice.pdf

Not too sure what to make of it yet, but it seems to make an argument that you can in fact relate some extreme weather events as to the overall warming trend, based on their relation to the 1951-1980 baseline. I don't know why the author chose those years.

It may or may not be bunk, but it definitely provides some food for thought.

The problem is that 60 years is way too short a sample time.  It just doesn't provide enough information to make any kind of valid prediction.

Look at that chart I posted on page 8.  For the last 10,000 years, we have moved continuously from +/- 2 deg C from the nominal zero point.  And that has been one of the most stable times in the last half million years.  We definitely have evolved our society in this quiet time.  What happens if the temp goes up to +4?  Well, it is likely then to head to -8 or -10.  Quickly.

We live in an aberrant time.  We may be reverting back to the more normal cycle.  Or we may be adding to the problem in a huge way (very likely) that will cause the changes even faster.  But the cycle is gonna happen no matter what.







Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on November 11, 2011, 01:36:46 pm
The problem is that 60 years is way too short a sample time.  It just doesn't provide enough information to make any kind of valid prediction.

Look at that chart I posted on page 8.  For the last 10,000 years, we have moved continuously from +/- 2 deg C from the nominal zero point.  And that has been one of the most stable times in the last half million years.  We definitely have evolved our society in this quiet time.  What happens if the temp goes up to +4?  Well, it is likely then to head to -8 or -10.  Quickly.

We live in an aberrant time.  We may be reverting back to the more normal cycle.  Or we may be adding to the problem in a huge way (very likely) that will cause the changes even faster.  But the cycle is gonna happen no matter what.







That sound you hear?  That's me applauding.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 11, 2011, 03:06:36 pm
That sound you hear?  That's me applauding.

Applauding the end of civilization as we know and have developed it? 

Hate to be a broken record - well, maybe I don't really - the movie mentioned earlier is not entertainment.  It is a prescient documentary.
There will be incredibly huge adjustments.




Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on November 11, 2011, 03:16:46 pm
Applauding the end of civilization as we know and have developed it? 

Hate to be a broken record - well, maybe I don't really - the movie mentioned earlier is not entertainment.  It is a prescient documentary.
There will be incredibly huge adjustments.




No, your shared common sense approach to climatological cycles on this crazy planet.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: dbacks fan on November 11, 2011, 04:05:15 pm
'The Day After Tomorrow' a documentary?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 14, 2011, 11:27:07 am
'The Day After Tomorrow' a documentary?

Yes!  Absolutely!

When you look at the number (several) of large herbivores in the form of mammoths who have been entrained in ice packs it is obvious that something very radical must be happening very quickly.  In this case, extreme cold beyond any of our experience happening in the course of minutes to possibly tens of minutes (less than an hour).

Where is the evidence?  Well, look at the conditions in which the animal was found - still standing, with a stomach full of partially and undigested fresh food, and with a mouth full of food that it had been chewing on.  How long does it take a mammoth to chew a mouthful and swallow?  Unknown, but a reasonable guess would be on a par with an elephant.  Minutes at the outside - I watch the animal shows like everyone else where the elephant grabs a mouthful, chews it up, then 30 seconds later is going for another bite.

What happened is that a very large mammal, with about a two foot layer of fat for living in extreme winter conditions, was wallking along eating a plant that was growing (that means above 32 degrees F), and in mid-chew, became incapable of finishing that bite, locked in place, surrounded by enough snow/ice so that it and the food was perfectly preserved for thousands of years.  That is 'quick-freezing' that our food industry would pay huge sums of money to know how to do.

And that whole sequence took many minutes to play out in the movie, so it was shown in 'slow motion' compared to the reality.

Documentary.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on November 14, 2011, 02:40:52 pm
What happened is that a very large mammal, with about a two foot layer of fat for living in extreme winter conditions, was wallking along eating a plant that was growing (that means above 32 degrees F), and in mid-chew, became incapable of finishing that bite, locked in place, surrounded by enough snow/ice so that it and the food was perfectly preserved for thousands of years.  That is 'quick-freezing' that our food industry would pay huge sums of money to know how to do.

I suspect it's called an avalanche. ;)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 14, 2011, 02:44:28 pm
I suspect it's called an avalanche. ;)

I've thought about that...avalanche puts a small cocoon around the victim, which may suffocate, but decay would start before even an instantly dead mammoth would be frozen solid.  This happened fast, and may have been accompanied by snow, but not an avalanche.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on November 14, 2011, 02:52:47 pm
I suspect it's called an avalanche. ;)

I think Space Aliens did it.  ;D


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Townsend on November 14, 2011, 02:55:04 pm
I think Space Aliens did it.  ;D

Finally someone with reason.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: dbacks fan on November 14, 2011, 06:15:35 pm
I think Space Aliens did it.  ;D

I though it was because it started raining liquid nitrogen and it flash froze everything.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 14, 2011, 09:39:37 pm
I though it was because it started raining liquid nitrogen and it flash froze everything.

That would probably take a very large tank of liquid nitrogen.  And there were more than one that have been found over the years.

Actually, I lean toward the Space Aliens more than any other explanation, most of the time.  They have the technology!



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on November 15, 2011, 01:24:37 am
That would probably take a very large tank of liquid nitrogen.  And there were more than one that have been found over the years.



The tankers are buried under the ark on Mt. Arrarat.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 15, 2011, 07:02:09 am
The tankers are buried under the ark on Mt. Arrarat.

I've been wondering where they hid those things!  That's great!  Maybe Noah's Ark has been preserved near there, too!  Wouldn't that be cool?



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on November 15, 2011, 08:55:43 am
I've been wondering where they hid those things!  That's great!  Maybe Noah's Ark has been preserved near there, too!  Wouldn't that be cool?

You will have to dig through the ark to get to the LN2 tanks.  Historians may not like that.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 15, 2011, 09:30:33 am
You will have to dig through the ark to get to the LN2 tanks.  Historians may not like that.

I have never been politically correct - why start now??



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on December 12, 2011, 04:18:21 pm
Resurrection.  Just had to throw this in for grins and giggles - from my early years.  And in the name of the effort to clean up the state, I would recommend a mandatory deposit on bottles.  I still get cranky trying to find double edge blades for my old Gillette razor.  And can you even find cloth diapers now??


The Green Thing:

Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the older woman, that she should bring her own grocery bag because plastic bags weren't good for the environment.

The woman apologized and explained, "We didn't have this green thing back in my earlier days."

The clerk responded, "That's our problem today.. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations."

She was right -- our generation didn't have the green thing in its day.

Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled. But we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks. But she was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day.

Back then, we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throw-away kind.  We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days.  Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.  But that young lady is right; we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room.  And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana . In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just
to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But she's right; we didn't have the green thing back then.

We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull. But we didn't have the green thing back then.

Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service.  We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint.

But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: dbacks fan on December 16, 2011, 12:59:32 pm
Resurrection.  Just had to throw this in for grins and giggles - from my early years.  And in the name of the effort to clean up the state, I would recommend a mandatory deposit on bottles.  

Oregon has done this for years. They tack on an extra $0.05 for soda and beer bottles and cans including two litre bottles at the time of purchase as an incentive to return them.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on December 16, 2011, 01:05:23 pm
Resurrection.

Here is a real world example of a solar system that was installed in 1998.  
http://www.mrsharkey.com/blog

He shows the energy produced from this setup.  
http://www.mrsharkey.com/solar.htm

This is in Oregon, where the energy usage profile is much different from here.  Like no air conditioning required.  So not an example of what might work here, just one way that solar is being done rather successfully in one place.

About 1/3 of the electricity there is hydroelectric (WAY more than we have) and about 5% is 'renewable'.  Kilowatt hour there costs about 9 cents - similar to here.  So he has saved about $750 since installation.  His consumption profile is such that it is a much greater proportion of his usage than anyone around here.  Lots of intentional conservation actions, for example.  Fewer expectations from electric usage.

Interesting point is that the average power coming from his system is declining over the last year - data collection started May 2007.  That points to reduced solar insolation for whatever reason.  More cloud cover?  Haze in the atmosphere?  Who knows.  The peaks on clear sunny days seem to still be the same, so it is not likely to be a cell degradation issue - at least not to any detectable level.

Could climate change be causing more cloud cover?  More dust particles reducing light to surface?  14 months is too short to say.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on December 16, 2011, 01:06:09 pm
Oregon has done this for years. They tack on an extra $0.05 for soda and beer bottles and cans including two litre bottles at the time of purchase as an incentive to return them.

We should, too.  Why don't we??



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: dbacks fan on December 16, 2011, 01:16:55 pm
Resurrection.

This is in Oregon, where the energy usage profile is much different from here.  Like no air conditioning required.  So not an example of what might work here, just one way that solar is being done rather successfully in one place.



Tell that to the people that live on the eastern side of the Cascade Range where temps in the summer hit the high 90's to low 100's from June through August.

Oh, that's right, "The Day After Tomorrow" is a documentary. Mind explaining to me how the air temp can drop below -80 degrees F fast enough to freeze the fuel and hydraulics in a helicopter instantly?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on December 16, 2011, 01:34:06 pm
Tell that to the people that live on the eastern side of the Cascade Range where temps in the summer hit the high 90's to low 100's from June through August.

All the people that really count live by the coast.  ;D


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Breadburner on December 16, 2011, 01:36:20 pm
New Age Ice Age on the way again....!!!


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: dbacks fan on December 16, 2011, 02:01:08 pm
All the people that really count live by the coast.  ;D

Well, when you have beaches like this, I guess you're right.

(http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p309/kallsop2/P1010799.jpg)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on December 16, 2011, 02:07:35 pm
Tell that to the people that live on the eastern side of the Cascade Range where temps in the summer hit the high 90's to low 100's from June through August.

Oh, that's right, "The Day After Tomorrow" is a documentary. Mind explaining to me how the air temp can drop below -80 degrees F fast enough to freeze the fuel and hydraulics in a helicopter instantly?

Should have added the west side - which is where he is.  Yeah, east Oregon and Washington are different worlds.


I don't know how that happens.  How did Nowata get to -32 last winter when Tulsa stayed at about -10?  And all the surrounding area stayed 20 degrees and more warmer.  Seems like I remember about -10 or 12 for Bartlesville that night, too.  And up into Kansas, over to Miami, etc.

I think the movie does a better job explaining that than anyone here has done explaining how the frozen mammoth occurred (and not just once, but several times).  So, I have given an explanation for one way the mammoth could freeze - the movie explanation.  

So, your turn; How did the mammoths freeze solid in minutes??



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: dbacks fan on December 16, 2011, 04:50:27 pm
 So, your turn; How did the mammoths freeze solid in minutes??

Quote
There is no direct evidence that any wooly mammoth froze to death.
In fact, the
healthy, robust condition of the cadavers and their full stomachs argue
against death by _slow_ freezing. [their emphasis] On the other hand, the
large size of their warm-blooded bodies is not compatable with _sudden_ freez-
ing. In addition, all the frozen specimens were rotten...only dogs showed
any appetite for [the flesh]...'the stench [of decay]...was unbearable.'

"Histological examination of the fat and flesh of the Berezovka mammoth show-
ed, "deep, penetrating chemical alteration as a result of the very slow
decay," and even the frozen ground surrounding a mammoth had the same putrid
odor, implying decay before freezing [actually, no--the ground could have
thawed after the mammoth was frozen and permitted decay, then refrozen. ERE]
Furthermore, the stories of a banquet on the flesh of the Berazovka mammoth
were, "a hundred per cent invention."

"...The only direct evidence of the mode of death indicates that at least
some of the frozen mammoths (and frozen wooly rhinoceroses as well) died of
asphyxia, either by drowning or by being buried alive by a cavein or mud-
flow...Asphyxia is indicated by the erection of the penis in the case of the
Berazovka mammoth and by the blood vessels of the head of a wooly rhinoceros
from the River Vilyui, which were still filled with red, coagulated blood.

http://www.skeptictank.org/files//evolut/mammoth0.htm (http://www.skeptictank.org/files//evolut/mammoth0.htm)



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on December 16, 2011, 09:10:36 pm
So, your turn; How did the mammoths freeze solid in minutes??

Space aliens.  They have a freeze ray.  I'm surprised you don't know that.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on December 16, 2011, 09:11:45 pm
Well, when you have beaches like this, I guess you're right.

(http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p309/kallsop2/P1010799.jpg)

Sand, water, a few rocks, what more do you want?   :D


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on December 17, 2011, 08:51:05 pm
http://www.skeptictank.org/files//evolut/mammoth0.htm (http://www.skeptictank.org/files//evolut/mammoth0.htm)



Here's another one.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mammoths.html

I think the fall into diluvial ice crevice is probably about as credible as it gets.  Suspect we will never really know the whole story.

Even if frozen quickly, like would happen with either a fall into crevice or instant drop in temperature, there have been enough intervening warm/cold cycles so that decay and or mummification could easily occur.  (The ziploc bag instead of the Foodsaver vacuum pack steak commercial is classic example of mummification.) 

When these died with buttercups in their stomachs, it was in a climate that is pretty warm (east Tennessee and Kentucky have a lot of buttercups - maybe others I don't know about), which is probably the Siberian climate with the ice underground scenario. 

I think Red may be closer than anyone - space alien ray gun.  Not to be confused with space alien Reagan.....





Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: dbacks fan on December 17, 2011, 08:58:13 pm
heir, you are the one that claimed that they were frozen to death in mid stride about two pages back, not me.

Quote
Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
« Reply #128 on: November 14, 2011, 11:27:07 am » Quote 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: dbacks fan on November 11, 2011, 04:05:15 pm'The Day After Tomorrow' a documentary?


Yes!  Absolutely!

When you look at the number (several) of large herbivores in the form of mammoths who have been entrained in ice packs it is obvious that something very radical must be happening very quickly.  In this case, extreme cold beyond any of our experience happening in the course of minutes to possibly tens of minutes (less than an hour).

Where is the evidence?  Well, look at the conditions in which the animal was found - still standing, with a stomach full of partially and undigested fresh food, and with a mouth full of food that it had been chewing on.  How long does it take a mammoth to chew a mouthful and swallow?  Unknown, but a reasonable guess would be on a par with an elephant.  Minutes at the outside - I watch the animal shows like everyone else where the elephant grabs a mouthful, chews it up, then 30 seconds later is going for another bite.

What happened is that a very large mammal, with about a two foot layer of fat for living in extreme winter conditions, was wallking along eating a plant that was growing (that means above 32 degrees F), and in mid-chew, became incapable of finishing that bite, locked in place, surrounded by enough snow/ice so that it and the food was perfectly preserved for thousands of years.  That is 'quick-freezing' that our food industry would pay huge sums of money to know how to do.

And that whole sequence took many minutes to play out in the movie, so it was shown in 'slow motion' compared to the reality.

Documentary.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: dbacks fan on December 17, 2011, 09:00:50 pm
Yes!  Absolutely!

When you look at the number (several) of large herbivores in the form of mammoths who have been entrained in ice packs it is obvious that something very radical must be happening very quickly.  In this case, extreme cold beyond any of our experience happening in the course of minutes to possibly tens of minutes (less than an hour).

Where is the evidence?  Well, look at the conditions in which the animal was found - still standing, with a stomach full of partially and undigested fresh food, and with a mouth full of food that it had been chewing on.  How long does it take a mammoth to chew a mouthful and swallow?  Unknown, but a reasonable guess would be on a par with an elephant.  Minutes at the outside - I watch the animal shows like everyone else where the elephant grabs a mouthful, chews it up, then 30 seconds later is going for another bite.
What happened is that a very large mammal, with about a two foot layer of fat for living in extreme winter conditions, was wallking along eating a plant that was growing (that means above 32 degrees F), and in mid-chew, became incapable of finishing that bite, locked in place, surrounded by enough snow/ice so that it and the food was perfectly preserved for thousands of years.  That is 'quick-freezing' that our food industry would pay huge sums of money to know how to do.
And that whole sequence took many minutes to play out in the movie, so it was shown in 'slow motion' compared to the reality.

Documentary.




Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on December 19, 2011, 08:35:47 am
heir, you are the one that claimed that they were frozen to death in mid stride about two pages back, not me.


Yep.  I sure did.  I think that is certainly one possible scenario.  As is falling into the crevasse (been using the wrong word...).  Truth is, I suspect there are several scenarios.  In the overall scheme of things, ice ages seem to have a fairly sudden onset - but is that 2 to 3 minutes or 100 years?  I'm betting that if the ocean current they talk about is slowed substantially or stops due to fresh water - if that is what happens - then things may happen quickly.  Probably quicker than 100 years, but much more than 10 minutes.  Not sure enough information is known about past events to really understand.


The Nowata example is still puzzling to me.  Why did it go so much colder, so quickly (within a couple of hours or so) than everyone around it.  Tulsa was only -8 or -10 that night.  Did they have their own little hole open up to the mesosphere?  I am skeptical that it would just be arctic air - where was the rest of that temperature arctic air?  Never did hear the meteorologists explain that, but I was in and out a lot that week, so could easily have missed it.

As for the mammoths, even encased in ice, with the decay and mummification, the food is talked about as if it is relatively un-decayed.  Freezing with "spoil" vegetation for eating, making it mush, but it doesn't take long - a few days at most above freezing - before experiences advanced decomposition.  The mammoth from the TV show a few years ago turned out to be only some bones and a little bit of flesh left. 








Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on December 19, 2011, 08:37:27 am
The Nowata example is still puzzling to me.  Why did it go so much colder, so quickly (within a couple of hours or so) than everyone around it.  Tulsa was only -8 or -10 that night.  Did they have their own little hole open up to the mesosphere?  I am skeptical that it would just be arctic air - where was the rest of that temperature arctic air?  Never did hear the meteorologists explain that, but I was in and out a lot that week, so could easily have missed it.

Less cloud cover and less wind, IIRC. Both enhance radiative cooling.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on December 19, 2011, 08:38:37 am
Yep.  I sure did.  I think that is certainly one possible scenario.  As is falling into the crevasse (been using the wrong word...).  Truth is, I suspect there are several scenarios.  In the overall scheme of things, ice ages seem to have a fairly sudden onset - but is that 2 to 3 minutes or 100 years?  I'm betting that if the ocean current they talk about is slowed substantially or stops due to fresh water - if that is what happens - then things may happen quickly.  Probably quicker than 100 years, but much more than 10 minutes.  Not sure enough information is known about past events to really understand.


The Nowata example is still puzzling to me.  Why did it go so much colder, so quickly (within a couple of hours or so) than everyone around it.  Tulsa was only -8 or -10 that night.  Did they have their own little hole open up to the mesosphere?  I am skeptical that it would just be arctic air - where was the rest of that temperature arctic air?  Never did hear the meteorologists explain that, but I was in and out a lot that week, so could easily have missed it.

As for the mammoths, even encased in ice, with the decay and mummification, the food is talked about as if it is relatively un-decayed.  Freezing with "spoil" vegetation for eating, making it mush, but it doesn't take long - a few days at most above freezing - before experiences advanced decomposition.  The mammoth from the TV show a few years ago turned out to be only some bones and a little bit of flesh left. 








Microclimates are a weird thing.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: TheArtist on December 19, 2011, 09:10:17 am
Deer in winter still eat grass.  One of the proposed uses for those long Mammoth tusks is that they would swing their heads side to side to help uncover the grasses under the snow.  Some similarly tusked critters that live in cold environs have been seen to do that.  Even in the heart of winter out on those grasslands there is a lot of... grass, with and without snow on top.  There are those shaggy things that live up in Alaska that eat grass and will do so with snow on the ground and will keep on eating right in the middle of a furious snowstorm.  That's just what they do, they plod along in the snow and eat grass, and they will keep trying to eat it until they die.      


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on December 19, 2011, 11:54:31 am
Musk ox and caribou do that.

But it summer, it warms up enough for buttercups some places - not sure about tundra.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: erfalf on December 19, 2011, 01:19:16 pm
I was watching a show on History channel this weekend about the mini Ice Age. I was incredibly surprised to see several scientist presented that were decenters of Man Made Global Warming. Generally shows like this are pretty one sided, but they took a “fair and balanced” approach and let the viewer decide.

First off I will admit I do not believe in MMGW or have yet to be convinced that it is true. In my opinion it is up to them to prove it is true and not up to me to prove it is false. If I were proposing life changing rules if it were false that would be a different story then wouldn’t it.

Second, I notice that any time two opposing debaters get together on the internet, invariably it is pointed out someone is receiving money from big bad oil. Well, I would dare to say that climate change scientist are under similar pressures so I am going to assume from this point forward that everyone actually believes what they are saying (probably naïve, but hey roll with it for now).

Third, would someone please address the following questions that came to mind while I was watching this show:

1. Generally (as I understand it) scientist look to replicate their findings in experiments. Have any of these actually been done and what were the results.
2. At no point in history have all the variables that exist today existed simultaneously. So how is that scientist can conclude that human intervention is what is causing this when it has happened before multiple times. In my opinion it seems that the cause and effect have gotten switched around.
3. Now this is something I always say to my friends: How is it that I can’t get what the weather is going to be on Friday right but I have to take these “experts” word for it that the weather 200 years from now is going to be unpleasant?

Also I don’t recall where I heard this, but I think I heard the EPA is wanting to regulate dust (in regards to farmers in particular). Are these people crazy? Yes farmers make dust, but in all fairness the dust is a by-product of creating food. Something I could argue is fairly important to our sustainability. Plus I always hear them complaining about chemicals and what not. If these people would actually spend a month out with real farmers they would be singing a different tune. Farmers use remarkably little chemicals in modern farming. In fact the use of chemicals is a response to no-till farming practices which means less carbon emissions and less dust from the lack of tilling. The amount of chemicals you use in your own yard is more than likely exponentially higher than the amount that farmers use to grow their crops. Farmers by definition are some of the most ecologically minded people on the planet because their livelihood depends on the health of the soil. If they knew something could be improved, trust me they would. The modern farmer has decreased world hunger more than any other entity bar none. They do more with less every year due to dictatorial governments confiscating tillable land. A monument ought to be erected but I doubt that will ever happen.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on December 19, 2011, 01:54:50 pm

First off I will admit I do not believe in MMGW or have yet to be convinced that it is true. In my opinion it is up to them to prove it is true and not up to me to prove it is false. If I were proposing life changing rules if it were false that would be a different story then wouldn’t it.

Third, would someone please address the following questions that came to mind while I was watching this show:

1. Generally (as I understand it) scientist look to replicate their findings in experiments. Have any of these actually been done and what were the results.
2. At no point in history have all the variables that exist today existed simultaneously. So how is that scientist can conclude that human intervention is what is causing this when it has happened before multiple times. In my opinion it seems that the cause and effect have gotten switched around.
3. Now this is something I always say to my friends: How is it that I can’t get what the weather is going to be on Friday right but I have to take these “experts” word for it that the weather 200 years from now is going to be unpleasant?


Check out the charts on page 8 of this thread.  It shows about 400,000 years of temp/co2/dust information.  If printed out and overlapped, you can see that EVERY change - up or down - in CO2 was preceded by change in temperature.  Now, granted, this is data from the southern hemisphere - we don't have corresponding data in the north.  There may be phasing issues - delays for mixing in the atmosphere - but over the time frame involved, it will even out.

1,2,3.  It is my thought that we absolutely can and do have an effect on climate - it actually is a fact.  Our dust bowl was indeed caused by man in the form of uninformed farming practices.  And it affected a large chunk of the country in only about a 40 year period (1890 - 1930).  What we are doing today releasing CO2 is orders of magnitude bigger than what they were able to do then, so it is very likely to have an effect.  It will be adding to whatever is happening naturally, though.  It's gonna happen anyway, just can we make it faster or slower?

And looking at those charts, it looks like something is due right now...

Kind of like the mammoths - did they freeze quickly, or a little slower?


Farmers - fantastic people!  Have quite a few family who have been or were their entire lives.  Wish I could make a living at it, would be doing so today!!  (Have talent in gardening, but not farming.)

One question - about the dictatorial confiscation - where did you ever hear of that happening?  None of the family has ever encountered anything like that (over 120 years and thousands of acres).  There is a program where they will pay you to take acreage out of production, but the only confiscation any of the clan has ever encountered was for a lake and dam site in Tennessee. 






Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on December 19, 2011, 02:08:44 pm
1. Generally (as I understand it) scientist look to replicate their findings in experiments. Have any of these actually been done and what were the results.

I think getting an experiment that may involve the inundation of countless cities and the extinction of countless species past an ethical review board would be about zero. If you are asking if experiments have been done to quantify the greenhouse effect and how much different gases contribute to it, the answer is yes.

There's pretty much zero dispute that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. There is also zero dispute about the amount that we have dumped into the atmosphere through burning of fossil fuels. Yet somehow, there is dispute about whether or not dumping all that carbon dioxide into the atmosphere actually did anything. It's cognitive dissonance writ large.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: erfalf on December 19, 2011, 03:14:45 pm
If printed out and overlapped, you can see that EVERY change - up or down - in CO2 was preceded by change in temperature.  

Then don't we have it the wrong way around? If CO2 is a lagging indicator or temperature, then what would reducing carbon emissions solve?

One question - about the dictatorial confiscation - where did you ever hear of that happening?  None of the family has ever encountered anything like that (over 120 years and thousands of acres).  There is a program where they will pay you to take acreage out of production, but the only confiscation any of the clan has ever encountered was for a lake and dam site in Tennessee. 

Yes, the government subsidizes taking land out of productions, but only temporarily (like 5 to 10 years depending on the program).

I wasn't speaking exclusively about the United States. The food business is a global business more than any other. However, our federal government has been putting more and more land under it's "protection" over the last century. In fairness, not all of it is tillable land. Other countries however have been making it a practice to manipulate the commodity market. All be it we practice a little of that here too through certain subsidies.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on December 19, 2011, 04:57:53 pm
Then don't we have it the wrong way around? If CO2 is a lagging indicator or temperature, then what would reducing carbon emissions solve?

Yes, the government subsidizes taking land out of productions, but only temporarily (like 5 to 10 years depending on the program).

I wasn't speaking exclusively about the United States. The food business is a global business more than any other. However, our federal government has been putting more and more land under it's "protection" over the last century. In fairness, not all of it is tillable land. Other countries however have been making it a practice to manipulate the commodity market. All be it we practice a little of that here too through certain subsidies.

Exactly!  That is the really BIG question about this whole thing.  It literally is a chicken/egg thing, and I think we got it backwards.  One scenario I could very easily see is when the temp starts up, the CO2 then follows due to the increased vegetation from warmer/plant friendlier climate.  And then what happens to oxygen?  You would think it would go up, also, due to more foliage.  Haven't seen the data for that, but would expect it to follow CO2, but then I would kind of expect more and bigger animals due to higher oxygen, which would tend to drive CO2 up, which would reduce the animals and increase plants.  But then the more animals eat more plants, lowering the oxygen making capacity, making smaller animals, making less CO2, so there are fewer plants due to reduced CO2.  Ever watch a dog chase it's tail?  Same effect - lots of commotion with no real progress.

It gets very weird, very quick.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on December 19, 2011, 05:07:54 pm
I wasn't speaking exclusively about the United States. The food business is a global business more than any other. However, our federal government has been putting more and more land under it's "protection" over the last century. In fairness, not all of it is tillable land. Other countries however have been making it a practice to manipulate the commodity market. All be it we practice a little of that here too through certain subsidies.

It really has been getting rid of land more than adding.  That 30% the Fed owns is probably down from higher number, since they have made a concerted effort to sell since the late 40's.  Nevada seems to be the big stinking point.  The push is to give the Fed land to the state, so they can sell it to people for their little ranchettes and the state will make a ton of money.  Once.  Kind of stupid, given the limited water availability (they are completely out of it), and the fact you can't really do much other than mine it a little bit.

But reality just doesn't intrude into out consciousness much.

http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/fedlands.html



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on December 19, 2011, 05:10:41 pm
Then don't we have it the wrong way around? If CO2 is a lagging indicator or temperature, then what would reducing carbon emissions solve?

It's a feedback loop. More carbon dioxide causes warmer temperatures which causes further rises in carbon dioxide and methane as biological decay rates are increased. You have to have something to kickstart the process. Historically, that's usually been the earth being closer to the sun and changes to the angle of the earth's axis, both of which change on the order of eons. Generally speaking, historic warmings have taken about 5000 years to complete. The lag time is about 800 years, so at least some of the warming is probably caused by increased carbon dioxide levels.

What is nearly unprecedented is the speed of the rise in carbon dioxide levels and temperature that we've seen without a corresponding change in the amount of solar insolation. This is, of course, due to our digging up massive amounts of carbon-based fuel from the ground and burning it.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on December 19, 2011, 05:23:07 pm

What is nearly unprecedented is the speed of the rise in carbon dioxide levels and temperature that we've seen without a corresponding change in the amount of solar insolation. This is, of course, due to our digging up massive amounts of carbon-based fuel from the ground and burning it.

We have such a short time measuring it, it is very difficult to make any kind of statement about historical solar insolation.

Sunspot observations go back a few hundred years, and even that is tough to make a really good call on.  The 400,000 year chart shows 500 and 1000 year variations as pretty much just a popcorn fart in the overall scheme of things.  But we are putting a whole lot of dead animals and vegetation back in the atmosphere at the same time we are cutting down the big forests that could really benefit from and help with that.  This one is gonna be a doozy, no matter which way it goes.  As I have said before; it will either not make a difference, or it is already too late.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle




Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on December 19, 2011, 05:36:38 pm
It's a feedback loop.

Do all of your amplifiers oscillate and all your oscillators amplify?
 
 :D


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on December 19, 2011, 05:38:10 pm
We have such a short time measuring it, it is very difficult to make any kind of statement about historical solar insolation.

If you disbelieve newtonian mechanics, anyway.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on December 19, 2011, 05:43:38 pm
If you disbelieve newtonian mechanics, anyway.

??  For last 30 years, it looks bad.  But then it looked bad between 1890 and 1930.  Then better for a while from 1940 to 1980.

For 400,000 years - well it's another day in the cycle.

We still don't understand enough.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on December 19, 2011, 05:51:32 pm
??

The distance to the sun and angle of incidence of solar radiation at any given time in the past or future can be calculated. This change is apparently much greater than the variations between solar cycles. Physics. It's a grumble.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on December 19, 2011, 06:00:55 pm
The distance to the sun and angle of incidence of solar radiation at any given time in the past or future can be calculated. This change is apparently much greater than the variations between solar cycles. Physics. It's a grumble.

Yes, you can use that.  But the local incidental occurrences always trump that when they occur.  Krakatoa for instance.  Whatever event happened at the KT boundary - we would have to burn coal another 200 years and even then probably wouldn't get close.  Yellowstone the last time it blew up.  (Looks like it is starting to stretch out again.)  Cutting down all the rain forests.  And yes, burning all the coal in the ground.  All bad ideas.

Then ya gotta wonder - and I mentioned this before - what happens when we shade 10% or 15% of the planet's surface area with energy collection devices?  (Can't say it will never happen - look how much concrete covers surface area here - we definitely see 'heat islands' around our cities.)  Or use so much wind velocity that it changes the orbit of the planet?  Yeah, I know, wild, out of control speculation, but it is stuff we should be thinking about beforehand, unlike the previous methods of doing stuff.  Like digging up coal and burning it.  Or cutting down all the trees and burning them.





Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on December 19, 2011, 06:05:52 pm
One question - about the dictatorial confiscation - where did you ever hear of that happening? 

I have heard of property owners not being allowed to use their land for anything because it's the habitat for an obscure life form.  Insect, snail, something like that.  When the government or an agency of the government does that, the land should be removed from the tax roles.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on December 19, 2011, 06:07:36 pm
If you disbelieve newtonian mechanics, anyway.

Newton was fine for as far as he could go.  Higher order terms can change things though.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on December 19, 2011, 06:14:16 pm
I have heard of property owners not being allowed to use their land for anything because it's the habitat for an obscure life form.  Insect, snail, something like that.  When the government or an agency of the government does that, the land should be removed from the tax roles.

There have been a few of those.  I think the count is up to about 3 now. 

Wildlife dept with Dept of Ag has a program for wildlife habitat.  Family has thought about that, but they didn't really have big enough place to mess with (for them).



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on December 19, 2011, 06:25:48 pm
There have been a few of those.  I think the count is up to about 3 now. 

Excuse me if I don't believe your data.  I'm reasonably sure it is not an epidemic but only 3?  I doubt it because I don't gravitate to obscure environmentalist news outlets.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on December 19, 2011, 09:34:14 pm
Yes, you can use that.  But the local incidental occurrences always trump that when they occur.  Krakatoa for instance.  Whatever event happened at the KT boundary - we would have to burn coal another 200 years and even then probably wouldn't get close.  Yellowstone the last time it blew up.  (Looks like it is starting to stretch out again.)  Cutting down all the rain forests.  And yes, burning all the coal in the ground.  All bad ideas.

Then ya gotta wonder - and I mentioned this before - what happens when we shade 10% or 15% of the planet's surface area with energy collection devices?  (Can't say it will never happen - look how much concrete covers surface area here - we definitely see 'heat islands' around our cities.)  Or use so much wind velocity that it changes the orbit of the planet?  Yeah, I know, wild, out of control speculation, but it is stuff we should be thinking about beforehand, unlike the previous methods of doing stuff.  Like digging up coal and burning it.  Or cutting down all the trees and burning them.

Sure, there will always be variations, but that doesn't preclude us from observing the trend among noisy data. There are whole fields of mathematics dedicated to doing that in various ways.

As for your question of shade, it depends. What's the present level of GHG forcing in the atmosphere? What was the albedo of the land covered by the energy collection devices?

And please explain how moving friction already extant within the atmosphere from one place on the surface of the earth to another can cause a net change in the rotational energy of the earth. That's a doozy on the level of the people who refuse to acknowledge that carbon dioxide is even a greenhouse gas, as best I can tell.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on December 19, 2011, 09:47:13 pm
Excuse me if I don't believe your data.  I'm reasonably sure it is not an epidemic but only 3?  I doubt it because I don't gravitate to obscure environmentalist news outlets.


Literary device to make a point using extreme exaggeration.

Yeah, I bet there are more.  Didn't we have a discussion here about eminent domain some time back?  Another pet peeve that I have...




Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on December 19, 2011, 10:32:40 pm
Literary device to make a point using extreme exaggeration.

Which you have used often enough that I no longer accept any data you post without independent verification.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on December 19, 2011, 10:56:16 pm
Which you have used often enough that I no longer accept any data you post without independent verification.



I have made a conscious effort lately to start putting an LOL or a comment at the end, such as (irony, satire, sarcasm) to help define the boundaries.  But then I lapse... I blame Alzheimer's.  And you do realize that 8 out of every 10 statistics is made up on the spot?



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on December 19, 2011, 11:09:14 pm
Which you have used often enough that I no longer accept any data you post without independent verification.



Reminds me of this:

"There are lies, there are damned lies, then there are statistics"....


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on December 19, 2011, 11:21:36 pm
Which you have used often enough that I no longer accept any data you post without independent verification.



Oh, and by the way...I am hurt to the quick!!  What a cruel thought to have let alone express in public!!!




(LOL)
Better?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on December 20, 2011, 10:44:41 am
Oh, and by the way...I am hurt to the quick!!  What a cruel thought to have let alone express in public!!!
(LOL)
Better?

I do not expect my rejection of any data you post to affect you in the least.  It was merely a notification that you have cried wolf once too often.  That story has been around long enough that it should not be affected by your Alzheimer's.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on December 20, 2011, 11:14:22 am
I do not expect my rejection of any data you post to affect you in the least.  It was merely a notification that you have cried wolf once too often.  That story has been around long enough that it should not be affected by your Alzheimer's.

What?  I never cry wolf.  I just report the facts.  Sometimes with a little literary exaggeration for effect...


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on December 20, 2011, 12:25:57 pm
What?  I never cry wolf.  I just report the facts.  Sometimes with a little literary exaggeration for effect...


Whatever.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: dbacks fan on December 20, 2011, 12:52:39 pm
  Sometimes with a little literary exaggeration for effect...


Work for Faux News do ya?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: patric on January 04, 2012, 01:52:45 pm
The world's first hybrid sharks have been discovered in substantial numbers off the coast of Australia, and scientists say it may be an indication the creatures are adapting to climate change.

http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/02/scientists-dozens-of-hybrid-sharks-found-off-australia/?npt=NP1


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on January 04, 2012, 01:57:01 pm
The world's first hybrid sharks have been discovered in substantial numbers off the coast of Australia, and scientists say it may be an indication the creatures are adapting to climate change.

http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/02/scientists-dozens-of-hybrid-sharks-found-off-australia/?npt=NP1

I saw that story on the tele this morning.

It could just as easily simply mean that one breed of shark mated with another.  Ever consider that?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on January 04, 2012, 02:03:53 pm
The McRib is no longer available at McDonalds after January. . .

. . .it may be the result of climate change.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on January 04, 2012, 02:24:54 pm
Work for Faux News do ya?

I certainly could - but that would mean making the gigantic leap from literary license to full blown (and I do mean blown!) lying.  Just not my style.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on January 04, 2012, 02:25:46 pm
I saw that story on the tele this morning.

It could just as easily simply mean that one breed of shark mated with another.  Ever consider that?

End of the world stuff.... dogs and cats living together...



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on January 04, 2012, 02:28:37 pm
The McRib is no longer available at McDonalds after January. . .

. . .it may be the result of climate change.



I blame Bush.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Teatownclown on January 04, 2012, 02:37:23 pm
I blame Fuckishima.....


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on January 04, 2012, 03:36:01 pm
Do the sharks have freaking laser beams on their heads?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on March 23, 2012, 12:27:20 pm
BREAKING: Attention Liberals Global Warming, Climate Change, Global Weirding, Global Climate Catastrophe is now to be referred to as Global Climate Disruption.

That is all.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100054012/global-warming-is-dead-long-live-er-global-climate-disruption/

President Obama's Climate Czar John Holdren is very excited about this new term because it fits very well into conversation at dinner parties where they serve small glasses of champaign, eat toast-points with cucumber and discuss the weather.

I like this new term because it's friendly and unassuming.  The concept of "disruption" almost promises a return to normalcy.  It's like a cloud has simply moved in front of our satellite dish and the picture has gone a little wonky but will return soon.

I have big hopes for the new Global Climate Disruption. 


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on March 23, 2012, 02:30:18 pm
Well, if people keep making progress like this and we keep weaning ourselves off of GHG emitting sources of energy, it will just be a temporary disruption.

http://vimeo.com/19661805


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on March 23, 2012, 02:34:03 pm
WHEW! Dodged that bullet.

Now can we focus on a giant laser to shoot meteorites?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on March 23, 2012, 02:37:13 pm
WHEW! Dodged that bullet.

I wouldn't say that. We're looking at enough sea level rise to significantly increase surge damage from hurricanes just in the next 20-30 years. That we may have learned enough from some ancient civilizations to prevent desertification doesn't mean the problem is completely solved.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on March 23, 2012, 02:57:16 pm
I wouldn't say that. We're looking at enough sea level rise to significantly increase surge damage from hurricanes just in the next 20-30 years. That we may have learned enough from some ancient civilizations to prevent desertification doesn't mean the problem is completely solved.

Meteorite is going to make a big ol splash though. 

I guess an investment in sea-front property is a bad idea either way!

Just joking with ya. Give it a while.  The hobgoblin of the left is a bit amorphous right now, but soon it will re-materialize just in time to fit its purpose.  ;)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on March 23, 2012, 03:00:12 pm
That would be bad news for my favorite island considering it’s high point is 28 feet MSL.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on March 23, 2012, 03:07:56 pm
The hobgoblin of the left is a bit amorphous right now

Only to those who disregard climate science. Thankfully, it's not really controversial in most of the rest of the world.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: erfalf on March 23, 2012, 03:16:07 pm
Only to those who disregard climate science. Thankfully, it's not really controversial in most of the rest of the world.

By the rest of the world do you mean Europe? Why don't you ask people in South America, Africa & Asia how they feel about it?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on March 23, 2012, 03:16:35 pm
By the rest of the world do you mean Europe? Why don't you ask people in South America, Africa & Asia how they feel about it?

(http://directactionstation.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/al-gore-thumbs-up.jpg)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on March 23, 2012, 03:19:32 pm
By the rest of the world do you mean Europe? Why don't you ask people in South America, Africa & Asia how they feel about it?

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2010.png/400px-Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2010.png)

Based on signatories to the Kyoto Protocols, I'd say that they responded quite resoundingly in favor of science.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on March 23, 2012, 04:26:52 pm
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2010.png/400px-Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2010.png)

Based on signatories to the Kyoto Protocols, I'd say that they responded quite resoundingly in favor of science.

Damn the statistics...


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on March 23, 2012, 04:34:49 pm
Damn the statistics...

Forget statistics. Damn the facts.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: erfalf on March 24, 2012, 08:44:04 am
Forget statistics. Damn the facts.

The facts being virtually every country save the U.S. has signed the protocol. Let extrapolate the "facts" then.

Canada has pulled out after signing. The United State currently has no intent to sign. The rest of the world has signed. That must mean that the rest of the world believes in AGW, and those of us in North America don't.

That's ridiculous, but no more than showing me a graph to prove that the entire population outside of North America in on board with this.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: AquaMan on March 24, 2012, 09:16:03 am
Don't for a minute believe that politics cannot win in a face to face battle with facts. One word...Inhofe.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on March 24, 2012, 11:51:40 am
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2010.png/400px-Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2010.png)

Based on signatories to the Kyoto Protocols, I'd say that they responded quite resoundingly in favor of science.

And economics.  I remember that not all the countries had to meet the same environmental standards.

I would be willing to sign a treaty that required everyone else to sell their present car to buy a car that got 50 mpg and has wimpy performance as long as I got to keep my Camaro, Mustang, Ferrari, Masaratti......   I left out Corvette since a friend at work has one and says that it actually gets 30 mpg or more on the highway as long as he keeps the speed under about 85 or 90.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on March 24, 2012, 01:21:21 pm
And economics.  I remember that not all the countries had to meet the same environmental standards.

Since when has technological innovation been a bad thing for the economy? And, uh, yes, the GHG reduction targets are different for each country, as they should be. We weren't all spewing the same amount of GHGs in 1997, nor do we now. It would make no sense to have African countries commit to reductions in GHG emissions when they're emitting far less than their fair share to begin with. I believe in their case, it's a "don't increase your GHG emissions beyond x."

Moreover, it's not even as if the developed countries have to shut down more polluting industries or anything like that. They have the option of buying credits from countries that are meeting the standard with room to spare or installing carbon sequestration equipment at the point of emission or even doing something like planting forests to decrease the net carbon release of a given country.

If you've been watching Fox News, you won't know any of this and will instead have been told that it's oh so unfair that we don't keep getting to emit more than twice the GHGs per capita that most Eurozone countries do and almost 5 times what even the Chinese do. Canada and the US are by far the largest GHG emitters on a per capita basis. Ironically, we still would get to emit more than our fair share, just not as much as we do now. Yet still people complain.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: shadows on March 24, 2012, 06:16:27 pm
It is not the global warming that in the threat we are facing to day.  All the land is a plateau where all air breathing animals can survive.  These plateaus are the flat surface of the mountains that extend from the sea floors and in some cases are seven miles high.  Some will argue that all the land is floating on a molten base. Between the land and the plateaus supporting the flat surface where the animals sustain life are layers of water, oil, gas and coal among other products.  If we continue to remove this material earth quakes will become more numerous.  North East Oklahoma has been closed because of the miming, earth quakes are becoming more of a thereat, Mexico is experiencing the shifting of the subsurface layers that are being released at an enormous rate, removing the supporting subsurface whether it be gas, oil water or minerals.  In the eons of time the planet has been in constant change still the changes have only effected the generations at the time.  Public ridicule of the speaker denies the public of being warned of impending tragedy.  Just stand up and declare either stop decreasing the supporting subsurface or starting building an ark.  This threat is in the future.         


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: AquaMan on March 24, 2012, 06:28:01 pm
It is not the global warming that in the threat we are facing to day.  All the land is a plateau where all air breathing animals can survive.  These plateaus are the flat surface of the mountains that extend from the sea floors and in some cases are seven miles high.  Some will argue that all the land is floating on a molten base. Between the land and the plateaus supporting the flat surface where the animals sustain life are layers of water, oil, gas and coal among other products.  If we continue to remove this material earth quakes will become more numerous.  North East Oklahoma has been closed because of the miming, earth quakes are becoming more of a thereat, Mexico is experiencing the shifting of the subsurface layers that are being released at an enormous rate, removing the supporting subsurface whether it be gas, oil water or minerals.  In the eons of time the planet has been in constant change still the changes have only effected the generations at the time.  Public ridicule of the speaker denies the public of being warned of impending tragedy.  Just stand up and declare either stop decreasing the supporting subsurface or starting building an ark.  This threat is in the future.         

I underlined that because it is always true of those who speak out. Sad but true.

Anyway, how do you explain that Arkansas and Missouri do not cave in since they are riddled with underground caverns? Or Colorado? My best bet for impending catastrophe would be Yellowstone. It is due for activity.

At some point people have to realize that we also are part of nature and determine the future of the planet. We are not aliens visiting on our way to the next planet, we are part of the process of the transformation of the planet and as such can consciously modify its changes.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: RecycleMichael on March 24, 2012, 06:32:55 pm
I'm betting locusts.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: erfalf on March 24, 2012, 07:10:57 pm
If you've been watching Fox News, you won't know any of this and will instead have been told that it's oh so unfair that we don't keep getting to emit more than twice the GHGs per capita that most Eurozone countries do and almost 5 times what even the Chinese do. Canada and the US are by far the largest GHG emitters on a per capita basis. Ironically, we still would get to emit more than our fair share, just not as much as we do now. Yet still people complain.

Not exactly sure the statistics, but I hear things like this all the time, and I think it is a tad misleading. Yes, nathan is right that the U.S. emits a large amount of CO2, and we consume more energy than any other county on earth. But I would hardly say that we use more than "our fair share" (I hate that term by the way).

Now I don't know about emissions figures, but regarding consumption and production these are the statistics.

The U.S. produces 10.8% of oil related product.
The U.S. consumes 17.8% (unfair right?)
The U.S. represents 23.1% of the worlds GDP

From that perspective, we actually use LESS than our "fair share".

Again, I don't have the numbers for emissions so take it for what it's worth.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: erfalf on March 24, 2012, 07:28:34 pm
OK, so according to wikipedia, the 2008 numbers have the U.S. representing 18.11% of world GHG emissions. Again, this makes the U.S. look as if they are doing a pretty good job at limiting GHG output if you are comparing it to the statistics I gave above.

China was the only county that came in above the U.S. By my calculation, the U.S. emits roughly 3 times what China does, but produces (GDP) 2.5 times what China does. Not perfect, but by these measures the United States is not this gloutenous poluter that we are made out to be by people, just like nathan has done here.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on March 24, 2012, 07:33:33 pm
OK, so according to wikipedia, the 2008 numbers have the U.S. representing 18.11% of world GHG emissions. Again, this makes the U.S. look as if they are doing a pretty good job at limiting GHG output if you are comparing it to the statistics I gave above.

China was the only county that came in above the U.S. By my calculation, the U.S. emits roughly 3 times what China does, but produces (GDP) 2.5 times what China does. Not perfect, but by these measures the United States is not this gloutenous poluter that we are made out to be by people, just like nathan has done here.

so, we emit 18 percent of the world's GHG, but are only 4 percent of the Earth's population?  And that's not skewed?

So what as it regards to our GDP.  Per capita we're still kicking that donkey as it regards to emissions.  When you base it per capita.

You make it sound like since we product so much more we get a pass on polluting the hell out of the Earth.  Seriously?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on March 24, 2012, 07:42:07 pm
Given our deindustrialization, I don't think that GDP is a terribly useful benchmark for our GHG emissions.

As far as a "fair share" goes, this is one of those things where "fair share" actually makes perfect sense. There is a finite amount of net GHG emissions that our planet can tolerate without causing massive disruption, whether due to sea level rise or shifts in precipitation patterns or any number of other problems. One person or country emitting a ton GHGs necessarily means that another country or person cannot. (obviously, it is physically possible, if unwise)

Perhaps you want to argue that we as Americans deserve the right to emit more carbon than a Portuguese or Brazilian. I can't think of many solid reasons for that, but I haven't given that line of reasoning a lot of thought.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: erfalf on March 24, 2012, 08:15:09 pm
so, we emit 18 percent of the world's GHG, but are only 4 percent of the Earth's population?  And that's not skewed?

So what as it regards to our GDP.  Per capita we're still kicking that donkey as it regards to emissions.  When you base it per capita.

You make it sound like since we product so much more we get a pass on polluting the hell out of the Earth.  Seriously?

United States - 5,461,041 CO2 by 14,526,550 GDP = .375933
China - 7,031,916 CO2 by 5,878,257 GDP = 1.196259

So by this metric China polutes 3.18 times more than the U.S. Again by this metric only, it would be crazy to take this as the sole measure of polution. I am just trying to get people to look at this from a different perspective.

I could turn your statement around and say that because a good chunck of the rest of the world still live in mud huts we get punished for producing? Seriously?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: erfalf on March 24, 2012, 08:18:11 pm
Given our deindustrialization, I don't think that GDP is a terribly useful benchmark for our GHG emissions.

I still think it is a far more useful benchmark than per capita. I mean just think of the variations in living conditions and productivity all over the world.

All things/decisions have a cost. Industrialization costs us polution. But what did it give the world? Just my opinion, but I think the benefits far out weigh the costs on this one.

I am not saying that we should just polute willy nilly. I'm not an idiot. But I just think people need to look at things from a different perspective and realize that virtually every other country would like a weeker United States. I for one am not in agreement.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on March 24, 2012, 08:53:09 pm
I still think it is a far more useful benchmark than per capita. I mean just think of the variations in living conditions and productivity all over the world.

All things/decisions have a cost. Industrialization costs us polution. But what did it give the world? Just my opinion, but I think the benefits far out weigh the costs on this one.

I am not saying that we should just polute willy nilly. I'm not an idiot. But I just think people need to look at things spin this from a different perspective and realize that virtually every other country would like a weeker United States. I for one am not in agreement.

FIFY


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: RecycleMichael on March 24, 2012, 08:56:55 pm
I'm not an idiot.

citation please.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on March 24, 2012, 08:59:51 pm
citation please.

Ha!


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on March 25, 2012, 09:12:25 am
We are not aliens visiting on our way to the next planet,

Do you have proof?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: AquaMan on March 25, 2012, 12:06:45 pm
Do you have proof?

I have a higher estimation of aliens that what we have done to the planet would suggest. My son kids me that he is going to achieve a degree to allow him to be referred to as an  "Ancient Alien Theorist". Well, better than lifestyle coach i guess.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: erfalf on March 25, 2012, 12:16:27 pm
citation please.

Could probably give you statistics that go either way. But again, this is a trend with people that adhere to AGW. Attack the messenger, not the message. Way to stay above the fray though.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on March 25, 2012, 12:49:27 pm
Could probably give you statistics that go either way. But again, this is a trend with people that adhere to AGW. Attack the messenger, not the message. Way to stay above the fray though.

No sense of humor...  ;)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: erfalf on March 25, 2012, 01:04:42 pm
No sense of humor...  ;)

Heck I usually wouldn't care, and would think it would be funny. But having heard similar comments so many times, the comedic effect has somewhat worn off. Don't take it personal though. I apologize if I came off a bit abrasive on that last post.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on March 25, 2012, 01:07:07 pm
Heck I usually wouldn't care, and would think it would be funny. But having heard similar comments so many times, the comedic effect has somewhat worn off. Don't take it personal though. I apologize if I came off a bit abrasive on that last post.

If you can't laugh at what other people say and take it too serious, it's time to drink a Marshall...


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on March 25, 2012, 01:17:46 pm
I still think it is a far more useful benchmark than per capita. I mean just think of the variations in living conditions and productivity all over the world.

All things/decisions have a cost. Industrialization costs us polution. But what did it give the world? Just my opinion, but I think the benefits far out weigh the costs on this one.

It may be helpful towards the end of understanding why we have such large GHG emissions, but it doesn't speak to the fairness of it or whether we ought to get that large a share.

Furthermore, industrialization did cost us environmental damage. It need not continue to do so. We have the technology at hand to make a wholesale switch to renewables and nuclear plants, but we choose not to despite the obvious economic, public health, and energy security benefits involved.

We got extremely lucky in that the current solar cycle is relatively weak. Rather than capitalize on the opportunity that fell into our laps, a certain school of thought has decided that the slowing warming trend shows that we needn't do anything. As I've said before, it doesn't make a whit of difference to me whether the warming is caused by us or by natural processes. The effects are just as disruptive either way, so we should at least make an attempt to avoid the consequences.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on March 25, 2012, 02:26:25 pm
I have a higher estimation of aliens that what we have done to the planet would suggest.

That's nice but we may be nothing more than a species that goes from planet to planet trashing each one as we go.  We get to a new planet, none of the kids keep the technology alive, wanting to save the planet and live a sustainable lifestyle. Over thousands of years we re-evolve to what we are now becoming.  We gain the technology to move on and start all over again.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: erfalf on March 25, 2012, 02:44:38 pm
If you can't laugh at what other people say and take it too serious, it's time to drink a Marshall...

+6


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: erfalf on March 25, 2012, 02:55:26 pm
It may be helpful towards the end of understanding why we have such large GHG emissions, but it doesn't speak to the fairness of it or whether we ought to get that large a share.

Furthermore, industrialization did cost us environmental damage. It need not continue to do so. We have the technology at hand to make a wholesale switch to renewables and nuclear plants, but we choose not to despite the obvious economic, public health, and energy security benefits involved.

We got extremely lucky in that the current solar cycle is relatively weak. Rather than capitalize on the opportunity that fell into our laps, a certain school of thought has decided that the slowing warming trend shows that we needn't do anything. As I've said before, it doesn't make a whit of difference to me whether the warming is caused by us or by natural processes. The effects are just as disruptive either way, so we should at least make an attempt to avoid the consequences.

I don't necessarily think we shouldn't do anything, I just don't think there is really anything we can do. Big difference.

I saw an interview with Dr. Roy Spencer, who is apparently the temperature gatherer for NASA & the Dept. of Energy using satellites. So I assume that means he is taking atmospheric temperature readings, which I think is more accurate than ground level readings. He made the statement that by shutting down half the economy in order to reduce CO2 output, it would only forestall the warming by a hundredth to several hundredths C per decade of warming. According to him that is within the "noise level". So basically, shutting down half the U.S. economy (U.S. only) would produce an un-measurable reductions in temperature increases.

He also said that warming really has stopped for about the last decade. This from the guy that is actually taking the measurements. This is often a fact that is claimed to be false, but if you can't believe this guy, who can you believe?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on March 25, 2012, 03:07:03 pm
I don't necessarily think we shouldn't do anything, I just don't think there is really anything we can do. Big difference.
...
He also said that warming really has stopped for about the last decade.

It is true that warming has slowed significantly in the last several years. This is due to lower solar insolation due to the unusually long solar minimum we're just now coming out of. The sun's output varies by a fairly decent amount, but we obviously can't expect to have all future solar cycles be as inactive as the one we're in now has been.

And yes, it is true that the US can't, by itself, solve the problem even by flipping the big red button and shutting everything down. That's why global cooperation is necessary and was recruited. In any event, shutting off avenues of endeavor is not the way to go about combating climate change. Shifting to more carbon-neutral forms of energy, carbon sequestration, and efficiency improvements can do the trick quite nicely. Even slowing the rate of change makes it much easier to manage.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on March 25, 2012, 03:11:45 pm
Since when has technological innovation been a bad thing for the economy? And, uh, yes, the GHG reduction targets are different for each country, as they should be. We weren't all spewing the same amount of GHGs in 1997, nor do we now. It would make no sense to have African countries commit to reductions in GHG emissions when they're emitting far less than their fair share to begin with. I believe in their case, it's a "don't increase your GHG emissions beyond x."

Of course a country with most of their citizens living in grass or mud huts, without electricity and running water will emit less GHG per capita than a developed country.  That should not give them permission to build a dirty coal burning electric plant for their citizens that live in the city.  It's a Global problem, right?  All that's been done is move the dirty plant from one location to another.  I notice China is colored green on your chart.  Does that excuse the air in Beijing?  Maybe the answer to our per capita pollution problem is to over populate the country.  Maybe Rick Santorum is on to the pollution solution. 

Quote
Moreover, it's not even as if the developed countries have to shut down more polluting industries or anything like that. They have the option of buying credits from countries that are meeting the standard with room to spare ...

Buying permission to pollute.  That sure goes a long way toward  reducing pollution.  Maybe that money should be required to be used in that country to even further reduce their GHG emissions.  Help them clean up what they already have.   What's presently to stop them from building a local super polluter just because they are for the most part a subsistence society?  The ability to purchase credits is part of my economic complaint.  Make it more expensive for developed countries to produce but allow developing countries to be like late 19th and early 20th century US and Europe.  Great plan.




Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on March 25, 2012, 03:13:22 pm
I saw an interview with Dr. Roy Spencer, who is apparently the temperature gatherer for NASA & the Dept. of Energy using satellites. So I assume that means he is taking atmospheric temperature readings, which I think is more accurate than ground level readings. He made the statement that by shutting down half the economy in order to reduce CO2 output, it would only forestall the warming by a hundredth to several hundredths C per decade of warming. According to him that is within the "noise level". So basically, shutting down half the U.S. economy (U.S. only) would produce an un-measurable reductions in temperature increases.

He also said that warming really has stopped for about the last decade. This from the guy that is actually taking the measurements. This is often a fact that is claimed to be false, but if you can't believe this guy, who can you believe?

I hope Dr. Spencer has kept his resume up to date.  He's going to need it but it probably won't help him much.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on March 25, 2012, 03:26:02 pm
Buying permission to pollute.  That sure goes a long way toward  reducing pollution.

You misunderstand. The credits come from entities that are below their emissions target. This produces an extra incentive to increase efficiency.

If I run a 1960s vintage coal power plant that emits too much carbon, I have a couple of options to get in compliance. I can either install more efficient boilers and turbines to extract more energy so I can burn less coal for the same output, or I can call up Fred down the road who already did that plus some and reduced his emissions far enough below the cap that he has some left over to sell to me, or I can do some from column a and some from column b and maybe start selling more power.

You're completely right that it does not matter where in the world the GHGs are emitted, and that's precisely why an emissions trading scheme works. Those who choose to emit less get paid by those who choose to emit more. Presto, instant incentive to pollute less.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on March 25, 2012, 03:26:56 pm
And yes, it is true that the US can't, by itself, solve the problem even by flipping the big red button and shutting everything down. That's why global cooperation is necessary and was recruited.

Since you appear to have the time to do a LOT of research, your task for this week is to find out how much energy use reduction around the world would be required to stop global warming/ climate change/ climate disruption....  It may be easier to find how much energy use would be permitted around the world to prevent Global warming/climate change/climate disruption and then how to parcel it out equitably.   You will be graded and your reputation will depend on it.  The rest of us ignorant Fox watchers are depending on you for the absolute and unbiased truth.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on March 25, 2012, 03:30:00 pm
Since you appear to have the time to do a LOT of research, your task for this week is to find out how much energy use reduction around the world would be required to stop global warming/ climate change/ climate disruption....

I needn't take a minute. You asked a trick question, but the answer is zero. We need not reduce our energy use one iota.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on March 25, 2012, 03:40:38 pm
You misunderstand. The credits come from entities that are below their emissions target. This produces an extra incentive to increase efficiency.

If I run a 1960s vintage coal power plant that emits too much carbon, I have a couple of options to get in compliance. I can either install more efficient boilers and turbines to extract more energy so I can burn less coal for the same output, or I can call up Fred down the road who already did that plus some and reduced his emissions far enough below the cap that he has some left over to sell to me, or I can do some from column a and some from column b and maybe start selling more power.

You're completely right that it does not matter where in the world the GHGs are emitted, and that's precisely why an emissions trading scheme works. Those who choose to emit less get paid by those who choose to emit more. Presto, instant incentive to pollute less.

I disagree that "that's precisely why an emissions trading scheme works".  If Fred down the road reduces his pollution below the target, he is going to save that excess for when the target is lowered again if he is smart.  If an entity doesn't use enough energy to to meet their cap, how does selling their excess allowance help stop global climate issues?  It doesn't, it just transfers money. What you see as a solution, I see as an allowance for everyone around the world to pollute the maximum allowed by law whether it be in person or by proxy.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on March 25, 2012, 03:43:50 pm
I needn't take a minute. You asked a trick question, but the answer is zero. We need not reduce our energy use one iota.

It's not a trick question.  The answer is obviously NOT ZERO or there would be no issues, unless Jim Inhofe is correct.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: erfalf on March 25, 2012, 04:03:39 pm
I hope Dr. Spencer has kept his resume up to date.  He's going to need it but it probably won't help him much.

If this is a joke, I get it. His opinion probably isn't too popular with NASA.

But, with all due respect, I believe I would take his opinion over yours any day of the week. Contrary to popular belief, scientist do not all believe in catastrophic global warming. And to top it off, the ones that don't believe are actually quit intelligent. They are not the knuckle dragging slow talking simple minded folk they are portrayed as by the casual AGW proponents. Plus not many are from Oklahoma, so that ought to give them instant cred, right? jk  ;)

Honestly though, about the time you guys stop degrading anyone with a dissenting opinion is about the time you will be taken seriously by those who are skeptical of AGW. Until then you will never "convert the non-believers" because they will not listen to anything you say, whether it is true or not.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on March 25, 2012, 04:12:44 pm
It's not a trick question.  The answer is obviously NOT ZERO or there would be no issues, unless Jim Inhofe is correct.

Of course the answer is zero. Energy isn't the issue, greenhouse gases are the issue.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: erfalf on March 25, 2012, 04:13:36 pm
I disagree that "that's precisely why an emissions trading scheme works".  If Fred down the road reduces his pollution below the target, he is going to save that excess for when the target is lowered again if he is smart.  If an entity doesn't use enough energy to to meet their cap, how does selling their excess allowance help stop global climate issues?  It doesn't, it just transfers money. What you see as a solution, I see as an allowance for everyone around the world to pollute the maximum allowed by law whether it be in person or by proxy.

I am totally with you on this one. If it is as bad as they say, just make it illegal. It would lend the movement far more credibility. As it stands, everything is far too political. The first inclination for people is to say tax it. That's not a solution, if the define the problem the way they do.

In that same vein, I am really against the so called "sin tax" on things like cigarettes and alcohol. If it is considered to be "bad" then make it illegal. This is where I differ with the Republicans greatly, I guess the Democrats too for that matter. Both sides would like to legislate their form of morality. I know hard drugs are illegal, and I struggle with how to look at that, because generally speaking drugs only harm the user. I generally err toward people being able to do what they want as long as it does not harm anyone else. You know the old saying "my freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose begins". People will say, well drugs will lead to others deaths too. But so do alot of things we do. We haven't stopped people from driving yet, even though in many cases people have caused the death of others while doing it.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on March 25, 2012, 04:19:55 pm
I disagree that "that's precisely why an emissions trading scheme works".  If Fred down the road reduces his pollution below the target, he is going to save that excess for when the target is lowered again if he is smart.  If an entity doesn't use enough energy to to meet their cap, how does selling their excess allowance help stop global climate issues?

The entity gets to the point of being below the cap through efficiency improvements beyond that which is legally required. And setting a limit to the allowed GHG pollution is exactly what we need to do. There is a finite limit to the yearly GHG production the planet can tolerate. We need, collectively, to not generate more than that. Granted, our estimates may not be perfect, but they can be adjusted going forward as new data comes in.

And why should GHG emissions be flat out illegal? The problem isn't that there are GHG emissions, the problem is that there is too much GHG emission. I'm not sure why leasing of assets is so controversial with you guys?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on March 25, 2012, 05:24:22 pm
Of course the answer is zero. Energy isn't the issue, greenhouse gases are the issue.

What are you doing in IT?  You need to be pushing your already available in mass quantities, economical, no GHG energy solution and get rid of oil, natural gas, and any other hydrocarbon.  Since water vapor is a GHG, you cannot even burn hydrogen since it makes water.  You'll be richer than Warren Buffet.

For the rest of us, the energy we use is overwhelmingly responsible for the GHG problem.  Either that, or again, Jim Inhofe is correct.

If you want to play the semantics game, OK.

Find out how many hydrocarbons the world can burn, creating GHG, and how to allot that amount equitably since we don't have a ready replacement in most cases at this time.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on March 25, 2012, 05:42:12 pm
The entity gets to the point of being below the cap through efficiency improvements beyond that which is legally required. And setting a limit to the allowed GHG pollution is exactly what we need to do. There is a finite limit to the yearly GHG production the planet can tolerate. We need, collectively, to not generate more than that. Granted, our estimates may not be perfect, but they can be adjusted going forward as new data comes in.

And why should GHG emissions be flat out illegal? The problem isn't that there are GHG emissions, the problem is that there is too much GHG emission. I'm not sure why leasing of assets is so controversial with you guys?

GHG emissions should only be flat out illegal to prevent global climate issues.  Since we cannot get there, yet, why should any entity be allowed to emit GHG above a certain efficiency?  Just because 5 people don't have a car should not allow a 6th person to have a car with an oil smoke cloud behind it.  There is no global difference with an oil smoke car in central Africa than there is in California. 

When automotive pollution controls were in their infancy, all cars were allowed a certain amount of grams of pollutants per mile (or something close to that) regardless of engine size.  That's one reason why European and Asian cars more easily met the requirements with their small engines compared to the 6.6 litre engines a lot of American cars had.  The little engines emitted less exhaust.  Honda, Toyota, and Nissan didn't get to sell pollution credits to Ford, Chrysler, and GM.   The thing that irritated me was the people complaining that American engineers were far inferior to the Asian and European engineers when in reality, the American engineers had to be 2 to 3 times better just to meet the same requirements while using the big engines that most Americans wanted.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on March 25, 2012, 05:55:26 pm
If this is a joke, I get it. His opinion probably isn't too popular with NASA.

I wrote it somewhat as a joke but I believe there may be more truth in it than we would like.

I believe there is a retaliatory mode of operation within all the Global climate issue proponents.   You know, consensus, the science is proven crowd.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: shadows on March 25, 2012, 07:46:17 pm
Anyway, how do you explain that Arkansas and Missouri do not cave in since they are riddled with underground caverns? Or Colorado? My best bet for impending catastrophe would be Yellowstone. It is due for activity.

...
Standing on the last remains of the ice age in New Mexico, in the ice cave.
And walking across the Natural Bridge over big springs in Missouri which flows white river.
Having walked down in the Carlsbad cave in Mew Mexico.
It is estimated the dinosaur disappeared some 60 million years before man appeared and fifty thousand centuries before the automobile appeared.
This Planet is covered with unexplained quirks of what we call nature.
Are we to believe that the dinosaur farted gas enough to created, (among many more) these phenomenon’s?
These represents the unexplainable miniature acts of where in the multi-billion freaks of nature we are limited by our life span the ability to solve.
We are in the possible middle of the centuries old warming tend of the last ice age and we are unable to live with each other when it is calculated when it is finished the planets livable surface will be covered with six or more inches of sea water.
   

 

     


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on March 25, 2012, 08:03:07 pm
What are you doing in IT?  You need to be pushing your already available in mass quantities, economical, no GHG energy solution

Think of the system as a whole. The energy source itself need not be close to carbon-neutral, although it could be, so long as we either capture the GHGs either before they escape into the atmosphere or after.

If you insist on the unrealistic goal of using industrial processes that emit no carbon we'll obviously make no progress, and we'll lose really nifty things like concrete. If, on the other hand, you examine the system as a whole, you'll see that it's not actually that hard of a problem to solve. Expensive, perhaps, but money isn't really an issue at the moment. You may not have noticed this, but people are presently quite happy to pay us to hold on to their money for a while.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on March 25, 2012, 09:06:44 pm
Think of the system as a whole. The energy source itself need not be close to carbon-neutral, although it could be, so long as we either capture the GHGs either before they escape into the atmosphere or after.

If you insist on the unrealistic goal of using industrial processes that emit no carbon we'll obviously make no progress, and we'll lose really nifty things like concrete. If, on the other hand, you examine the system as a whole, you'll see that it's not actually that hard of a problem to solve. Expensive, perhaps, but money isn't really an issue at the moment. You may not have noticed this, but people are presently quite happy to pay us to hold on to their money for a while.

I am thinking of the system as a whole.  I am not insisting on no carbon emissions.  I am insisting that merely moving money around does not solve any problems.  If the GHG problem is solved by merely having someone pay someone else for permission to pollute, there is no problem.  The insistence that a subsistence society needs to have the right to emit the same carbon/GHG footprint as a more technological society or be compensated is something on which we will disagree.  The concept that on a smaller scale, Fred's neighbor is going to willingly let Fred have carbon credits for less than it cost "Joe" to get them is also something on which we will disagree. 


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on March 25, 2012, 09:29:33 pm
I am thinking of the system as a whole.  I am not insisting on no carbon emissions.  I am insisting that merely moving money around does not solve any problems.  If the GHG problem is solved by merely having someone pay someone else for permission to pollute, there is no problem.  The insistence that a subsistence society needs to have the right to emit the same carbon/GHG footprint as a more technological society or be compensated is something on which we will disagree.  The concept that on a smaller scale, Fred's neighbor is going to willingly let Fred have carbon credits for less than it cost "Joe" to get them is also something on which we will disagree. 

Of course you disagree with the straw man you're building! The credits to be sold don't come out of my donkey, they come from Joe choosing to upgrade his factory in the first place.

What gives us the right to emit more than anybody else? Because we feel like it? We were here first? We're just special? What's up with that? Besides, the flow of funds their way from carbon credits would give them the money they need to invest in non-polluting infrastructure.

Regardless, I don't much care for the specifics of cap and trade. It's fine, but there are other ways to limit emissions. I don't really buy that the objection has much, if anything, to do with the mechanics of cap and trade. Whatever, at least we don't have to worry about sea level rise here in Oklahoma.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on March 25, 2012, 09:47:20 pm
Of course you disagree with the straw man you're building! The credits to be sold don't come out of my donkey, they come from Joe choosing to upgrade his factory in the first place.

Straw man.  You're pretty liberal with that term.  Of course nothing comes out of your donkey, you don't buy anything from Joe so his cost to upgrade doesn't cost you anything.  You also don't buy anything from anybody who buys things from Joe.......

Quote
What gives us the right to emit more than anybody else? Because we feel like it? We were here first? We're just special?

Because we are always the first called on to help in world disasters.  Because we grow more food than we need.  The next time some obscure country with minimal GHG emissions needs anything we should tell them to go .....  because we shouldn't have anything to send them since we have no right to pollute any more per capita than anyone else in the world to create those excess goods.  Maybe we should scale back and tell the world to ......  They don't like us anyway.   Let them starve. 

Quote
Regardless, I don't much care for the specifics of cap and trade. It's fine, but there are other ways to limit emissions. I don't really buy that the objection has much, if anything, to do with the mechanics of cap and trade. Whatever, at least we don't have to worry about sea level rise here in Oklahoma.

I agree that the mechanics of cap and trade are not the problem.  It's the whole concept about the trade part that is wrong.

As I said, you and I will just have to disagree.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on March 25, 2012, 10:20:40 pm
Straw man.  You're pretty liberal with that term.  Of course nothing comes out of your donkey, you don't buy anything from Joe so his cost to upgrade doesn't cost you anything.  You also don't buy anything from anybody who buys things from Joe.......

Joe may well decide to upgrade his factory anyway. He certainly doesn't have to. He does so because the credits themselves or a combination of credits plus some other ROI make it worthwhile. Just like any other business decision. Maybe he doesn't, in which case Fred either has to live with his present capacity or make his own upgrades so that he can produce more with the same GHG emissions.

Quote
Because we are always the first called on to help in world disasters.  Because we grow more food than we need.  The next time some obscure country with minimal GHG emissions needs anything we should tell them to go .....  because we shouldn't have anything to send them since we have no right to pollute any more per capita than anyone else in the world to create those excess goods.  Maybe we should scale back and tell the world to ......  They don't like us anyway.   Let them starve. 

I still don't get why you refuse to recognize that production and GHG emissions are separate things. We can still produce just as much as we do now and increase productive activity as much as we like in the future. We just have to do it by either increasing process efficiency or through capture/sequestration.

Your position sounds like to me like that of those who said CAFE would make it impossible to have nice cars.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on March 25, 2012, 11:18:03 pm
Joe may well decide to upgrade his factory anyway. He certainly doesn't have to. He does so because the credits themselves or a combination of credits plus some other ROI make it worthwhile. Just like any other business decision. Maybe he doesn't, in which case Fred either has to live with his present capacity or make his own upgrades so that he can produce more with the same GHG emissions.

I still don't get why you refuse to recognize that production and GHG emissions are separate things. We can still produce just as much as we do now and increase productive activity as much as we like in the future. We just have to do it by either increasing process efficiency or through capture/sequestration.

Your position sounds like to me like that of those who said CAFE would make it impossible to have nice cars.

Joe may decide to upgrade his facility based on ROI.  If that ROI includes selling credits at a profit, it will be done.  Chances are very good that he will want to sell those credits at a profit.  That will most likely mean that Fred can upgrade his factory less expensively than buying credits from Joe.  Fred can probably buy credits from someone who needs to make no investment to obtain those credits.  That's where the no net gain comes from.

I don't understand why you cannot accept that our present energy/GHG situation is one and the same.  We need to work toward less GHG vs. energy consumption but we are not there and you know it.

Multiple cup holders, GPS navigation systems that won't be supported by the manufacturers in 10 years, phone systems that should be illegal because they are more distracting than almost anything else I can think of in a car, leather seating, tinted windows, a 10 speaker premium sound system, cruise control, air bags, and a gazillion other special features have little or nothing to do with CAFE.  Go internet shopping for a new car.  Almost none of them promote performance related to CAFE.   There are certainly some performance cars out there. A lot of them don't get very good gas mileage.  The wimpy cars that counteract them is kind of like selling carbon credits.  They are also typically not something I am interested in.  "Sport editions" are typically an cosmetic package and frequently don't even include or mention a suspension upgrade much less an engine upgrade.  I am still distrustful of small displacement engines with multiple turbochargers regarding longevity. High BMEPs and long life typically don't co-exist.  The horsepower to move a car is actually quite small compared to peak HP ratings.  I have occasion to tow a trailer and am also interested in low end torque.  The BMW twin turbo 3.0 litre engine has gobs of torque, but at what cost to engine life?  It may be OK but before I spend $40K, I want to know the engine won't shell itself out in short order.   If you think a nice car is cup holders and a pretty paint job, you are right about CAFE not affecting nice cars.  If you want some performance, buy now.  The early 70s are about to return.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on March 26, 2012, 12:07:36 am
Joe may decide to upgrade his facility based on ROI.  If that ROI includes selling credits at a profit, it will be done.  Chances are very good that he will want to sell those credits at a profit.  That will most likely mean that Fred can upgrade his factory less expensively than buying credits from Joe.  Fred can probably buy credits from someone who needs to make no investment to obtain those credits.  That's where the no net gain comes from.

He might also look at the present value of the credits and decide it's best to sell them for less than he "paid" for them (which is actually what he paid for them, since he also got a more efficient factory with a lower energy bill out of the deal)

Quote
I don't understand why you cannot accept that our present energy/GHG situation is one and the same.  We need to work toward less GHG vs. energy consumption but we are not there and you know it.

If we were there, this conversation would be pointless. Already much of our energy is generated at a fairly low GHG cost, we just need more solar, wind, and nukes. We could be there in 20 years if we actually worked at it. We seem to prefer prepackaged "solutions" that don't actually solve anything but sound good, though.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on March 26, 2012, 05:45:00 am
He might also look at the present value of the credits and decide it's best to sell them for less than he "paid" for them (which is actually what he paid for them, since he also got a more efficient factory with a lower energy bill out of the deal)

If we were there, this conversation would be pointless. Already much of our energy is generated at a fairly low GHG cost, we just need more solar, wind, and nukes. We could be there in 20 years if we actually worked at it. We seem to prefer prepackaged "solutions" that don't actually solve anything but sound good, though.

The only reason to sell credits for less than their present value, including a lower energy bill, is because the buyer is his "brother-in-law".

You forgot hydro-electric although finding a river to dam without objection will be nearly as likely as building a nuke facility anytime within our lifetimes.  Storage technology will need to be vastly improved before solar and wind can take over.  We have had the discussion before about going to DC instead of AC which would make "batteries" a player.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on March 26, 2012, 06:03:16 am
I have measured the carbon footprint of this thread and come to the conclusion that it warrants the purchase of a carbon credit.  Send me some money and I'll pick one up.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on March 26, 2012, 07:14:47 am
I have measured the carbon footprint of this thread and come to the conclusion that it warrants the purchase of a carbon credit.  Send me some money and I'll pick one up.

I wouldn't want you to hurt your back lifting the credits needed for this thread so I will decline to send any money.  I'm just looking out for you.
 
 :D


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on March 26, 2012, 08:13:13 am
I wouldn't want you to hurt your back lifting the credits needed for this thread so I will decline to send any money.  I'm just looking out for you.
 
 :D

What's more important?

My safety and wellbeing or the fate of the world?

Get your priorities straight and send me $100!


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on March 26, 2012, 11:21:47 am
The only reason to sell credits for less than their present value, including a lower energy bill, is because the buyer is his "brother-in-law".

I didn't say the credits would be sold for less than their present value. They might, however, be sold for less than the cost of the upgrades, because that cost bought more than just the credit. Allocating the entire cost to the carbon credits is silly.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on March 26, 2012, 11:35:46 am
I didn't say the credits would be sold for less than their present value. They might, however, be sold for less than the cost of the upgrades, because that cost bought more than just the credit. Allocating the entire cost to the carbon credits is silly.

I'm going to work on a carbon lease program, where you can just lease carbon credits for a predetermined period of time and then return them.  For instance, Algore could lease 436 credits for 36 hours so he could fly his G5 to Aruba for a weekend, but then those same credits could be leased or sold upon his return.

I'm not sure what the depreciation on a used carbon credit is though.  Either way I will probably establish a "Certified Used" carbon credit program where we polish them up before we sell them.

The best part of my plan is no matter whether you lease or buy your carbon credits, they are delivered in an ornate rose-wood and ivory box lined with baby seal down.  The use of the credits completely covers the carbon cost of the packaging. With the purchase of 10,000 credits we will award you an extra 50 credits to burn a tire for no reason. Brilliant!



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on March 26, 2012, 11:47:03 am
they are delivered in an ornate rose-wood and ivory box lined with baby seal down. 

I think you will need to buy ivory credits to line your rose-wood box.  That's OK, your customers will be more than happy to accept the higher price of the fancy container so you will be able to pass the cost along.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on March 26, 2012, 11:52:11 am
I didn't say the credits would be sold for less than their present value. They might, however, be sold for less than the cost of the upgrades, because that cost bought more than just the credit. Allocating the entire cost to the carbon credits is silly.

I can see that the upgrade cost to achieve compliance would not need to be included in the credit cost but I will need more convincing that the additional cost to exceed the requirements will not be the price of a purchased credit.

If I buy a gas miser to replace my present car I will get a benefit of lower gasoline expenses.  If I decide to sell half of the car to you (co-owner, not saw the car in half) because I don't need it full time, I will charge you half the price of the car, not reduced by my lower gasoline bills.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on March 26, 2012, 12:56:40 pm
I can see that the upgrade cost to achieve compliance would not need to be included in the credit cost but I will need more convincing that the additional cost to exceed the requirements will not be the price of a purchased credit.

If I buy a gas miser to replace my present car I will get a benefit of lower gasoline expenses.  If I decide to sell half of the car to you (co-owner, not saw the car in half) because I don't need it full time, I will charge you half the price of the car, not reduced by my lower gasoline bills.

Sure, but if you own a factory and you would like to increase production but can't due to being at your GHG emissions limit already, you will upgrade your plant if the cost is less than what you can reasonably expect to make on the increased sales. If the incremental cost of increasing energy efficiency beyond what you actually need is lower than what you can sell (or more likely lease, since you may need them in the future) the credits for, you're probably going to do that.

If credits are scarce for whatever reason, the cost will be higher than the upgrade cost. If they're not, they may not be. That's OK, though. If credits are plentiful we clearly are meeting GHG reduction goals.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on March 27, 2012, 07:41:22 am

You forgot hydro-electric although finding a river to dam without objection will be nearly as likely as building a nuke facility anytime within our lifetimes.  Storage technology will need to be vastly improved before solar and wind can take over.  We have had the discussion before about going to DC instead of AC which would make "batteries" a player.

DC is the ultimate 'niche' play.  AC will stay entrenched for long distance, for a long time.

Wind/solar/batteries with tru-sine inverters are already the best way to go for many high infrastructure cost applications.  And cost half what new nukes cost, as we have seen previously.

Would you rather pay the utility $40,000 to bring in power to a new country house, 1/2 mile down the road, or buy your own "power plant" for $25,000 - with small propane backup generator for bridging the occasional gaps. 


http://www.bloomenergy.com/




Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: patric on July 25, 2012, 10:35:23 am
Greenland ice sheet melted at unprecedented rate during July

The Greenland ice sheet melted at a faster rate this month than at any other time in recorded history, with virtually the entire ice sheet showing signs of thaw.

The rapid melting over just four days was captured by three satellites. It has stunned and alarmed scientists, and deepened fears about the pace and future consequences of climate change.
In a statement posted on NASA's website on Tuesday, scientists admitted the satellite data was so striking they thought at first there had to be a mistake.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/24/greenland-ice-sheet-thaw-nasa


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: AquaMan on July 25, 2012, 10:41:09 am
Greenland ice sheet melted at unprecedented rate during July

The Greenland ice sheet melted at a faster rate this month than at any other time in recorded history, with virtually the entire ice sheet showing signs of thaw.

The rapid melting over just four days was captured by three satellites. It has stunned and alarmed scientists, and deepened fears about the pace and future consequences of climate change.
In a statement posted on NASA's website on Tuesday, scientists admitted the satellite data was so striking they thought at first there had to be a mistake.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/24/greenland-ice-sheet-thaw-nasa

Quick. Someone fly Inhofe out there to confirm this as lunacy. Then send out some real estate people so we can start developing the area...


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on July 25, 2012, 10:43:21 am
In other news:

Quote
Wagner said researchers don't know how much of Greenland's ice melted, but it seems to be freezing again.

Wagner and other scientists said because this Greenland-wide melting has happened before they can't yet determine if this is a natural rare event or one triggered by man-made global warming. But they do know that the edges of Greenland's ice sheets have already been thinning because of climate change.

Summer in Greenland has been freakishly warm so far. That's because of frequent high-pressure systems that have parked over the island, bringing warm, clear weather that melts ice and snow, explained University of Georgia climatologist Thomas Mote.

He and others say it's similar to the high-pressure systems that have parked over the American Midwest bringing record-breaking warmth and drought.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/story/2012-07-25/greenland-ice-sheet-melt-climate-change/56479518/1


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: carltonplace on July 25, 2012, 10:59:11 am
If Inhoff heads that way can he bring some of the ice melt back and drop it on Oklahoma please?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on July 25, 2012, 11:06:25 am
If Inhoff heads that way can he bring some of the ice melt back and drop it on Oklahoma please?

He can barely land a plane safely, the last thing we want is for him to drop anything from a plane.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: carltonplace on July 25, 2012, 11:07:51 am
He can barely land a plane safely, the last thing we want is for him to drop anything from a plane.

He can drop his senate seat from a plane.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on July 25, 2012, 11:13:53 am
He can drop his senate seat from a plane.

I wish he would.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on July 25, 2012, 11:30:55 am
Then send out some real estate people so we can start developing the area...

Find some Vikings (Norse type).  They know how to do it since they did hundreds of years ago before the ice got too thick.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: AquaMan on July 25, 2012, 01:17:04 pm
Find some Vikings (Norse type).  They know how to do it since they did hundreds of years ago before the ice got too thick.

One of the suggestions as to why the Vikings disappeared from that area is that they steadfastly refused to mix with the indigenous peoples who had lived there for generations before their arrival. They considered them inferior. As such, they didn't learn how to cope with the climate changes of that time. "We're by Oden Vikings for Oden's sake. We don't need no stinkin' help!" Gives you pause.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on July 25, 2012, 01:27:15 pm
One of the suggestions as to why the Vikings disappeared from that area is that they steadfastly refused to mix with the indigenous peoples who had lived there for generations before their arrival. They considered them inferior. As such, they didn't learn how to cope with the climate changes of that time. "We're by Oden Vikings for Oden's sake. We don't need no stinkin' help!" Gives you pause.

Vikings are racist!


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: AquaMan on July 25, 2012, 01:49:31 pm
Vikings are raciest!


Don't let Capitol One know!


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on July 25, 2012, 06:05:49 pm
In other news:

This much melted:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SuJ1sFn_B0[/youtube]

Seriously, though, the big issue is that this much melting will very likely lead to at least a temporary acceleration of the ice sheet's movement into the ocean. When the water melts up on top of the glacier, it usually doesn't just run off on the surface, it usually finds faults and fissures through which to descend below the ice sheet, where the water then lubricates the ice sheet allowing it to flow more quickly. Not to mention the melting begetting further melting because of albedo changes. Open water absorbs most of the solar energy that hits it. Ice reflects most of the solar energy that hits it. You think about it.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Teatownclown on August 02, 2012, 11:38:09 pm
I have always joked that in the east and west you talk politics. But it seems taboo in Oklahoma. Well, next time someone brings up the weather tell them you don't talk politics...because that's what the subject has become.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHtoo1ZWCUw&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

The next stage will be Dustbowlification....and food security. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/10/26/353997/nature-dust-bowlification-food-insecurity/

I can live on beans and rice...can you? Drought me?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: patric on August 08, 2012, 05:42:49 pm
It may come as little surprise to the nation’s corn farmers or resort operators, but the official statistics are in: July was the hottest month in the lower 48 states since the government began keeping temperature records in 1895.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/science/earth/july-was-hottest-month-ever-recorded-in-us.html


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: patric on August 08, 2012, 07:12:32 pm
Tell me this isnt playing out like some Roland Emmerich movie?

It snowed in Africa:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=59tbSy4LlwM[/youtube]


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on August 16, 2012, 12:38:46 pm
And while Ryan is calling wind energy subsidies "crony capitalism and corporate welfare" and calling green energy a "fad."  (Wonder what oil/coal/nuclear subsidies would be then?), we have reality again poking it's ugly little head into the room....

Since 2008 wind power output has jumped from 25-gigawatts to 50-gigawatts, or enough to now power 15 million homes, according to the American Wind Energy Association. The wind energy sector currently employs 37,000 workers nationwide including 7,000 jobs in Iowa and 5,000 in Colorado.


(Subsidy is about $0.02 per kilowatt hour generated.)



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on August 16, 2012, 01:02:21 pm
And while Ryan is calling wind energy subsidies "crony capitalism and corporate welfare" and calling green energy a "fad."  (Wonder what oil/coal/nuclear subsidies would be then?), we have reality again poking it's ugly little head into the room....

Since 2008 wind power output has jumped from 25-gigawatts to 50-gigawatts, or enough to now power 15 million homes, according to the American Wind Energy Association. The wind energy sector currently employs 37,000 workers nationwide including 7,000 jobs in Iowa and 5,000 in Colorado.


(Subsidy is about $0.02 per kilowatt hour generated.)



Less the 180 or so jobs DMI just announced they are cutting with the shuttering of their five year old Tulsa plant.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on August 16, 2012, 01:57:55 pm
Less the 180 or so jobs DMI just announced they are cutting with the shuttering of their five year old Tulsa plant.

Ebb and flow.

Shows how badly corrupted our entire economy is by the "Harvard School of Business" model.  2 cents per kwh credit makes a whole industry fold?  (Plus the crash of natural gas prices.)  No way there could be a contrived connection between gas price and credit expiration, could there?

Wind will be back sooner than later - now, will DMI have the foresight to keep that plant for re-opening time?  Apparently not.

Interesting - their website still shows openings at Tulsa plant.  Seems kind of odd.  Guess it would be a bad time to be a welder in Tulsa.

Wonder who is going to buy that facility....?






Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on August 16, 2012, 02:02:48 pm
Ebb and flow.

Shows how badly corrupted our entire economy is by the "Harvard School of Business" model.  2 cents per kwh credit makes a whole industry fold?  (Plus the crash of natural gas prices.)  No way there could be a contrived connection between gas price and credit expiration, could there?

Wind will be back sooner than later - now, will DMI have the foresight to keep that plant for re-opening time?  Apparently not.

Interesting - their website still shows openings at Tulsa plant.  Seems kind of odd.  Guess it would be a bad time to be a welder in Tulsa.

Wonder who is going to buy that facility....?






It’s never a bad time to be a welder in Tulsa unless multiple job opportunities pisses you off.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Teatownclown on August 16, 2012, 03:28:50 pm
Wind Energy is a loser....this country needs to get their technology priorities straight. Even Potus Obama is wrong when it comes to wind energy.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on August 16, 2012, 04:00:06 pm
Wind Energy is a loser....this country needs to get their technology priorities straight. Even Potus Obama is wrong when it comes to wind energy.

Then what is the right priority?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Townsend on August 16, 2012, 04:01:57 pm
Then what is the right priority?

Bated breath sir.  Oodles of it.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on August 16, 2012, 05:27:17 pm
2 cents per kwh credit makes a whole industry fold? 

Then take it away.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on August 16, 2012, 05:44:40 pm
Bated breath sir.  Oodles of it.

Have you been eating fishing bate again?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Townsend on August 16, 2012, 09:57:15 pm
Have you been eating fishing bate again?

Contraction of abated.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on August 17, 2012, 07:00:48 am
Contraction of abated.

I actually knew that.  I was actually expecting a few replies based on the poor spelling skills (not typos) frequently demonstrated on this forum.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Townsend on August 17, 2012, 08:59:10 am
I actually knew that.  I was actually expecting a few replies based on the poor spelling skills (not typos) frequently demonstrated on this forum.

Both spellings are accepted now but I prefer old school.

I'll never seriously use "Ain't".  Makes me puke sick when I hear some dumbass say it to his kids.  (A reason I don't frequent Walmart or local fairs.)

I'm not bating any dumbasses though.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on August 17, 2012, 12:16:11 pm
Then take it away.


Sounds good to me.  But let's get rid of the hundreds of billions for those other industries before we start worrying about hundreds of millions for wind and solar.  This is simple Econ 101 or even ENG 101 to start with the big problem first - get the most bang for the buck - low hanging fruit - any of the platitudes so well loved by the world at large.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on August 20, 2012, 11:01:07 am

This may explain why so many people in Oklahoma are obese, unhealthy, and why they vote for imbeciles.

Funny thing about your post, aside from it being completely off topic, it's fake. The article cites a medial study that does not exist in the Medical Journal it references. There is a similar article from three years earlier, but it's about arsenic and IQ scores.

Tell us clown, what's impairing YOUR IQ?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on August 20, 2012, 11:33:44 am
Funny thing about your post, aside from it being completely off topic, it's fake. The article cites a medial study that does not exist in the Medical Journal it references. There is a similar article from three years earlier, but it's about arsenic and IQ scores.

Tell us clown, what's impairing YOUR IQ?

Perhaps his choice of news sources? 


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Townsend on August 20, 2012, 11:39:47 am
Perhaps his choice of news sources? 


(http://offcolortv.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Spit-take.jpg)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding/Climate Disruption
Post by: Gaspar on May 07, 2014, 11:42:51 am
Since we've been cooling It is now to be called "Climate Disruption." We are all still going to die.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/05/06/report-uses-phrase-climate-disruption-as-another-way-to-say-global-warming/

We must put an end to cow farts and bomb China and India immediately to save the world. 


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: AquaMan on May 07, 2014, 11:51:22 am
No, more coal is the answer. Since we're all going to die we might as well do so with the great jobs in Tennessee that it will save us. Coal is a beautiful thing.

I'm telling you though, the answer is earthquakes. My Geology prof always said the two most powerful forces in nature are volcanoes and earthquakes. We don't have volcanoes yet but we have plenty of the quakes here and they're non polluting and impossible to legislate against.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Townsend on May 07, 2014, 12:57:56 pm
impossible to legislate against.

Our state will try.  They'll place it in a bill with something else and pass it.  The courts will find it unconstitutional.  Then there will be more calls to remove the justices.

We can make it into a drinking game


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding/Climate Disruption
Post by: swake on May 07, 2014, 01:19:15 pm
Since we've been cooling It is now to be called "Climate Disruption." We are all still going to die.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/05/06/report-uses-phrase-climate-disruption-as-another-way-to-say-global-warming/

We must put an end to cow farts and bomb China and India immediately to save the world. 



Bengazi!


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: DolfanBob on May 07, 2014, 01:53:36 pm
What was the reported change I heard on the news last night? A 1.5 percent in Ocean Temperature change since something like 1854.
Wholly Crap! Let me get my panic hat and run.  ::)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on May 07, 2014, 02:07:45 pm
No, more coal is the answer. Since we're all going to die we might as well do so with the great jobs in Tennessee that it will save us. Coal is a beautiful thing.

I'm telling you though, the answer is earthquakes. My Geology prof always said the two most powerful forces in nature are volcanoes and earthquakes. We don't have volcanoes yet but we have plenty of the quakes here and they're non polluting and impossible to legislate against.

On the contrary.  Global Shaking may just be the next big hobgoblin. Everyone is getting tired of global warming.  Who could get tired of earthquakes?  They are exciting and sexy!

You can legislate against anything.  The president's green energy initiative, if fully implemented, would not decrease global carbon emissions, and the economic impact would be in the Trillions, but there are still plenty of people willing to vote themselves poor to STOP GLOBAL WARMING! 

You can already see the framework being laid here in Oklahoma for the politics of earthquakes.  In the report by the USGA they made this statement:
"While scientists haven't ruled out natural causes for the increase, many researchers suspect the deep injection wells used for the disposal of fracking wastewater could be causing the earthquake activity. Fracking, short for hydraulic fracturing, is a method of extracting oil and gas by cracking open underground rock." Last night on the local news they asked a geologist about this and his answer was "well, no one knows for sure." There will now be millions of dollars in grants available and scientists will line up to develop their theories on how to link stuff we do to earthquakes.  We are an arrogant race, and for many the God complex manifests in a need to take credit for everything.  The first people to jump on this will be the politicians, and they will funnel the money necessary to support the science for whatever motivates the voters stay alarmed. 

Earthquakes, Volcanos, Meteorites, Hole in the Ozone, If we turn the Rainforest into farmland we all die, Global Warming, Global Cooling, Global Comfort, It's all game for politics.  All of it.

. . .and then something real happens beyond our control and we are gone (not IF, but WHEN).  Reality VS illusion. . .Morphius holding two pills. . .you choose. 

(http://www.wakeupcloud.com/images/matrixpills.jpg)
Dayquil or Niquil  ;D


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: DolfanBob on May 07, 2014, 02:27:41 pm
The man-made climate change hoax will prove to be more effective at destroying capitalism than communism ever was ~ Neil Boortz. Just now on Twitter.
This topic is all the buzz.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on May 07, 2014, 02:35:54 pm
But I don’t want Global Warming to go away...I make good money off of it!  ;D


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on May 08, 2014, 01:14:17 pm
Weirding indeed:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/05/increasing-co2-may-threaten-human-nutrition/

Turns out excessive carbon dioxide causes our main food crops to take up less micronutrients from the soil. How nice.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on May 08, 2014, 03:03:29 pm
The man-made climate change hoax will prove to be more effective at destroying capitalism than communism ever was ~ Neil Boortz. Just now on Twitter.
This topic is all the buzz.


There's a hoax is being put out there by Bortz and his buddies. The hoax is that climate change doesn't exist.


(http://thedailyblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Powell-Pie-Chart-2-600x405.png)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on May 08, 2014, 03:09:01 pm
Here's the hoax

(http://apps.startribune.com/blogs/user_images/pauldouglas_1396886908_fox.jpg)

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/cable-news-coverage-climate-change-science.html


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on May 08, 2014, 03:10:33 pm
Weirding indeed:


Turns out excessive carbon dioxide causes our main food crops to take up less micronutrients from the soil. How nice.



When we moved from hunter/gatherer to farmer mode, we started a process that has culminated in our current wheat/corn/soy/rice/sugar diet and all it's complications.


Factor in what has been done to grains on a commercial scale (which is already much worse that what CO2 will do), you have a farming/food catastrophe.  For wheat alone, the results of "modern wheat" (a hexaploid variety) versus a simpler version emmer (or durum, a tetraploid genetic background) has been more volume with dramatically reduced nutrition.  One point - protein, about 10 - 12% for modern wheat, versus 20 - 22% for emmer - means that for the SAME food value, one must eat twice as much or so.  Not to mention the gastro effects of much more gluten in modern wheat....


http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/content/105/7/1211/F1.expansion.html

And this was done under the pretext of potential wheat "improvement".... why not just use emmer?  It's already improved....

http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/content/105/7/1211.full



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on May 08, 2014, 03:11:40 pm

Here's the hoax





That's why it is called "Faux News"....if their mouth is open and noise is coming out, you know it's a lie!



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on May 16, 2014, 10:47:26 am
This is not the first time we humans have affected the Earth's climate in a serious way, it turns out (old news, but I haven't seen it posted here):

http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2008/pr-manvleaf-010709.html

When the Europeans brought smallpox to the Americas, the resultant mass death resulted in such significant reforestation that it cooled the Earth dramatically. Pre-columbian Americans had a habit of burning forests to keep them healthy, so when they mostly died out, a huge carbon sink was created.

I still don't get why we argue over whether or not climate change is caused by humans or not, though. The right-wing thought process on this seems akin to refusing to build a tornado shelter because we don't cause tornadoes.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on May 16, 2014, 11:07:34 am
This is not the first time we humans have affected the Earth's climate in a serious way, it turns out (old news, but I haven't seen it posted here):

http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2008/pr-manvleaf-010709.html

When the Europeans brought smallpox to the Americas, the resultant mass death resulted in such significant reforestation that it cooled the Earth dramatically. Pre-columbian Americans had a habit of burning forests to keep them healthy, so when they mostly died out, a huge carbon sink was created.

I still don't get why we argue over whether or not climate change is caused by humans or not, though. The right-wing thought process on this seems akin to refusing to build a tornado shelter because we don't cause tornadoes.

Are we building a shelter or attempting to move clouds?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on May 16, 2014, 11:09:37 am
The right-wing thought process on this seems akin to refusing to build a tornado shelter because we don't cause tornadoes.

While the left-wing thought process includes building mobile homes for protection against tornadoes since doing anything, even if it is wrong, is better than nothing.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on May 16, 2014, 11:29:19 am
China is on fire, so lets outlaw matches in America!


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on May 16, 2014, 11:30:49 am
While the left-wing thought process includes building mobile homes for protection against tornadoes since doing anything, even if it is wrong, is better than nothing.

Not really sure why you think that reducing carbon emissions and sequestration projects are "wrong," given that the proximate cause of the warming is known to be (mainly) caused by excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on May 16, 2014, 11:31:24 am
China is on fire, so lets outlaw matches in America!

More like "my neighbor's house is on fire, but I'm not going to do anything because I didn't start the fire."


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on May 16, 2014, 11:40:11 am
More like "my neighbor's house is on fire, but I'm not going to do anything because I didn't start the fire."

Can you put your neighbor's house fire out by unplugging your toaster?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on May 16, 2014, 01:32:43 pm

I still don't get why we argue over whether or not climate change is caused by humans or not, though. The right-wing thought process on this seems akin to refusing to build a tornado shelter because we don't cause tornadoes.


We also had a pretty good size effect in the middle of the country from about 1870 to 1920's....culminating in the dust bowl.   We have already forgotten much of that lesson, too....

It's a puzzle.  Goes to what I harp about so much - no knowledge or sense of history.

I have read about how early land thieves came into areas that had been decimated by smallpox, and looked around at the "park like areas" which they were squatting on and were amazed.  Not realizing that the previous inhabitants who kept those lands "manicured" had been killed off by earlier settlers and missionaries.  No knowledge of history again....as if they would have cared, since all smallpox did was save them bullets....and who doesn't want more target practice!!??







Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on May 16, 2014, 02:31:46 pm
Can you put your neighbor's house fire out by unplugging your toaster?

No, but I sure can go out and hose down my roof so that the burning embers don't catch my house on fire.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on May 16, 2014, 02:41:16 pm
No, but I sure can go out and hose down my roof so that the burning embers don't catch my house on fire.

That, and the house is actually a duplex that we share.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on May 16, 2014, 03:00:53 pm
This is not the first time we humans have affected the Earth's climate in a serious way, it turns out (old news, but I haven't seen it posted here):

http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2008/pr-manvleaf-010709.html

When the Europeans brought smallpox to the Americas, the resultant mass death resulted in such significant reforestation that it cooled the Earth dramatically. Pre-columbian Americans had a habit of burning forests to keep them healthy, so when they mostly died out, a huge carbon sink was created.

I still don't get why we argue over whether or not climate change is caused by humans or not, though. The right-wing thought process on this seems akin to refusing to build a tornado shelter because we don't cause tornadoes.

Sure, I can accept that humans and their actions have the ability to affect the climate to a degree.  However, those at the political forefront pushing the narrative have blown up speculation into outright lies as to the ultimate consequences in order to enrichen themselves and their cronies.  That’s what I cannot stomach about the whole “climate change” narrative.  Stick to facts, not fear, and don’t use it as a political tool.  It’s real simple.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on May 16, 2014, 03:50:06 pm
No, but I sure can go out and hose down my roof so that the burning embers don't catch my house on fire.

Poor analogy.  Our proposed climate measures are tied to economic penalties for emissions.  Emissions that represent a fraction of the perceived causal factor, CO2.

So in essence we are treating the fire by unplugging our toaster.  A boycot on toast in our house to fight the fire at our neighbors (China, India, Africa, Russia).  Logically it may help to prevent the chances of a future toaster fire at our house, but our toaster is already far more efficient and safe than their toaster, and we continue to make it more efficient at a faster pace than they do, because we have plenty of toast to eat.

If you want to have a meaningful impact on global warming you have to take meaningful measures globally, and you must prioritize for the most impact. First, you need to kill all of the livestock because they have the largest impact and don't just produce CO2.  Those horrible beasts produce 65 percent of human-related nitrous oxide (N2O) and 35 percent of methane (CH4), which have 296 times and 23 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2.

Then you need limit the amount of coal and oil that China, India, Russia, and a dozen other countries use.  I'm sure they will be open to your mandates.

Or, you could just allow the US economy to flourish and come up with awesome new energy technologies that other countries will want to buy because they are more efficient and therefore profitable.

Then kill all of the livestock.  I don't like the way cows look at me anyway.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on May 16, 2014, 04:12:59 pm
No, but I sure can go out and hose down my roof so that the burning embers don't catch my house on fire.

You have wood shingles and a garden hose.  Your neighbor's roof is 10 feet from yours and his house is fully engaged with flames and sparks coming out of his roof. Your money and time would have been better spent on a fire resistant roof.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on May 16, 2014, 04:19:28 pm
Not really sure why you think that reducing carbon emissions and sequestration projects are "wrong," given that the proximate cause of the warming is known to be (mainly) caused by excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

I believe you have even posted charts that show that increased CO2 levels follow increased temperatures rather than precede the increased temperatures.  Decreasing CO2 emissions is a good thing up to the point where it robs resources to pursue more effective mitigation.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on May 16, 2014, 08:25:51 pm

Then you need limit the amount of coal and oil that China, India, Russia, and a dozen other countries use.  I'm sure they will be open to your mandates.


Can’t do that.  Then there is no safe haven for all the jobs that used to be done in the US.

Oh wait, that can’t be right government regulation and taxes NEVER sends jobs elsewhere.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on May 19, 2014, 08:07:17 am
Sure, I can accept that humans and their actions have the ability to affect the climate to a degree.  However, those at the political forefront pushing the narrative have blown up speculation into outright lies as to the ultimate consequences in order to enrichen themselves and their cronies.  That’s what I cannot stomach about the whole “climate change” narrative.  Stick to facts, not fear, and don’t use it as a political tool.  It’s real simple.

This appears to have gotten all mixed up in the writing....clarify, please...are you talking about Jim Inhofe and the Limbaugh-ists?  Or AlGore?

Since both are doing that - but the Limbaugh-ists have been having better success and making more money on it, so it wasn't quite clear from your note...



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on May 19, 2014, 08:20:24 am
This appears to have gotten all mixed up in the writing....clarify, please...are you talking about Jim Inhofe and the Limbaugh-ists?  Or AlGore?

Since both are doing that - but the Limbaugh-ists have been having better success and making more money on it, so it wasn't quite clear from your note...



No, actually referring to con man Algore and his fraudulent carbon credit scheme.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/11/03/blood-and-gore-making-a-killing-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on May 19, 2014, 10:07:08 am
No, actually referring to con man Algore and his fraudulent carbon credit scheme.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/11/03/blood-and-gore-making-a-killing-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/


Again, we get to the perspective point - it's like all those previous discussions where the AlGore types are wasting tens of millions of dollars while the other guys are wasting tens of billions....Al makes a few tens of millions on global warming, while Rush and Rupert make a few tens of hundreds of millions "warning" us against Al....



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on May 20, 2014, 10:33:04 am
Your money and time would have been better spent on a fire resistant roof.

Yep, but now that the disaster is here, it doesn't do much good bellyaching about what could have been or what should have been done. What do we do now? To continue the dead horse of an analogy we've been using, fire retardant foam would be in order. If the analogy were more grounded in reality, I'd say let it burn and build a new house, but sadly the house we're trying to keep from burning down is the only one in existence.

To be honest, sometimes I don't know why I bother worrying about it. The shifting weather patterns will cause shortages of food and water in some areas, probably somewhat more than has been typical so far in my lifetime, but nothing that I have to worry about personally since our fine society insulates me from the consequences. That, almost certainly no more 6 feet of sea level rise is likely the extent of the change I will personally see, and perhaps the extinction and/or increasing rarity of some tasty fish species, at least in direct terms. It's the children and their children and so on who will have to deal with entire countries being submerged and the mass relocation of a billion people or more over the course of a century or two, not me, not us. I don't have kids or plan on having kids, so it's not my problem.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on May 21, 2014, 07:38:40 am
According to Pat Sajak, you are an unpatriotic racist.

A post from Twitter on Monday:

Quote
I now believe global warming alarmists are unpatriotic racists knowingly misleading for their own ends. Good night.

I feel much better now that alphabet man has weighed in.  ;D


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on May 21, 2014, 08:07:09 am
Yep, but now that the disaster is here, it doesn't do much good bellyaching about what could have been or what should have been done. What do we do now? To continue the dead horse of an analogy we've been using, fire retardant foam would be in order. If the analogy were more grounded in reality, I'd say let it burn and build a new house, but sadly the house we're trying to keep from burning down is the only one in existence.



I knew this day would come...and it is pathetic that what you say is so true.  Too late to worry about it - it's gonna happen, and the planet will continue.  We still have an amount of time - no telling how much, but previous cycles would indicate that it could be quite a while, so not to worry - we are more likely to blow ourselves up first.  It's our great grandkids that are gonna take the brunt, and you know they are gonna have some choice things to say about us!  And humans are as adaptable as cockroaches, so the species will probably continue....just at a different pace and level.

One path might actually make a small difference - if we were to deploy it quickly.  Nuclear fusion power.  It's only "20" years away....for the last 60 years, so far.  That would put it at 80 years since it was bottled up and decided not to proceed commercially.  But we are still putting out a lot of stuff in the meantime...


And for all the Rupert-Rush-ists;  Somehow, "I told you so" just doesn't quite say it....



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on May 21, 2014, 08:10:14 am
I'm waiting to see how long the flat-earthers/climate change skeptics try and discredit Nolan for what appears to be a movie about the result of earth with no food.

As an aside, the movie looks good.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LqzF5WauAw[/youtube]


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on May 21, 2014, 08:12:05 am
Could be worse - we could go through this again.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyOyH9u4AdI&list=RD4-vDhYTlCNw


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: BKDotCom on May 21, 2014, 10:48:33 am
As an aside, the movie looks good.

Really looking forward to this one.
Hopefully there's no aliens.

Alight alright alright!


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: patric on May 21, 2014, 12:12:16 pm
FOX News:   “We’ve passed the point of no return. Climate change: It is real, the science is true.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/05/21/daily-shows-jon-stewart-highlights-fox-news-climate-change-alarm/

Now Inhofe has no place to hide...


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: BKDotCom on May 21, 2014, 01:22:32 pm
FOX News:   “We’ve passed the point of no return. Climate change: It is real, the science is true.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/05/21/daily-shows-jon-stewart-highlights-fox-news-climate-change-alarm/

Now Inhofe has no place to hide...

That Daily Show clip on above link is the funniest thing I've seen in a long time.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: patric on May 23, 2014, 09:33:59 pm
The notoriously anti-science House Science Committee has hit a new low, voting on Thursday to approve a spending bill amendment that “would prohibit defense spending on climate change research and the social cost of carbon analysis.”  Translated: The Pentagon is being ordered to ignore climate science.

Specifically, the amendment, which was introduced by Rep. David McKinley, R-W.Va., forbids the Department of Defense from in any way utilizing the findings and recommendations of the National Climate Assessment or the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fifth assessment on climate change, two landmark, comprehensive reports reflecting the work of hundreds of the world’s top climate scientists and experts — or, as McKinley referred to it, “ideology.” In so doing, it renders all that knowledge and understanding effectively irrelevant to national defense.

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/23/house_bans_the_military_from_acknowledging_climate_science_national_security_be_damned/


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: TheArtist on May 25, 2014, 09:14:22 am
So does that mean they will have to stop planning for retrofitting naval bases and such for projected higher sea levels this century?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on May 25, 2014, 10:26:57 am
Interesting flooding map.  I can't get the link to zoom out but you can zoom out and change the flood levels.

http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=33.6312,-117.9149&z=4&t=3



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on May 26, 2014, 02:51:16 pm
Interesting flooding map.  I can't get the link to zoom out but you can zoom out and change the flood levels.

http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=33.6312,-117.9149&z=4&t=3



Let the water level go up 40 meters and there won’t be crime in Compton anymore!


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on May 26, 2014, 09:08:56 pm
Let the water level go up 40 meters and there won’t be crime in Compton anymore!

Crime will just move to higher ground.
 
 :(



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on June 02, 2014, 09:46:47 pm
Was just watching COSMOS, and they showed a short bit on Carl Sagan, who talked about the effects of climate change for many years.

Interesting fact; since Sagan talked about it in 1980, we have released over 400 Billion tons more CO2 into the atmosphere.


800 trillion pounds.

Sounds like a lot.  Actually, it is a lot.....



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on June 02, 2014, 11:13:47 pm
Was just watching COSMOS, and they showed a short bit on Carl Sagan, who talked about the effects of climate change for many years.

Interesting fact; since Sagan talked about it in 1980, we have released over 400 Billion tons more CO2 into the atmosphere.


800 trillion pounds.

Sounds like a lot.  Actually, it is a lot.....



NDGT is really making those deniers' heads explode.  It's been amusing to watch.  As well as the creationists.  Smart dude.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on June 03, 2014, 07:44:45 am
NDGT is really making those deniers' heads explode.  It's been amusing to watch.  As well as the creationists.  Smart dude.


On a par with Sagan.  Very smart.



That is about a 30 year time frame (given when the show was in production) - then it makes me wonder how much was released since 1800 when coal burning started getting big?  And the massive deforestation of the tropics - another big CO2 release point that many don't even consider but I'm betting it is extremely high.

One good mega-volcano would go a long way toward "resetting" the clock and giving a reprieve....


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on July 17, 2014, 01:10:12 am
Wednesday's weather was strange. Wet, chilly, and just dreary. Is it the fault of global warming? Climate change? Polar vortex? Bush? Not sure.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: TheArtist on July 17, 2014, 04:37:07 am
  Often whenever it's colder than usual in one place, it's hotter than usual in another.  Regardless of the cause, I am going to enjoy this cool weather.  Noticed DECOPOLIS and Lassalles next door were busier than usual yesterday.  Be nice if it stays that way all week.  :)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on July 17, 2014, 07:42:40 am
Wednesday's weather was strange. Wet, chilly, and just dreary. Is it the fault of global warming? Climate change? Polar vortex? Bush? Not sure.

Local weather is not climate. Q2 2014 was globally the hottest quarter on record.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/07/15/april_may_and_june_2014_is_the_warmest_three_month_period_ever.html

(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/future_tense/2014/07/15/jun_wld.png.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.png)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Townsend on July 17, 2014, 08:01:00 am
Local weather is not climate. Q2 2014 was globally the hottest quarter on record.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/07/15/april_may_and_june_2014_is_the_warmest_three_month_period_ever.html


I'm afraid until people stop believing the fact deniers on entertainment news shows, you're spitting in the wind.

Cave men rode triceratops to hunt tyrannosaurus rex's for sport.

(http://i684.photobucket.com/albums/vv210/Buell78753/0819-creation-museum_full_380.jpg)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on July 17, 2014, 08:04:26 am
Wednesday's weather was strange. Wet, chilly, and just dreary. Is it the fault of global warming? Climate change? Polar vortex? Bush? Not sure.


It's Inhofe and his ilk that use the term global warming.  Climate change is what is happening around us.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on July 17, 2014, 08:09:26 am

It's Inhofe and his ilk that use the term global warming.  Climate change is what is happening around us.



It's funny that way.  Even if you use the term 'global warming' it's still the same.  Deniers don't understand that it's 'global' and not 'Murica Warming'.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on July 17, 2014, 03:55:02 pm
Oh I understand climate change. Everything that happens in the world, colder in one place and hotter in another, is all signs something is wrong. Is what is happening in Tulsa right now man's fault? Of course it is. Would it be happening if man was never in existence? Of course not. Perhaps I am just stuck in the 70s and the fear of an ice age.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: TheArtist on July 17, 2014, 04:31:19 pm

 Perhaps I am just stuck in the 70s and the fear of an ice age.

Obviously.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on July 17, 2014, 04:46:22 pm
Oh I understand climate change. Everything that happens in the world, colder in one place and hotter in another, is all signs something is wrong. Is what is happening in Tulsa right now man's fault? Of course it is. Would it be happening if man was never in existence? Of course not. Perhaps I am just stuck in the 70s and the fear of an ice age.


As the "good book" says - "Don't Panic!!"  (Hitchhikers guide....)  As long as you always have your towel, it's gonna be ok!!  The earth is easily able to deal with the stuff we have thrown at it - it has recovered from much worse many times over - the only question is whether WE will be along for that part of the ride....   



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on July 17, 2014, 06:06:00 pm

As the "good book" says - "Don't Panic!!"  (Hitchhikers guide....)  As long as you always have your towel, it's gonna be ok!!  The earth is easily able to deal with the stuff we have thrown at it - it has recovered from much worse many times over - the only question is whether WE will be along for that part of the ride....   



Good point. But how will we ever justify the need for carbon credits, no more coal, etc. if the world can recover? More importantly, why should we continue to complain about climate change or blaming Bush for the ice caps melting? And don't get me started on how Faux News and the Murdochian plot is set to destroy the environment here in Tulsa.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: nathanm on July 17, 2014, 06:23:40 pm
I don't know about you, but I'd prefer if the ground I'm presently standing on would remain above sea level. Pretty sure the several million folks in the area would as well, as would their insurance companies.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on July 17, 2014, 06:40:58 pm
Good point. But how will we ever justify the need for carbon credits, no more coal, etc. if the world can recover? More importantly, why should we continue to complain about climate change or blaming Bush for the ice caps melting? And don't get me started on how Faux News and the Murdochian plot is set to destroy the environment here in Tulsa.


Because the time frame of that recovery is likely outside of the scope of our survival on this planet.  It takes a long time to bind up free carbon into organic matter, then place it in long term storage - what took tens or hundreds of millions of years to store has seen massive release in just 200 years.  At the same time we are losing the single most effective carbon binding mechanism on the planet...the Amazon rain forest.

We know for a fact that humans of several varieties have been subject to extinction events on more than one occasion.  Homo Sapiens is the one that made it through the 'mine field' to where we are today.  Well, plus a little Neanderthal DNA that hitched a ride....can you imagine the social trauma and drama when the first mixed species couple showed up for the holidays...!!??   Our society has issues with mixed races, let alone species.   (I don't suppose you have a heavy brow ridge, with sloping forehead...??)   But I digress.... How many were related to climate issues beyond our control.??   This one is not beyond our control...well, mostly it probably is now, but it was not to begin with!!

Was listening to Herman Cain the other morning - Wednesday - and he was going on with his normal batch-o-carp, when he said something about how climate change was not "settled science" - his first lie, it is.  Then went on to say that over half of the scientists disagree with the science - his second lie, they don't.  There are only about 3 who still put up the lies and they are all working at big oil companies.  Why would a good, upstanding, upright, honest, Christian man like he so earnestly claims to be....lie??  


So, why not remove ANY doubt whatsoever from the discussion and make good on the promise of fusion energy?  Problems ALL solved for at least our expected tenure on the planet.  No more questions or doubt or complaints possible.  We eliminate the need for carbon credits and coal and all that jazz.  Well, except for that one nagging little problem that trumps all others.  You drifted all around the main issue without touching on it...without the contention/confrontation/discussion of oil versus natural gas versus biofuels, etc, there is no opportunity for movement of money.  And when there IS movement of money, there is opportunity to let a little bit (how about 10%??) "stick" to all the hands it passes through.  So when there is NO movement of money, there is no opportunity to let a little bit 'stick'.... Nor opportunities for accumulation of power.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on August 26, 2014, 01:08:26 pm
Just when you thought the climate humpers could not get any more bizarre, this happens:

Quote
In his black-and-white photography series "Scared Scientists," Nick Bowers captures a raw element not often associated with scientific knowledge. For the series, Bowers interviewed a selection of scientists in varying fields, capturing the frightened looks on their faces while they contemplated their findings. The photos are minimalist but intense, each wrinkle and crease pointing to a human unease we can all connect with.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/25/nick-bowers_n_5701202.html?utm_hp_ref=tw


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on August 26, 2014, 01:27:06 pm
Just when you thought the climate humpers could not get any more bizarre, this happens:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/25/nick-bowers_n_5701202.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

Wow.  That’s some serious fear.  Note my "underwhelmededness."

Give a little Ex-Lax to a couple of those scientists and they should look just fine.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on September 17, 2014, 01:06:41 pm
(http://2-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/xaol-nuttiness.jpg.pagespeed.ic.WgcFHnJHRx.jpg)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on September 17, 2014, 01:19:35 pm
I know how to start a fire with an ice cube.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on September 17, 2014, 01:25:52 pm




"The Day After Tomorrow".

A Roland Emmerich film.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on September 17, 2014, 02:08:17 pm
(http://2-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/xaol-nuttiness.jpg.pagespeed.ic.WgcFHnJHRx.jpg)

Did you read the article?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on September 17, 2014, 02:57:27 pm
(http://2-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/xaol-nuttiness.jpg.pagespeed.ic.WgcFHnJHRx.jpg)

It's now accepted as Climate Change (though it has had many names), a marvelous jewel of global politics that that has been around since the late 60's, and will likely be around until after we all die.

For the politician it promises power through through the fear of death, and increased tax revenue to provide a means to reward for campaign support.

For the academic it promises a never-ending fountain of grant money for research that leads to supportive conclusions.

For the business person, it offers a never-ending landscape of products and services to be paid in part with the diverted economic production granted from the politician.

You have to admire its perfection, because it is completely amebic, and offers no real successful perspective for refutation. Perhaps some day it will succumb to rust, but not in our lifetime.





Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on September 17, 2014, 07:29:02 pm
I would maybe be worried if there was a specific weather phenomenon attached with global whatever. Instead, it doesn't matter what is happening outside because it is global whatever. Too hot, global whatever. More hurricanes? Less hurricanes? More snow? Polar vortex? All is because of global whatever. When you point out that the predictions do not come to pass? Well, what's global whatever for ya. It's just a joke.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on September 17, 2014, 08:40:19 pm
It's now accepted as Climate Change (though it has had many names), a marvelous jewel of global politics that that has been around since the late 60's, and will likely be around until after we all die.

For the politician it promises power through through the fear of death, and increased tax revenue to provide a means to reward for campaign support.

For the academic it promises a never-ending fountain of grant money for research that leads to supportive conclusions.

For the business person, it offers a never-ending landscape of products and services to be paid in part with the diverted economic production granted from the politician.

You have to admire its perfection, because it is completely amebic, and offers no real successful perspective for refutation. Perhaps some day it will succumb to rust, but not in our lifetime.


Come on GASpar, you couldn’t be such a simpleton to believe that scientists who support the global warming hypothesis might be influenced by money like the scientists on the payroll of Big Oil on the anti side.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on September 17, 2014, 09:31:33 pm
All hail Global Warming Global Climate Change K J whatever


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on September 18, 2014, 08:05:52 am
I would maybe be worried if there was a specific weather phenomenon attached with global whatever. Instead, it doesn't matter what is happening outside because it is global whatever. Too hot, global whatever. More hurricanes? Less hurricanes? More snow? Polar vortex? All is because of global whatever. When you point out that the predictions do not come to pass? Well, what's global whatever for ya. It's just a joke.


Two specifics for you;

1.  Temperature about 2 degrees higher over the last 100+ years - probably on a par with numbers from the last 4 ice age cycles.

2.  This is the "wild card" that should be of concern to everyone - average CO2 levels at 400 ppm.  Almost twice the number of the last 4 ice age cycles.  This is the one kicking all the models in the teeth.  And since it is so far out of position in timing and magnitude, should be raising some serious red flags and at least some tiny bit of caution.  Which it isn't,...human nature being what it is....


Even deniers should be able to understand that...and even the ones who are on big oil payrolls understand it, but just can't admit it.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on September 18, 2014, 09:34:04 am

Two specifics for you;

1.  Temperature about 2 degrees higher over the last 100+ years - probably on a par with numbers from the last 4 ice age cycles.


With the staggering increase in BTU output over the last century due to industrialization and transportation, one would think temps would be higher than 2 degrees more if that were the driver.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on September 18, 2014, 02:22:51 pm
With the staggering increase in BTU output over the last century due to industrialization and transportation, one would think temps would be higher than 2 degrees more if that were the driver.

That one is probably more subject to influences like we saw for about 10 years in the 00's....increased volcanic activity, more ash in the atmosphere, cooling....or in our case, more stable average temps/less heating.  More "outside" influences on temp than CO2.  Solar CME, volcanoes, probably even rain forest depletion, ice mass decreases/increases.  I think that is tougher to "trend" - except it is up.  Even 100 years is pretty short time frame - I think too short for sweeping statements right now, except for the one about 'up'.  The 400,000 years is good, but lousy granularity.

CO2 on the other hand....large and incontrovertible.  Based on the past, it should mean higher temperatures for a long, long time.  Then where are the bees gonna go for pollen??










Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: TheArtist on September 18, 2014, 04:49:19 pm
August and June-August global temperatures each reach record high, driven largely by record warm global oceans

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140918111917.htm


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: CharlieSheen on September 19, 2014, 09:18:33 am
August and June-August global temperatures each reach record high, driven largely by record warm global oceans

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140918111917.htm

Don't bother.. The idea of climate vs weather is too big.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on September 19, 2014, 10:31:09 am
August and June-August global temperatures each reach record high, driven largely by record warm global oceans

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140918111917.htm


Think Jurassic....

Back to REALLY big reptiles!!



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Townsend on September 19, 2014, 11:13:54 am

Think Jurassic....

Back to REALLY big reptiles!!



(http://brimages.bikeboardmedia.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Sleestak03.jpg)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on September 19, 2014, 01:45:08 pm
(http://brimages.bikeboardmedia.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Sleestak03.jpg)

Bigger!!

Brontosaurus, etc.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Townsend on September 19, 2014, 04:00:42 pm
Bigger!!

Brontosaurus, etc.


(http://www.bookmice.net/darkchilde/lost/land12/10.jpg)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on September 19, 2014, 04:19:49 pm
(http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt73/lonely_planet_girl/Tv%20shows/dinosaurs-tv-show.jpg)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on September 21, 2014, 11:23:43 pm
Apparently there was some sort of environmentalist/climate march event this weekend. This is how I learned about it (after the fact of course):

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ByEu8SAIUAA5VNj.jpg)


Reminds me of the pee partiers.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on September 22, 2014, 12:38:18 am
And I saw this and had to post it.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ByEULn7CMAEsMGs.jpg)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on September 22, 2014, 12:18:12 pm
Some video from the "march". It's a hoot.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZlsKvOkHIY[/youtube]


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Townsend on September 22, 2014, 12:24:03 pm
Here Guido.

Here's alternatives to Hotair and FOX news if you want.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=people's+climate+march&tbm=vid (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=people's+climate+march&tbm=vid)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: RecycleMichael on September 22, 2014, 12:52:39 pm
He doesn't want to see or hear anything like that.

People not with the rally went down threw trash on the ground and took pictures. He reposts those pictures.

The lengths that climate deniers will go is hard to believe. They have a right to be uninformed.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on September 22, 2014, 01:29:17 pm
He doesn't want to see or hear anything like that.

People not with the rally went down threw trash on the ground and took pictures. He reposts those pictures.

The lengths that climate deniers will go is hard to believe. They have a right to be uninformed.

How do you even know that's a legitimate pic?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on September 22, 2014, 06:34:25 pm
Here Guido.

Here's alternatives to Hotair and FOX news if you want.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=people's+climate+march&tbm=vid (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=people's+climate+march&tbm=vid)


The view from "on high" of the great hordes of the "unwashed masses" is always a hoot....



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Vashta Nerada on September 22, 2014, 07:30:33 pm
How do you even know that's a legitimate pic?

It came from David Kreutzer (Heritage Foundation) so it's gotta be....


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on September 22, 2014, 07:46:09 pm
This is among the photos you can find if you look up Google images using the term: “people’s climate march, aftermath”

(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/3/30/1396212882252/Tacloban-typhoon-aftermat-011.jpg)

(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/future_tense/2014/03/19/drone_u_celina_agaton_on_using_drones_to_save_lives_in_humanitarian_crises/469391757-general-view-of-the-destroyed-coastline-in-taclaban.jpg.CROP.promo-mediumlarge.jpg)

(http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20060804074403/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/8/8e/Trippin'_yogi.jpg/300px-Trippin'_yogi.jpg)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on September 23, 2014, 12:38:28 am
How do you even know that's a legitimate pic?

It's covered by this source, but Murdoch!!!!

http://nypost.com/2014/09/22/climate-change-skeptics-call-out-marchers-hypocrisies/


Title: Re: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on September 23, 2014, 05:11:05 am
It was a very good event. (http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/09/23/3212437fe9de9bced4bc906af2f78325.jpg)


Title: Re:
Post by: Gaspar on September 23, 2014, 05:15:35 am
It was just another march of the regulars.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZlsKvOkHIY[/youtube]
(http://www.liberationnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Climate-March.jpg)
(http://2-ps.googleusercontent.com/x/www.powerlineblog.com/i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2014/09/Screen-Shot-2014-09-21-at-3.49.29-PM-620x459.png,qresize=580,P2C429.pagespeed.ce.OL-DjID3P_.jpg)
(http://www.inlander.com/imager/socialist-alternatives-logan-steele-walks/b/original/2357150/f50b/INL_PeoplesClimateMarch092114IMG_0169SM.JPG)
(http://humanevents.com/uploads/2014/09/ppl_climate3.jpg)
(http://cloudfront-media.reason.com/mc/rbailey/2014_09/Killcapitalistmedit.jpg?h=157&w=300)
(http://cloudfront-media.reason.com/mc/rbailey/2014_09/EnoughForAlledit.jpg?h=188&w=300)



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Townsend on September 23, 2014, 08:37:26 am
Guido, Gaspar, Sauerkraut...

Who am I missing?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on September 23, 2014, 09:10:18 pm
Saw "Veganism" on one of the pictures.... I just gotta know...if they love animals so much, why are vegans eating all their food??




Title: Re:
Post by: Gaspar on September 24, 2014, 05:12:12 am
DeCaprio was there as a featured speaker.  He's very passionate about renewable energy and encouraging people to just use less.  I'm sure he is as good a role model as Algore.  Of course Algore only has one home, and an old G4 that has been converted to run on Unicorn farts.  DeCaprio has 5 homes and likes to party on 500 foot yachts with his friend billionaire oil Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan.


Title: Re:
Post by: swake on September 24, 2014, 12:05:46 pm
DeCaprio was there as a featured speaker.  He's very passionate about renewable energy and encouraging people to just use less.  I'm sure he is as good a role model as Algore.  Of course Algore only has one home, and an old G4 that has been converted to run on Unicorn farts.  DeCaprio has 5 homes and likes to party on 500 foot yachts with his friend billionaire oil Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

Attacking individuals as hypocrites and posting funny pictures of protestors isn't actually any kind of argument against the facts of global warming. You still have zero science on your side.


Title: Re: Re: Re:
Post by: Gaspar on September 24, 2014, 12:39:32 pm
Attacking individuals as hypocrites and posting funny pictures of protestors isn't actually any kind of argument against the facts of global warming. You still have zero science on your side.
I thought it was Climate change?  Is it warming again?


Title: Re: Re: Re:
Post by: Hoss on September 24, 2014, 01:04:17 pm
I thought it was Climate change?  Is it warming again?

You might stick to your day job as clairvoyant and let the climate scientists work on this.

 :o


Title: Re: Re: Re:
Post by: patric on September 24, 2014, 01:34:14 pm

Sen. James Inhofe Claims Cold Winter Disproves Global Warming

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/environment/global-warming/sen-james-inhofe-claims-cold-winter-disproves-global-warming

Its all you need to know.  8)


Title: Re: Re: Re:
Post by: Gaspar on September 24, 2014, 02:53:22 pm
You might stick to your day job as clairvoyant and let the climate scientists work on this.

 :o
Science has little to do with it.  This is ancient politics.
Metanoia- To change ones mind, intellectually, affectionally and morally.

They used to contract priests & astrologists to guarantee catastrophe and encourage subjugation.
Today the vocations have changed but the same contracts remain.

Repent, for the end is neigh.
To save the Earth we all gotta try, or else in the future we’re all gonna fry!
We have a solution, Stop Pollution!
Your ambition should be to stop emission.
Snow is melting the Earth is crying!
It can mean disaster if the temperature rises faster!


It's all fun and games until someone loses their freedom. Global Warming Climate Change hasn't run it's course yet, but when it does, the religion science will shift to something else, that is if we are still around after the meteor hits.
 
“Nothing is more obstinate than a fashionable consensus.”
Margaret Thatcher


Title: Re: Re: Re:
Post by: swake on September 24, 2014, 02:57:19 pm
Science has little to do with it.  This is ancient politics.
Metanoia- To change ones mind, intellectually, affectionally and morally.

They used to contract priests & astrologists to guarantee catastrophe and encourage subjugation.
Today the vocations have changed but the same contracts remain.

Repent, for the end is neigh.
To save the Earth we all gotta try, or else in the future we’re all gonna fry!
We have a solution, Stop Pollution!
Your ambition should be to stop emission.
Snow is melting the Earth is crying!
It can mean disaster if the temperature rises faster!


It's all fun and games until someone loses their freedom. Global Warming Climate Change hasn't run it's course yet, but when it does, the religion science will shift to something else, that is if we are still around after the meteor hits.
 
“Nothing is more obstinate than a fashionable consensus.”
Margaret Thatcher

That's idiotic.


Title: Re: Re: Re:
Post by: TheArtist on September 24, 2014, 03:05:51 pm
I thought it was Climate change?  Is it warming again?

Both are perfectly legitimate.


Title: Re: Re: Re:
Post by: Gaspar on September 24, 2014, 03:31:39 pm
That's idiotic.

Perhaps.

The science was irrefutable back in 70's when the next ice age was coming, and Newsweek warned of the "grim reality" of global cooling.  And back in the 80's when we were all going to die because of a growing hole in the Ozone layer over the antarctic.  We were doomed in the 90s too, when the earth's rain forests held the keys to world survival, and were being mowed down at a rate of "20 football fields a minute."

If I live long enough, perhaps I'll get the opportunity to be an idiot about the scientific validity of next hobgoblin.  I rather look forward to that. ;)


Title: Re: Re: Re:
Post by: swake on September 24, 2014, 04:12:38 pm
Perhaps.

The science was irrefutable back in 70's when the next ice age was coming, and Newsweek warned of the "grim reality" of global cooling.  And back in the 80's when we were all going to die because of a growing hole in the Ozone layer over the antarctic.  We were doomed in the 90s too, when the earth's rain forests held the keys to world survival, and were being mowed down at a rate of "20 football fields a minute."

If I live long enough, perhaps I'll get the opportunity to be an idiot about the scientific validity of next hobgoblin.  I rather look forward to that. ;)


There never was a consensus about a coming ice age. That's more propoganda that's been sold to you by the energy industry. In the 1970s there were some scientists that believed we were cooling the earth and some at the time that thought we were warming it. The science was not settled. Computer modeling the climate was new and the data we were getting on weather and climate was improving. Over time that science has continued to improve and the scientists that were skeptical of heating or that even thought we were cooling have changed their minds. Today we do have scientific consensus. This is how science works.

As for the Ozone layer, you might want to look up why that's not so dangerous anymore. Remember when spray cans changed and the type of freon we used changed? Science found solutions.

Science can find solutions to global warming too, but not if you reject it because it tells you something you don't want to hear.

When are you going to realize that the crap the right wing hot air machine keeps feeding you is wrong, over and over.  Stop believing the lies. Science can be wrong, but it doesn't lie. The energy industry however is funding lots and lots of lies to protect their profits and you lap it up like a puppy.



Title: Re: Re: Re:
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on September 24, 2014, 10:16:49 pm
Perhaps.

The science was irrefutable back in 70's when the next ice age was coming, and Newsweek warned of the "grim reality" of global cooling.  And back in the 80's when we were all going to die because of a growing hole in the Ozone layer over the antarctic.  We were doomed in the 90s too, when the earth's rain forests held the keys to world survival, and were being mowed down at a rate of "20 football fields a minute."

If I live long enough, perhaps I'll get the opportunity to be an idiot about the scientific validity of next hobgoblin.  I rather look forward to that. ;)


The rain forests continue to be lost at an increased rate from 20 years ago.  Strong likelihood that this is making the CO2 situation even worse.  We are releasing CO2 at a massive rate at the same time we are blasting the single biggest organism on the planet capable of binding some of it back up.  The FACT is - CO2 is twice what it was during the last 400,000 years of cooling/warming cycles.  A rational thought process would at the very least be concerned and interested in continuing ongoing study and action.  One huge thing - stop destroying the rain forest.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on September 25, 2014, 09:18:01 am
Despite your protestations, the science of global warming, climate change, climate anomaly, etc. is far from “settled".  There’s a school of thought that reforestation actually increases levels of V.O.C.’s thought to be contributors to global warming.

From that bastion of conservatism, NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/20/opinion/to-save-the-planet-dont-plant-trees.html?_r=0

Dr. Unger is assistant professor of atmospheric chemistry at Yale

http://environment.yale.edu/unger-group/nyt-op-ed/

Quote
To Save the Planet, Don’t Plant Trees

NEW HAVEN — AS international leaders gather in New York next week for a United Nations climate summit, they will be preoccupied with how to tackle the rising rate of carbon emissions. To mitigate the crisis, one measure they are likely to promote is reducing deforestation and planting trees.

A landmark deal to support sustainable forestry was a heralded success story of the last international climate talks, in Warsaw last year. Western nations, including the United States, Britain and Norway, handed over millions of dollars to developing countries to kick-start programs to reduce tropical deforestation. More funds are promised.

Deforestation accounts for about 20 percent of global emissions of carbon dioxide. The assumption is that planting trees and avoiding further deforestation provides a convenient carbon capture and storage facility on the land.

That is the conventional wisdom. But the conventional wisdom is wrong.

In reality, the cycling of carbon, energy and water between the land and the atmosphere is much more complex. Considering all the interactions, large-scale increases in forest cover can actually make global warming worse.

Of course, this is counterintuitive. We all learn in school how trees effortlessly perform the marvel of photosynthesis: They take up carbon dioxide from the air and make oxygen. This process provides us with life, food, water, shelter, fiber and soil. The earth’s forests generously mop up about a quarter of the world’s fossil-fuel carbon emissions every year.

So it’s understandable that we’d expect trees to save us from rising temperatures, but climate science tells a different story. Besides the amount of greenhouse gases in the air, another important switch on the planetary thermostat is how much of the sun’s energy is taken up by the earth’s surface, compared to how much is reflected back to space. The dark color of trees means that they absorb more of the sun’s energy and raise the planet’s surface temperature.

Climate scientists have calculated the effect of increasing forest cover on surface temperature. Their conclusion is that planting trees in the tropics would lead to cooling, but in colder regions, it would cause warming.

In order to grow food, humans have changed about 50 percent of the earth’s surface area from native forests and grasslands to crops, pasture and wood harvest. Unfortunately, there is no scientific consensus on whether this land use has caused overall global warming or cooling. Since we don’t know that, we can’t reliably predict whether large-scale forestation would help to control the earth’s rising temperatures.

Worse, trees emit reactive volatile gases that contribute to air pollution and are hazardous to human health. These emissions are crucial to trees — to protect themselves from environmental stresses like sweltering heat and bug infestations. In summer, the eastern United States is the world’s major hot spot for volatile organic compounds (V.O.C.s) from trees.

As these compounds mix with fossil-fuel pollution from cars and industry, an even more harmful cocktail of airborne toxic chemicals is created. President Ronald Reagan was widely ridiculed in 1981 when he said, “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.” He was wrong on the science — but less wrong than many assumed.

Chemical reactions involving tree V.O.C.s produce methane and ozone, two powerful greenhouse gases, and form particles that can affect the condensation of clouds. Research by my group at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, and by other laboratories, suggests that changes in tree V.O.C.s affect the climate on a scale similar to changes in the earth’s surface color and carbon storage capacity.

While trees provide carbon storage, forestry is not a permanent solution because trees and soil also “breathe” — that is, burn oxygen and release carbon dioxide back into the air. Eventually, all of the carbon finds its way back into the atmosphere when trees die or burn.

Moreover, it is a myth that photosynthesis controls the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. Even if all photosynthesis on the planet were shut down, the atmosphere’s oxygen content would change by less than 1 percent.

The Amazon rain forest is often perceived as the lungs of the planet. In fact, almost all the oxygen the Amazon produces during the day remains there and is reabsorbed by the forest at night. In other words, the Amazon rain forest is a closed system that uses all its own oxygen and carbon dioxide.

Planting trees and avoiding deforestation do offer unambiguous benefits to biodiversity and many forms of life. But relying on forestry to slow or reverse global warming is another matter entirely.

The science says that spending precious dollars for climate change mitigation on forestry is high-risk: We don’t know that it would cool the planet, and we have good reason to fear it might have precisely the opposite effect. More funding for forestry might seem like a tempting easy win for the world leaders at the United Nations, but it’s a bad bet.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on September 25, 2014, 09:40:29 am
Despite your protestations, the science of global warming, climate change, climate anomaly, etc. is far from “settled".  There’s a school of thought that reforestation actually increases levels of V.O.C.’s thought to be contributors to global warming.

From that bastion of conservatism, NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/20/opinion/to-save-the-planet-dont-plant-trees.html?_r=0

Dr. Unger is assistant professor of atmospheric chemistry at Yale

http://environment.yale.edu/unger-group/nyt-op-ed/

(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g211/ny2ks/2004-al-gore.jpg)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on September 25, 2014, 09:45:03 am
This scientist who worked at the DOE during Obama’s first term also highlights the unsettled science of climate change and points out climatological  computer models are as much art as science and rely on supposition and estimation because the complex interactions of earth’s environment is not fully understood nor agreed upon by scientists.  Hell, even most people who reject anthropogenic global warming agree the climate changes over time.  It always has.  The causes and solutions are hardly settled.

This is the crux of my skepticism with the global warming issue: policy initiatives seem to drive the scientific narrative when it’s apparent we know far less about climate change than politicians and pundits want us to believe. 

Growing polar ice and a relative flattening of warming trends over the last 16 years, especially seem to have scientists at odds.

No matter your bent on climate change, the article is a very good read.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565

Quote
Climate Science Is Not Settled

The crucial scientific question for policy isn't whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will.

The idea that "Climate science is settled" runs through today's popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.

My training as a computational physicist—together with a 40-year career of scientific research, advising and management in academia, government and the private sector—has afforded me an extended, up-close perspective on climate science. Detailed technical discussions during the past year with leading climate scientists have given me an even better sense of what we know, and don't know, about climate. I have come to appreciate the daunting scientific challenge of answering the questions that policy makers and the public are asking.

The crucial scientific question for policy isn't whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. Geological and historical records show the occurrence of major climate shifts, sometimes over only a few decades. We know, for instance, that during the 20th century the Earth's global average surface temperature rose 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

Nor is the crucial question whether humans are influencing the climate. That is no hoax: There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries. The impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself.

Rather, the crucial, unsettled scientific question for policy is, "How will the climate change over the next century under both natural and human influences?" Answers to that question at the global and regional levels, as well as to equally complex questions of how ecosystems and human activities will be affected, should inform our choices about energy and infrastructure.

But—here's the catch—those questions are the hardest ones to answer. They challenge, in a fundamental way, what science can tell us about future climates.

Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere's natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.

A second challenge to "knowing" future climate is today's poor understanding of the oceans. The oceans, which change over decades and centuries, hold most of the climate's heat and strongly influence the atmosphere. Unfortunately, precise, comprehensive observations of the oceans are available only for the past few decades; the reliable record is still far too short to adequately understand how the oceans will change and how that will affect climate.

A third fundamental challenge arises from feedbacks that can dramatically amplify or mute the climate's response to human and natural influences. One important feedback, which is thought to approximately double the direct heating effect of carbon dioxide, involves water vapor, clouds and temperature.

But feedbacks are uncertain. They depend on the details of processes such as evaporation and the flow of radiation through clouds. They cannot be determined confidently from the basic laws of physics and chemistry, so they must be verified by precise, detailed observations that are, in many cases, not yet available.

Beyond these observational challenges are those posed by the complex computer models used to project future climate. These massive programs attempt to describe the dynamics and interactions of the various components of the Earth system—the atmosphere, the oceans, the land, the ice and the biosphere of living things. While some parts of the models rely on well-tested physical laws, other parts involve technically informed estimation. Computer modeling of complex systems is as much an art as a science.

For instance, global climate models describe the Earth on a grid that is currently limited by computer capabilities to a resolution of no finer than 60 miles. (The distance from New York City to Washington, D.C., is thus covered by only four grid cells.) But processes such as cloud formation, turbulence and rain all happen on much smaller scales. These critical processes then appear in the model only through adjustable assumptions that specify, for example, how the average cloud cover depends on a grid box's average temperature and humidity. In a given model, dozens of such assumptions must be adjusted ("tuned," in the jargon of modelers) to reproduce both current observations and imperfectly known historical records.

We often hear that there is a "scientific consensus" about climate change. But as far as the computer models go, there isn't a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influences. Since 1990, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has periodically surveyed the state of climate science. Each successive report from that endeavor, with contributions from thousands of scientists around the world, has come to be seen as the definitive assessment of climate science at the time of its issue.

For the latest IPCC report (September 2013), its Working Group I, which focuses on physical science, uses an ensemble of some 55 different models. Although most of these models are tuned to reproduce the gross features of the Earth's climate, the marked differences in their details and projections reflect all of the limitations that I have described. For example:

• The models differ in their descriptions of the past century's global average surface temperature by more than three times the entire warming recorded during that time. Such mismatches are also present in many other basic climate factors, including rainfall, which is fundamental to the atmosphere's energy balance. As a result, the models give widely varying descriptions of the climate's inner workings. Since they disagree so markedly, no more than one of them can be right.

• Although the Earth's average surface temperature rose sharply by 0.9 degree Fahrenheit during the last quarter of the 20th century, it has increased much more slowly for the past 16 years, even as the human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen by some 25%. This surprising fact demonstrates directly that natural influences and variability are powerful enough to counteract the present warming influence exerted by human activity.

Yet the models famously fail to capture this slowing in the temperature rise. Several dozen different explanations for this failure have been offered, with ocean variability most likely playing a major role. But the whole episode continues to highlight the limits of our modeling.

• The models roughly describe the shrinking extent of Arctic sea ice observed over the past two decades, but they fail to describe the comparable growth of Antarctic sea ice, which is now at a record high.

• The models predict that the lower atmosphere in the tropics will absorb much of the heat of the warming atmosphere. But that "hot spot" has not been confidently observed, casting doubt on our understanding of the crucial feedback of water vapor on temperature.

• Even though the human influence on climate was much smaller in the past, the models do not account for the fact that the rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today—about one foot per century.

• A crucial measure of our knowledge of feedbacks is climate sensitivity—that is, the warming induced by a hypothetical doubling of carbon-dioxide concentration. Today's best estimate of the sensitivity (between 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) is no different, and no more certain, than it was 30 years ago. And this is despite an heroic research effort costing billions of dollars.

These and many other open questions are in fact described in the IPCC research reports, although a detailed and knowledgeable reading is sometimes required to discern them. They are not "minor" issues to be "cleaned up" by further research. Rather, they are deficiencies that erode confidence in the computer projections. Work to resolve these shortcomings in climate models should be among the top priorities for climate research.

Yet a public official reading only the IPCC's "Summary for Policy Makers" would gain little sense of the extent or implications of these deficiencies. These are fundamental challenges to our understanding of human impacts on the climate, and they should not be dismissed with the mantra that "climate science is settled."

While the past two decades have seen progress in climate science, the field is not yet mature enough to usefully answer the difficult and important questions being asked of it. This decidedly unsettled state highlights what should be obvious: Understanding climate, at the level of detail relevant to human influences, is a very, very difficult problem.

We can and should take steps to make climate projections more useful over time. An international commitment to a sustained global climate observation system would generate an ever-lengthening record of more precise observations. And increasingly powerful computers can allow a better understanding of the uncertainties in our models, finer model grids and more sophisticated descriptions of the processes that occur within them. The science is urgent, since we could be caught flat-footed if our understanding does not improve more rapidly than the climate itself changes.

A transparent rigor would also be a welcome development, especially given the momentous political and policy decisions at stake. That could be supported by regular, independent, "red team" reviews to stress-test and challenge the projections by focusing on their deficiencies and uncertainties; that would certainly be the best practice of the scientific method. But because the natural climate changes over decades, it will take many years to get the data needed to confidently isolate and quantify the effects of human influences.

Policy makers and the public may wish for the comfort of certainty in their climate science. But I fear that rigidly promulgating the idea that climate science is "settled" (or is a "hoax") demeans and chills the scientific enterprise, retarding its progress in these important matters. Uncertainty is a prime mover and motivator of science and must be faced head-on. It should not be confined to hushed sidebar conversations at academic conferences.

Society's choices in the years ahead will necessarily be based on uncertain knowledge of future climates. That uncertainty need not be an excuse for inaction. There is well-justified prudence in accelerating the development of low-emissions technologies and in cost-effective energy-efficiency measures.

But climate strategies beyond such "no regrets" efforts carry costs, risks and questions of effectiveness, so nonscientific factors inevitably enter the decision. These include our tolerance for risk and the priorities that we assign to economic development, poverty reduction, environmental quality, and intergenerational and geographical equity.

Individuals and countries can legitimately disagree about these matters, so the discussion should not be about "believing" or "denying" the science. Despite the statements of numerous scientific societies, the scientific community cannot claim any special expertise in addressing issues related to humanity's deepest goals and values. The political and diplomatic spheres are best suited to debating and resolving such questions, and misrepresenting the current state of climate science does nothing to advance that effort.

Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future. Recognizing those limits, rather than ignoring them, will lead to a more sober and ultimately more productive discussion of climate change and climate policies. To do otherwise is a great disservice to climate science itself.

Dr. Koonin was undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Barack Obama's first term and is currently director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University. His previous positions include professor of theoretical physics and provost at Caltech, as well as chief scientist of BP, BP.LN -2.99% where his work focused on renewable and low-carbon energy technologies.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on September 25, 2014, 10:21:05 am
Despite your protestations, the science of global warming, climate change, climate anomaly, etc. is far from “settled".  There’s a school of thought that reforestation actually increases levels of V.O.C.’s thought to be contributors to global warming.

From that bastion of conservatism, NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/20/opinion/to-save-the-planet-dont-plant-trees.html?_r=0

Dr. Unger is assistant professor of atmospheric chemistry at Yale

http://environment.yale.edu/unger-group/nyt-op-ed/



My "protestations" have always been two fold - if Human activity is creating climate change, one of two things is possible;

1.  It won't matter in the overall scheme of things, OR

2.  It is too late to do anything effective about it.


Again, did you read what he said??  Especially in relation to what I said... it IS a fact that we have lost a massive amount of rain forest world wide - a process that has gone on for thousands of years of human activity and accelerated dramatically in the last 75 years or so.  (The Sahara was once much smaller than it is now...could that have been from overgrazing, like it is today??)

It is another fact that the amount of biomass represented by that loss has some effect on binding CO2 form the atmosphere - that's how plants work.  Another fact - as I stated - we are releasing CO2 at a massive rate at the same time we are blasting the single biggest organism on the planet capable of binding some of it back up.

And then, again, there is that other pesky little FACT - CO2 is twice what it was during the last 400,000 years of cooling/warming cycles.

We do need better models of what is happening, especially since the CO2 level is so massively different from previous cycles - that is throwing some carp in the eggs that just wasn't present previously.  And that level is massively different directly due to human activity.  Yes...that IS settled science.


With the billions of gallons of soft drinks consumed every year planet wide, you would think there would be some uptake of CO2 that would at least spend a little time bound up in the people drinking them...



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on September 25, 2014, 10:54:19 am
Despite your protestations, the science of global warming, climate change, climate anomaly, etc. is far from “settled".  There’s a school of thought that reforestation actually increases levels of V.O.C.’s thought to be contributors to global warming.

From that bastion of conservatism, NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/20/opinion/to-save-the-planet-dont-plant-trees.html?_r=0

Dr. Unger is assistant professor of atmospheric chemistry at Yale

http://environment.yale.edu/unger-group/nyt-op-ed/


What is settled is that we are warming the earth, what Dr Unger is disagreeing with is forestation as a solution.

Her position has been strongly rebuked by 30+ leading scientists:
http://news.mongabay.com/2014/0922-scientists-respond-to-dont-plant-trees-oped.html

Here is her response to the rebuke, she hardly sounds like someone who is a climate change denier:
Quote
Global climate change is real and the greatest threat to humankind and the biosphere.
 
Nations have agreed that the global average temperature must not exceed 2 deg C above the preindustrial value to maintain a safe and healthy planet. We are dangerously close. There is no time to waste.
 
Protection and restoration of tropical and other forests is essential regardless of their effects on climate. Currently, global climate modeling is not sufficiently advanced to predict reliably the effects of changing forests on the global average surface temperature.
 
The primary key to solving the global climate problem is the transformation of our energy system into one that does not use the sky as a waste dump for our greenhouse gas pollution.
 
Land-use change effects a redistribution of carbon among land, ocean, and atmosphere reservoirs while fossil fuel emission adds carbon to these combined reservoirs. The long-term climatic effects of these two processes are very different. A primary reason for wanting to avoid human-induced climate change is to protect natural ecosystems. Protecting natural ecosystems is an important goal, regardless of their climate effects.
http://environment.yale.edu/unger-group/nyt-op-ed/


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on September 25, 2014, 11:02:20 am
This scientist who worked at the DOE during Obama’s first term also highlights the unsettled science of climate change and points out climatological  computer models are as much art as science and rely on supposition and estimation because the complex interactions of earth’s environment is not fully understood nor agreed upon by scientists.  Hell, even most people who reject anthropogenic global warming agree the climate changes over time.  It always has.  The causes and solutions are hardly settled.

This is the crux of my skepticism with the global warming issue: policy initiatives seem to drive the scientific narrative when it’s apparent we know far less about climate change than politicians and pundits want us to believe. 

Growing polar ice and a relative flattening of warming trends over the last 16 years, especially seem to have scientists at odds.

No matter your bent on climate change, the article is a very good read.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565


What he is arguing is the impact of the change.

from your own quote:
Quote
The crucial scientific question for policy isn't whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. Geological and historical records show the occurrence of major climate shifts, sometimes over only a few decades. We know, for instance, that during the 20th century the Earth's global average surface temperature rose 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

Nor is the crucial question whether humans are influencing the climate. That is no hoax: There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries. The impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself.


Also, from his article:
Quote
The science is urgent, since we could be caught flat-footed if our understanding does not improve more rapidly than the climate itself changes.

A transparent rigor would also be a welcome development, especially given the momentous political and policy decisions at stake. That could be supported by regular, independent, "red team" reviews to stress-test and challenge the projections by focusing on their deficiencies and uncertainties; that would certainly be the best practice of the scientific method. But because the natural climate changes over decades, it will take many years to get the data needed to confidently isolate and quantify the effects of human influences.

Policy makers and the public may wish for the comfort of certainty in their climate science. But I fear that rigidly promulgating the idea that climate science is "settled" (or is a "hoax") demeans and chills the scientific enterprise, retarding its progress in these important matters. Uncertainty is a prime mover and motivator of science and must be faced head-on. It should not be confined to hushed sidebar conversations at academic conferences.

Society's choices in the years ahead will necessarily be based on uncertain knowledge of future climates. That uncertainty need not be an excuse for inaction. There is well-justified prudence in accelerating the development of low-emissions technologies and in cost-effective energy-efficiency measures.

He's arguing for more study and more science and flexibility, not denying global warming as is very far from calling for doing nothing like most on the right.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on September 25, 2014, 11:05:05 am
The arguments you are finding are over what models of future outcomes are most correct and what actions we should take to improve our outcomes.

There is NO dispute that the climate is changing, that we are contributing to that change in a very negative fashion and that we have to take action.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on September 25, 2014, 11:12:15 am
You both fail to grasp the context of my message from the two articles posted.  Both sources cited believe climate change is quite real.  However, both agree the science is far from settled in terms of cause, remediation, and projection of future temperatures and ramifications.  One even touches on the subject of the increase in polar ice as well as flattening of the warming curve over the last 16 years.

POINT: Climate change science is far from “settled” and climate change models are far from absolute.  The scientific community is in disagreement as to solutions to climate change or even if it can be manipulated.





Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Breadburner on September 25, 2014, 11:14:46 am
What do the Persimmon seeds say......???


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on September 25, 2014, 11:32:14 am
You both fail to grasp the context of my message from the two articles posted.  Both sources cited believe climate change is quite real.  However, both agree the science is far from settled in terms of cause, remediation, and projection of future temperatures and ramifications.  One even touches on the subject of the increase in polar ice as well as flattening of the warming curve over the last 16 years.

POINT: Climate change science is far from “settled” and climate change models are far from absolute.  The scientific community is in disagreement as to solutions to climate change or even if it can be manipulated.

So your plan of action would be?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on September 25, 2014, 12:47:05 pm
So your plan of action would be?

My plan of action would be to stop using the issue for political benefit.  Indeed, many people are relying on political dogma as to what an appropriate solution is.

We need to see more unilateral agreement in the scientific community as to an appropriate plan of action.  That, in itself, appears to be in doubt amongst climate scientists.  There is much still unknown about how the planet deals with climate variations.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: patric on September 25, 2014, 01:07:09 pm
We need to see more unilateral agreement in the scientific community as to an appropriate plan of action. 

Even though that position doesnt immediately lay down a specific course, it's leaps and bounds ahead of "its a hoax."


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on September 25, 2014, 01:30:16 pm
My plan of action would be to stop using the issue for political benefit.  Indeed, many people are relying on political dogma as to what an appropriate solution is.

We need to see more unilateral agreement in the scientific community as to an appropriate plan of action.  That, in itself, appears to be in doubt amongst climate scientists.  There is much still unknown about how the planet deals with climate variations.


So do nothing?

The articles you are posting in no way are advocating doing nothing. The right mocks the very idea of doing anything and disputes that there is any such thing as global warming while there is no scientific debate that we are heating the earth and there is no arguing that this isn’t bad. This shouldn’t be political and the only reason it is political is because the energy industry is making it so. Your answer of doing nothing IS the position the energy industry is backing. Our own congressman wants to ban the government from even studying climate change.

You will nearly always be able to find points of disagreement in the science, that’s just how science works, but that is no reason to do nothing. The arguments being made in your articles are over what modeling to use, not on if global warming is real, or bad. The argument over the impact ranges from really bad to cataclysmic. The rest of the arguments are what to do about it. There is NO valid argument for doing nothing in the scientific community.




Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on September 25, 2014, 02:37:12 pm
So do nothing?

The articles you are posting in no way are advocating doing nothing. The right mocks the very idea of doing anything and disputes that there is any such thing as global warming while there is no scientific debate that we are heating the earth and there is no arguing that this isn’t bad. This shouldn’t be political and the only reason it is political is because the energy industry is making it so. Your answer of doing nothing IS the position the energy industry is backing. Our own congressman wants to ban the government from even studying climate change.

You will nearly always be able to find points of disagreement in the science, that’s just how science works, but that is no reason to do nothing. The arguments being made in your articles are over what modeling to use, not on if global warming is real, or bad. The argument over the impact ranges from really bad to cataclysmic. The rest of the arguments are what to do about it. There is NO valid argument for doing nothing in the scientific community.


M’kay.  Let’s forget Al Gore and other's contribution to politicizing it and lay the blame soley on energy companies.  That’s not revisionist nor anything even close.  For what it’s worth, every major oil company does have a division which works on alternative energy solutions.

Dr. Unger’s article makes an interesting case that what was once thought of as a great solution to global warming abatement with reforestation may actually make it worse.  There are far more examples posited by geoscientists over the years from white roofs to shooting massive amounts of human cremains into space to reflect solar radiation which has drawn plenty of doubt and criticism from others in the scientific community.

Science is not static, understanding of science is constantly evolving.  The more we think we know, the more we find we need to learn.

Rushing to a conclusion leads to unintended consequences.  Here’s a gem from the late 1990’s on automotive catalytic converter’s contribution to global warming to illustrate the point:

Quote
E.P.A. Says Catalytic Converter Is Growing Cause of Global Warming

E.P.A. Says Catalytic Converter Is
Growing Cause of Global Warming
By Matthew L. Wald
Copyright 1998 The New York Times
May 29, 1998

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

WASHINGTON -- The catalytic converter, an invention that has sharply
reduced smog from cars, has now become a significant and growing
cause of global warming, according to the Environmental Protection
Agency.

Hailed as a miracle by Detroit automakers even today, catalytic
converters have been reducing smog for 20 years. The converters break
down compounds of nitrogen and oxygen from car exhaust that can
combine with hydrocarbons, also from cars, and be cooked by sunlight
into smog.

But researchers have suspected for years that the converters
sometimes rearrange the nitrogen-oxygen compounds to form nitrous
oxide, known as laughing gas. And nitrous oxide is a potent
greenhouse gas, more than 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide,
the most common of the gases, that is warming the atmosphere,
according to experts.

This spring, the EPA published a study estimating that nitrous oxide
now comprises about 7.2 percent of the gases that cause global
warming. Cars and trucks, most fitted with catalytic converters,
produce nearly half of that nitrous oxide, the study said. (Other
sources of nitrous oxide include everything from nitrogen-based
fertilizer to manure from farm animals.)

The EPA study also showed that nitrous oxide is one of a few gases
for which emissions are increasing rapidly. Collectively known as
greenhouse gases, they trap heat in the earth's atmosphere.

The increase in nitrous oxide, the study notes, stems from the growth
in the number of miles traveled by cars that have catalytic
converters. And the problem has worsened as improvements in catalytic
converters, changes that have eliminated more of the nitrogen-oxygen
compounds that cause smog, have conversely produced more nitrous
oxide.

Wylie J. Barbour, an EPA official who worked on the recently
published inventory, said that the problem created by the converter
is classic. "You've got people trying to solve one problem, and as is
not uncommon, they've created another."

Nitrous oxide, or N2O, is not regulated because the Clean Air Act was
written in 1970 to control smog, not global warming. And no
regulations exist to control gases that are believed to cause global
warming.

The United States and the other industrialized nations agreed in
Kyoto, Japan, last December to lower emissions of greenhouse gases to
5 percent below 1990 levels, over the next 10 to 15 years, but the
agreement has not been approved by the Senate, and no implementing
rules have been written.

"This hadn't really been on people's radar screen until climate
change started becoming an issue," said one EPA official involved in
reducing pollution from cars, who asked not to be identified by name.

The EPA has not proposed a solution at this point, and is seeking
public comment on its study. Auto industry experts say they could
solve the problem by tinkering with the catalytic converter, but some
environmentalists suggest that the growing production of nitrous
oxide is yet another reason to move away from gasoline-powered cars.
The EPA's study estimated that nitrous oxide may represent about one-
sixth of the global warming effect that results from gasoline use.

"It's like, clean is not green," said Sheila Lynch, executive
director of the Northeast Alternative Vehicle Coalition, a public-
private partnership that encourages non-traditional power sources.

Another expert, Christopher S. Weaver, an engineering consultant who
wrote a study on the subject for the environmental agency, said, "We
haven't cared enough to establish standards."

Precisely how much nitrous oxide the converters produce remains an
issue. A report used by the EPA in preparing its greenhouse gas
study, calculated that a car with a fuel economy of about 19 miles a
gallon would produce .27 grams of nitrous oxide per mile. That
represents an amount that is about one-third the limit of emissions
for nitrogen oxide, the chemicals causing smog.

Steven H. Cadle, a research scientist at General Motors, said, "it's
a huge number." In contrast, an older car without a catalytic
converter produces much larger amounts of nitrogen oxides, but only
about a tenth as much nitrous oxide, the greenhouse gas.

The EPA calculated that production of nitrous oxide from vehicles
rose by nearly 50 percent between 1990 and 1996 as older cars without
converters have neared extinction. Using a standard unit of measure
for global warming gases, millions of metric tons of carbon
equivalent, nitrous oxide emissions rose to 54.7 million tons from
36.7 million during those years, the study said.

The contradictory impact of the converter has not been lost on
environmental officials or industry experts, who continue to debate
not only the extent of the growing problem as well as how to reduce
the emissions in future years.

Ned Sullivan, the head of the Maine Department of Environmental
Protection, said the converter problem requires a "comprehensive"
response. "This specific issue fits into a broader context that our
regulatory system has tended to deal with pollutants on an
individual, rather than a comprehensive, basis," he said.

He and others favor moving away from today's typical car design, a
big gasoline engine driving the wheels, to electric cars. Maine would
like electric cars. Another solution is hybrid cars, which use small,
efficient engines running on gasoline to help turn the wheels and to
charge batteries for electric motors that also run the wheels. Those
have much higher fuel economy, and thus lower greenhouse gas
emissions.

Car industry experts, however, favor less drastic changes. They
propose cutting nitrous oxide production by adjusting catalytic
converters in future models. They suspect that the gas is produced
when the converter is warming up, and believe the converters could be
redesigned to reach optimum temperature faster. That would also help
them destroy other pollutants better.

Weaver said that measurements on more kinds of cars and light trucks
would be needed to be certain about the size of the problem. But
Weaver said, "It is quite clear that you produce nitrous oxide in a
catalyst, in some circumstances."

At the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental group, an
expert on transportation pollution, Roland Hwang, said, "We can't be
pushing forward trying to reduce smog while making the global warming
problem worse; we can't have programs that undercut each other." He
said this was evidence that the transportation system would have to
use something besides gasoline.

Cadle, of General Motors would not go that far. But, he said, "You
have to be holistic and try and look at everything, which is
obviously difficult."

So let me get this straight. According to the EPA we're still gonna cook to death, but we'll die laughing thanks to their meddling.

I have no problem with reducing emissions where practical.  For a variety of reasons, less emissions is a good thing.

I’m a global warming skeptic, yet my behavior aligns better with reducing emissions than others I hear banging the global warming drum.  My wife and I frequently walk to dinner if it’s within a mile or two of home.  Sometimes I commute to work by bike.  We frequently run errands, go visit friends on our bikes, or plan a day around biking to the market, doing something downtown, and eating.  We have a semi-pedestrian lifestyle.  Do we do it because we think we're saving the environment?  No.  We do it because we enjoy it and it’s a healthy lifestyle.  If it is better for the environment, bonus.

What frosts me is people who lecture about how everyone else needs to do something about it yet make no contribution themselves to lowering emissions.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on September 25, 2014, 03:12:28 pm
You both fail to grasp the context of my message from the two articles posted.  Both sources cited believe climate change is quite real.  However, both agree the science is far from settled in terms of cause, remediation, and projection of future temperatures and ramifications.  One even touches on the subject of the increase in polar ice as well as flattening of the warming curve over the last 16 years.

POINT: Climate change science is far from “unsettled” and climate change models are far from absolute.  The scientific community is in disagreement as to solutions to climate change or even if it can be manipulated.



The polar ice has not been increasing for 16 years as the structure of your statement is trying to imply....conflate!  It has increased for 2 years, will see about the final results for this year.

And fixed the other problem for you....

As for "solutions" - there are none that we will ever take, let alone making small steps in the right direction....just as fixing the rain forests is a small piece in the effort, so to is the reduction of burning stuff to generate CO2.  Enough small pieces may slow the process enough to mitigate whatever may be the worst effects.  NO ONE is saying that is the whole solution, except when the RWRE tries to put those words in other peoples mouths to advance their economic scare tactics.

If, as a society, we really wanted to 'solve' a vast multitude of ills we are faced with, there would be an effort or "push" to fusion power production of the magnitude  we saw with previous BHAG's* during our glory days.  Things like the Manhattan Project, and the effort to go to the moon.  But that would create such a broad and sweeping change to our economy and society in general, and there are insufficient 'visionaries' in a position to advance that effort, such that it will never happen in my lifetime.

*BHAG = Big, Hairy, Audacious Goals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Hairy_Audacious_Goal



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on September 25, 2014, 03:16:24 pm

The polar ice has not been increasing for 16 years as the structure of your statement is trying to imply....conflate!  It has increased for 2 years, will see about the final results for this year.

And fixed the other problem for you....

As for "solutions" - there are none that we will ever take, let alone making small steps in the right direction....just as fixing the rain forests is a small piece in the effort, so to is the reduction of burning stuff to generate CO2.  Enough small pieces may slow the process enough to mitigate whatever may be the worst effects.  NO ONE is saying that is the whole solution, except when the RWRE tries to put those words in other peoples mouths to advance their economic scare tactics.

If, as a society, we really wanted to 'solve' a vast multitude of ills we are faced with, there would be an effort or "push" to fusion power production of the magnitude  we saw with previous BHAG's* during our glory days.  Things like the Manhattan Project, and the effort to go to the moon.  But that would create such a broad and sweeping change to our economy and society in general, and there are insufficient 'visionaries' in a position to advance that effort, such that it will never happen in my lifetime.

*BHAG = Big, Hairy, Audacious Goals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Hairy_Audacious_Goal



No, I was not implying polar ice has increased for 16 years.  I neglected to add it’s increased the past two years and the temp rise has flattened over the last 16. 

So, are you in disagreement from “the script” that reduced CO2 emissions would help alleviate climate weirding or not?  Take a ritalin and try again  ;D


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on September 25, 2014, 03:29:22 pm
No, I was not implying polar ice has increased for 16 years.  I neglected to add it’s increased the past two years and the temp rise has flattened over the last 16. 

So, are you in disagreement from “the script” that reduced CO2 emissions would help alleviate climate weirding or not?  Take a ritalin and try again  ;D


No, not in disagreement with it - not in agreement either.  It is ambiguous and difficult to predict any type of exact result EXCEPT that we are seeing increased volatility - known fact.  And since CO2 IS absolutely at a very dramatically different "operating point" (double) than at any time in almost half a million years - it would be a reasonable observation that volatility will continue to increase and is based somehow on that change in operating point.  A conservative, thoughtful approach would be to look at the numbers we do have - rising average global temperatures and skyrocketing CO2 levels, and consider stopping or slowing the one we KNOW for a fact that we not only have control of, but have been manipulating for a couple hundred years in a big way - release of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Take a pause in the action and watch for a while to see what changes, or doesn't change, next!  Make a scientific experiment, if you will.  And the best way to do that would be to get fusion power in place, and stop the majority of carbon release - whether said destruction is by burning or cut/slash destruction of living biomass.  Probably a 30 to 50 year process....with a society and business structure that is on a 30, 60, 90 day timetable.  Does not bode well for us!


I don't believe in "Chicken Little" - but what is readily observable by anyone with more than a cabbage-head should be of at least some serious concern and give pause to our "business as usual" approach.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on September 25, 2014, 05:19:46 pm
I’m a global warming skeptic

But why? Nothing you have posted, in fact nothing that anyone has posted that isn't falsehood filled crap funded by Koch, Exxon and big energy argues against global warming at all. There isn't a single shred of fact based argument that has been made that argues global warming is somehow wrong or a hoax. So why are you still a skeptic? What fact based, science based argument can you still make?

Your position is an emotional one, and it's been paid for millions of dollars in marketing and propaganda, it has no basis in science or evidence or facts.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on September 25, 2014, 05:47:05 pm
So your plan of action would be?

Yours appears to be do anything, even if it's wrong.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on September 25, 2014, 05:49:51 pm
Despite your protestations, the science of global warming, climate change, climate anomaly, etc. is far from “settled".  There’s a school of thought that reforestation actually increases levels of V.O.C.’s thought to be contributors to global warming.

From that bastion of conservatism, NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/20/opinion/to-save-the-planet-dont-plant-trees.html?_r=0

Dr. Unger is assistant professor of atmospheric chemistry at Yale
http://environment.yale.edu/unger-group/nyt-op-ed/

Dr. Unger must have lost her research grant.
 
 :D



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on September 25, 2014, 06:24:21 pm
Yours appears to be do anything, even if it's wrong.




No.  And you know better than that.  Do many things.  Scientifically, in a measured, experimental fashion.  You remember lab experiments from school don't you?  Well, do that....on many fronts.

And many things ARE being done!  In many places around the world.  Most likely the best minds available....as opposed to the "bought out" hacks from the oil industry.  They may be scientifically technically competent, but are morally and intellectually dishonest with themselves.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on September 25, 2014, 08:49:31 pm
But why? Nothing you have posted, in fact nothing that anyone has posted that isn't falsehood filled crap funded by Koch, Exxon and big energy argues against global warming at all. There isn't a single shred of fact based argument that has been made that argues global warming is somehow wrong or a hoax. So why are you still a skeptic? What fact based, science based argument can you still make?

Your position is an emotional one, and it's been paid for millions of dollars in marketing and propaganda, it has no basis in science or evidence or facts.


If anything, the alarmist’s position is one of emotion.  Mine actually is based in fact, a fair amount gleaned from government sources:

IPCC concludes that the average sea and land temps increased by 1.53F or .85C from 1880 to 2012.  Sorry, I don’t see it as a cataclysm.  Note the NOAA graphic.  I don’t believe the Koch Brothers have purchased NOAA.

(https://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2014/201301-201312.png)

Couple that with flattening or a slowdown over 16 years in warming as well as ice growing in the polar areas the last two years that tells me the earth likely has enough interworking parts to deal with warming and cooling to balance it out.  To be honest, with just the sheer increase in BTU output from transportation and industry over the last century, I’m surprised it has not warmed more, yet it has not. 

It’s funny you mention the Kochs almost as these swashbuckling environmental polluters.  Billions of dollars are to be made in low emission flare and burner technology, of which Koch Industries gets a good market share through their burner and flare business units, some of which are located in Tulsa.  Their John Zink unit is a pioneer of ultra low NOx technology.  I work in the combustion industry and interface with chemists, physicists, and engineers at burner and flare companies as well as those who manufacture fired pressure vessels who have a far better grasp of climate and emissions than I do and who appear even more cynical and skeptical than I am. 

I believe it’s the simple fact that many people don’t consider 1.5 degrees over 134 years an alarming trend considering the wider swings throughout history.  But to listen to the emotional hysteria over it, people would have you believe it’s gained 10 degrees and and NYC will be under water tomorrow.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on September 25, 2014, 08:56:18 pm
If anything, the alarmist’s position is one of emotion.  Mine actually is based in fact, a fair amount gleaned from government sources:

IPCC concludes that the average sea and land temps increased by 1.53F or .85C from 1880 to 2012.  Sorry, I don’t see it as a cataclysm.  Note the NOAA graphic.  I don’t believe the Koch Brothers have purchased NOAA.

(https://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2014/201301-201312.png)

Couple that with flattening or a slowdown over 16 years in warming as well as ice growing in the polar areas the last two years that tells me the earth likely has enough interworking parts to deal with warming and cooling to balance it out.  To be honest, with just the sheer increase in BTU output from transportation and industry over the last century, I’m surprised it has not warmed more, yet it has not. 

It’s funny you mention the Kochs almost as these swashbuckling environmental polluters.  Billions of dollars are to be made in low emission flare and burner technology, of which Koch Industries gets a good market share through their burner and flare business units, some of which are located in Tulsa.  Their John Zink unit is a pioneer of ultra low NOx technology.  I work in the combustion industry and interface with chemists, physicists, and engineers at burner and flare companies as well as those who manufacture fired pressure vessels who have a far better grasp of climate and emissions than I do and who appear even more cynical and skeptical than I am. 

I believe it’s the simple fact that many people don’t consider 1.5 degrees over 134 years an alarming trend considering the wider swings throughout history.  But to listen to the emotional hysteria over it, people would have you believe it’s gained 10 degrees and and NYC will be under water tomorrow.

Interesting site.  Shows what would flood at various sea level increases.  Tulsa is safe for a while.  New Orleans, not so much.
http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=33.6312,-117.9149&z=4&t=3




Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on September 25, 2014, 09:03:40 pm
At 30 meters or less, you could water ski in Sacramento!


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on September 25, 2014, 10:21:41 pm
At 30 meters or less, you could water ski in Sacramento!

I still think in feet rather than meters.  30 meters = approx 98 feet. That's a significant rise in sea level.  Algore would be proud.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on September 25, 2014, 10:42:03 pm
At 30 meters or less, you could water ski in Sacramento!

Ummm, you can water ski from Alcatraz to Sacramento now........... ;D


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on September 26, 2014, 08:44:07 am
Ummm, you can water ski from Alcatraz to Sacramento now........... ;D

That would be an awesome tourist expedition to sell.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on September 26, 2014, 09:28:19 am
If anything, the alarmist’s position is one of emotion.  Mine actually is based in fact, a fair amount gleaned from government sources:

IPCC concludes that the average sea and land temps increased by 1.53F or .85C from 1880 to 2012.  Sorry, I don’t see it as a cataclysm.  Note the NOAA graphic.  I don’t believe the Koch Brothers have purchased NOAA.

(https://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2014/201301-201312.png)

Couple that with flattening or a slowdown over 16 years in warming as well as ice growing in the polar areas the last two years that tells me the earth likely has enough interworking parts to deal with warming and cooling to balance it out.  To be honest, with just the sheer increase in BTU output from transportation and industry over the last century, I’m surprised it has not warmed more, yet it has not.  


It’s funny you mention the Kochs almost as these swashbuckling environmental polluters.  Billions of dollars are to be made in low emission flare and burner technology, of which Koch Industries gets a good market share through their burner and flare business units, some of which are located in Tulsa.  Their John Zink unit is a pioneer of ultra low NOx technology.  I work in the combustion industry and interface with chemists, physicists, and engineers at burner and flare companies as well as those who manufacture fired pressure vessels who have a far better grasp of climate and emissions than I do and who appear even more cynical and skeptical than I am.  

I believe it’s the simple fact that many people don’t consider 1.5 degrees over 134 years an alarming trend considering the wider swings throughout history.  But to listen to the emotional hysteria over it, people would have you believe it’s gained 10 degrees and and NYC will be under water tomorrow.

We're a little cooler (by about 2 degrees) since the last few times this happened. Of course this is based on geology instead of 'climate science' and therefore does not follow the same political requirements.
(http://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif)

The pattern however, does reliably duplicate itself, so there is a very high probability that the next 50,000 years will require a warmer jacket.

Even if we look at the sub-cycle taken from ice cores, sorry, geology stuff again, not 'climate science', you can only make the correlation with CO2 if you zoom in to about a hundred years and ignore just a little over 99% of the data available.

(http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif)

We can very accurately predict whether we get warmer or colder within the primary cycle (100s of thousands of years) and to some extent within the sub-cycle (10s of thousand of years), but you have to do quite a bit of acrobatics to infer a correlation to CO2, and go even further to isolate that to man-made CO2.  But. . . that's where politics is so important. Politics gives us the ability to make associations like this.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_concentrations_and_global_annual_average_temperatures_over_the_years_1880_to_2009.png)

It's kinda like when I show my 5yo a picture of a bug taken with a microscope.  It's going to give him nightmares initially unless I explain that it's the size of a dust spec.  However, if my goal is to encourage some behavior, I could tell him that they are going to crawl all over him if his room is dirty.  What I've told him is true, and accurate.  The correlation between a dirty room and the dust mite is at best questionable, but he's 5 and would rarely question my authority.  I've simply omitted a massive amount of information, to purposefully motivate a behavior that has value to me.
(http://www.coolhealthguides.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Dust-mite.jpg)
$^


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: BKDotCom on September 26, 2014, 11:25:03 am
after skimming this thread...
Apparently "teach the controversy" is working


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on September 26, 2014, 11:39:30 am
So now that the completely untrained armchair scientists are done analyzing NOAAs information, here's what NOAA actually said themselves it all means.


Front page summary:
Quote
State of the Climate in 2013 Report Release

Image of State of the Climate in 2013 Report Cover
In 2013, the vast majority of worldwide climate indicators—greenhouse gases, sea levels, global temperatures, etc.—continued to reflect trends of a warmer planet, according to the indicators assessed in the State of the Climate in 2013 report, released online July 17, 2014, by the American Meteorological Society.

Scientists from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., served as the lead editors of the report, which was compiled by 425 scientists from 57 countries around the world (highlights, visuals, full report (link is external)). It provides a detailed update on global climate indicators, notable weather events, and other data collected by environmental monitoring stations and instruments on air, land, sea, and ice.

“These findings reinforce what scientists for decades have observed: that our planet is becoming a warmer place,” said NOAA Administrator Kathryn Sullivan, Ph.D. “This report provides the foundational information we need to develop tools and services for communities, business, and nations to prepare for, and build resilience to, the impacts of climate change.”

The report uses dozens of climate indicators to track patterns, changes, and trends of the global climate system, including greenhouse gases; temperatures throughout the atmosphere, ocean, and land; cloud cover; sea level; ocean salinity; sea ice extent; and snow cover. These indicators often reflect many thousands of measurements from multiple independent datasets. The report also details cases of unusual and extreme regional events, such as Super Typhoon Haiyan, which devastated portions of Southeast Asia in November 2013.

Here's the site for the full report:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2014/20140717_stateoftheclimate.html



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on September 26, 2014, 12:06:26 pm
So now that the completely untrained armchair scientists are done analyzing NOAAs information, here's what NOAA actually said themselves it all means.


Front page summary:
Here's the site for the full report:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2014/20140717_stateoftheclimate.html



And that is all absolutely and irrefutably true.  The dataset supports it 100% for the limited sample. 
It is also true and FACT that this creature will eat your skin!
(http://www.coolhealthguides.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Dust-mite.jpg)
I will share with you though, that a dust mite is only a quarter of a millimeter in size and poses no threat to you.

"Idiots" like myself, sometimes like to consider a larger dataset, and I realize that is very unacceptable for you.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on September 26, 2014, 12:13:51 pm
M’kay, some parts were cooler, others warmer.  It’s the nature of “estimated” which leaves me a little underwhelmed. 

What’s your solution to all this anyhow, Swake?  What are you doing about it?

Quote
To calculate global average temperature, four independent teams accessed air temperatures from weather stations on land and sea surface temperatures collected by ships and buoys. Each team used their own methods to analyze and merge the land and ocean datasets to estimate annual temperature for the whole globe. Though their methods differ, all four analyses are in close agreement.


Quote
2013 State of the Climate: Earth’s surface temperature

Why it matters

Of all the planets in our neighborhood, Earth has a surface temperature that is uniquely friendly to life. That friendliness is the result of a balancing act between incoming sunlight and outgoing thermal energy—the heat radiated back to space by every part of the Earth system, from land to oceans to clouds and, especially, by the gases in the atmosphere. Surface temperature is one of several signals that indicate the status of Earth’s heat budget. Earth’s  long-term warming trend shows that the balance has changed: the atmosphere absorbs and radiates more heat (thermal infrared energy) than it used to.

(http://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/inline_all/public/GlobalSurfaceTemperatureAnomaly2013_610.jpg?itok=HZ27CxRy)

Surface temperatures in 2013 compared to the 1981-2010 average. NOAA map by Dan Pisut, NOAA Environmental Visualization Lab, based on Merged Land and Ocean Surface Temperature data from the National Climatic Data Center. Adapted from Plate 2.1(c) in State of the Climate in 2013.
Surface temperatures in 2013 were warmer than average across most of the world. Notably, Australia had its warmest year since national records began in 1910. Far-western Asia and the far-western Pacific Ocean also saw record-high average temperatures. At the same time, a swath of central North America, the Pacific Ocean west of South America and along the equator, and a few other isolated locations saw cooler-than-average temperatures.

The impacts of temperature on people, agricultural activities, and natural ecosystem are more often related to extreme temperature events than they are to changes in long-term averages, so the 2013 State of the Climate report also included an analysis of worldwide temperature extremes since 1950.

The year 2013 ranked within the top 10 years for the frequency of warm days and in the bottom 10 years for the frequency of cool days. More warm days than average occurred over large parts of Europe, central and east Asia, and Australia, while fewer warm days than average were observed over central North America. Regional and global average time series of these statistics suggest that the increase in warm day frequency and decrease in cool night frequency is part of a long-term trend.

(http://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/inline_all/public/globalsurfacetemp_insitu_all2013.gif?itok=_66u3yfU)

Multiple long-term records of Earth’s average temperature (different colored lines) since the late nineteenth century show a similar pattern: year to year variability combined with a long-term warming trend. The lines shows how far above or below the 1981–2010 average (dashed line at zero) the combined land and ocean temperature has been each year since 1880. Graph adapted from Figure 2.1, in BAMS State of the Climate in 2013.
Globally-averaged surface temperature for 2013 was 0.36 - 0.38° Fahrenheit above the 1981–2010 average, placing it among the top 10 warmest years since record-keeping began. Depending on the dataset considered, the year ranked from second to sixth warmest among the 134 years on record. Relative warming of the equatorial Pacific from cooler-than-average La Niña conditions to ENSO-neutral conditions helped elevate global average temperature slightly above the two previous years.

Since 1976, every year including 2013 has had an average global temperature above the long-term average. Over this 37-year period, temperature warmed at an average of 0.50 °F (0.28 °C) per decade over land and 0.20 °F (0.11 °C) per decade over the ocean.

To calculate global average temperature, four independent teams accessed air temperatures from weather stations on land and sea surface temperatures collected by ships and buoys. Each team used their own methods to analyze and merge the land and ocean datasets to estimate annual temperature for the whole globe. Though their methods differ, all four analyses are in close agreement.

References
A. Sánchez-Lugo, J. J. Kennedy, and P. Berrisford. 2014: [Global climate] Temperature [in “State of the Climate in 2013”]. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 95 (7), S9-S10.

M.G. Donat and R.J.H. Dunn. 2014: [Global Climate] Temperature Extreme Indices in 2013 [in “State of the Climate in 2013”]. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 95 (7), S12-S13.

NOAA National Climatic Data Center, State of the Climate - Global Analysis - Annual 2013, published online January 2014, retrieved on June 30, 2014 from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on September 26, 2014, 12:14:58 pm
And that is all absolutely and irrefutably true.  The dataset supports it 100% for the limited sample.  
It is also true and FACT that this creature will eat your skin!
(http://www.coolhealthguides.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Dust-mite.jpg)
I will share with you though, that a dust mite is only a quarter of a millimeter in size and poses no threat to you.

"Idiots" like myself, sometimes like to consider a larger dataset, and I realize that is very unacceptable for you.



You are always quite the expert at everything. You prove it all the time.

In fact, why don't you go tell your IT director about your ridiculous your statement about Android being a superior business platform and see how fast he starts laughing at you.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on September 26, 2014, 12:35:39 pm
So now that the completely untrained armchair scientists are done analyzing NOAAs information, here's what NOAA actually said themselves it all means.

Who better than the experts could manipulate the data to a desired conclusion?



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on September 26, 2014, 12:47:33 pm
You are always quite the expert at everything. You prove it all the time.

In fact, why don't you go tell your IT director about your ridiculous your statement about Android being a superior business platform and see how fast he starts laughing at you.



Probably not.  My IT director is an "Idiot" too. We have experience porting applications to both platforms (also Windows phone/tablets).  Can't touch Android for price, reliability, battery life, and a whole host of other factors related to managing the devices on the network.

But then again, we're "Idiots" so there is that.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on September 26, 2014, 12:49:08 pm
That would be an awesome tourist expedition to sell.


It would...maybe offer prizes as part of the tour package to who can go the furthest...

But then there are all those low water dams to get around....


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on September 26, 2014, 12:53:05 pm
Probably not.  My IT director is an "Idiot" too. We have experience porting applications to both platforms (also Windows phone/tablets).  Can't touch Android for price, reliability, battery life, and a whole host of other factors related to managing the devices on the network.

But then again, we're "Idiots" so there is that.

So platform fragmentation, lagging app development and most of all security aren’t important to your org?

Good to know.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on September 26, 2014, 01:00:17 pm
So platform fragmentation, lagging app development and most of all security aren’t important to your org?

Good to know.


I suppose that would be a huge concern if any of that was true.  :D

Just do what you do.  This is not a good road for you to be on.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on September 26, 2014, 01:03:26 pm
Probably not.  My IT director is an "Idiot" too. We have experience porting applications to both platforms (also Windows phone/tablets).  Can't touch Android for price, reliability, battery life, and a whole host of other factors related to managing the devices on the network.

But then again, we're "Idiots" so there is that.


I read a review (I think it was EE Times...?) and they were talking about how great it is that Apple finally got all the features that Android has...since 2012.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on September 26, 2014, 01:10:33 pm

I read a review (I think it was EE Times...?) and they were talking about how great it is that Apple finally got all the features that Android has...since 2012.



I think the Near Field Communicates is the biggest.  I got a kick out of the "Revolutionary new Apple Pay" that we've been using on Android devices for a couple of years now.  We also have the ability to use it for mobile inventory tags that would require a plug-in fob and custom app on an iOS device.  Now it will likely be a few more years before Apple allows the NFC on their devices to be capable of all of the functions that Android and even Windows allows.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on September 26, 2014, 01:11:02 pm
I suppose that would be a huge concern if any of that was true.  :D

Just do what you do.  This is not a good road for you to be on.

Good to know you are up to date on these things.

So tell me, with most of the best and secure Android tablets today being made by Samsung, how are you going to handle them moving to Tizen? What are your plans for the coming fragmentation of Android into more and more sealed off proprietary forks like what Amazon is doing with the Fire?

What's your company's BYOD policy?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on September 26, 2014, 01:30:29 pm
Good to know you are up to date on these things.

So tell me, with most of the best and secure Android tablets today being made by Samsung, how are you going to handle them moving to Tizen? What are your plans for the coming fragmentation of Android into more and more sealed off proprietary forks like what Amazon is doing with the Fire?

What's your company's BYOD policy?



Yeah...about that secure thing.... don't really think they are all that secure yet. 


I am curious how Samsung moving to their own in-house microprocessor is gonna affect stuff.  The s5 has several variants, but the ones that interest me most are the Qualcomm (Snapdragon) versus Samsung processor (Exynos 5 Octa) versions.  Qualcomm version has them beat so far on power/performance/battery life, but Samsung is really big into semiconductors and should be able to easily close that gap.  Gonna have to buy one soon for SWMBO and it will have to be Qualcomm version right now....if she will put up with the size of it.








Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on September 26, 2014, 01:58:25 pm
Good to know you are up to date on these things.

So tell me, with most of the best and secure Android tablets today being made by Samsung, how are you going to handle them moving to Tizen? What are your plans for the coming fragmentation of Android into more and more sealed off proprietary forks like what Amazon is doing with the Fire?

What's your company's BYOD policy?


 :D Don't live in India or China, so don't care about Samsung experimenting with OSOS.  Manufacturers do that all the time.

NOT being sealed off is what has helped the Android market eclipse all others, and the trend now is towards more of the Google core devices. 
(http://www.businessinsider.com/image/537b72f169bedd1e04384fab-1200-924/smartphoneosmarketshare.png)
We do not dictate the devices our clients use, we simply provide recommendations and information on the limitations each system will present them with.  Of course the typically pay us to support them, so if the do opt for an iOS environment, that's their decision. It just means it will cost them more.

Can we stop playing this game now?

(DISCLAIMER: The graph above only represents 15 years of data, and does not represent mobile OS market performance over the past century.)
 


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Townsend on September 26, 2014, 02:13:50 pm

NOT being sealed off is what has helped the Android market eclipse all others,


Cost, low end and "ultra" low end.

That was why Apple tried the C.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on September 26, 2014, 03:10:11 pm

It would...maybe offer prizes as part of the tour package to who can go the furthest...

But then there are all those low water dams to get around....


If I'm not mistaken there are no LWD from north of the Sacramento airport to the bay. Fun business might be river cruises from Sacramento to Fisherman's Wharf. Do a down and back from downtown Sacramento.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on September 29, 2014, 12:43:09 pm
If I'm not mistaken there are no LWD from north of the Sacramento airport to the bay. Fun business might be river cruises from Sacramento to Fisherman's Wharf. Do a down and back from downtown Sacramento.


Probably not...Sac is only about 15 feet above sea level or so....  Back in 80's I did some flowmeter work with their state water dept - they would stock streams in the area, go down to the end of the river and catch the fish that made it that far, then haul them in trucks back upstream to restock.  Apparently made some great fishing, but seems odd on the face of it.  The dept guys talked about fish ladders, but didn't specifically mention the canal....





Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: RecycleMichael on September 29, 2014, 12:51:13 pm
I am a digital idiot. Can someone explain what an iPhone can do that my Samsung Note 3 can't do?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: patric on September 29, 2014, 01:01:34 pm
I am a digital idiot. Can someone explain what an iPhone can do that my Samsung Note 3 can't do?

Compel you to use your data plan to send pictures/music/etc. to the phone 3 feet from you when you could just do it with Bluetooth.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on September 29, 2014, 01:11:25 pm
Compel you to use your data plan to send pictures/music/etc. to the phone 3 feet from you when you could just do it with Bluetooth.

Or in the case of most newer Androids, NFC.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on September 29, 2014, 01:15:36 pm
I am a digital idiot. Can someone explain what an iPhone can do that my Samsung Note 3 can't do?

Makes sure my life is completely free of Teh Microsoftz.  Well with the exception of office.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on September 29, 2014, 01:33:57 pm
I am a digital idiot. Can someone explain what an iPhone can do that my Samsung Note 3 can't do?


Less.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on September 29, 2014, 01:33:07 pm
I am a digital idiot. Can someone explain what an iPhone can do that my Samsung Note 3 can't do?

Absolutely nothing.  It can however now do things that your Samsung has been able to do for quite some time. Your old Note 3 will give you more battery life under normal use too.

In fact, battery life is one of my main concerns when purchasing a com appliance. We've got some Motorolas that will go almost three days under regular use on a charge.  My HTC will give me two days if I remain in 4G land, but travel and roaming will drop me down to a little over 14hrs.  My old iPhone and the guys that still use iPhones around the office typically remain plugged in, and have become conditioned to keep a charger on them at all times.    

Tethering is another big issue. We use our phones for wireless internet all the time at trade shows and on-site presentations. Tethering on an iPhone will completely deplete the battery, even if plugged into the charger.  I think we were able to get about 3 hours out of one once at a trade show.  The HTCs, and Motorolas don't seem to have much more of a drain when tethering as normal data use, and you can use them tethered all day long.  Samsungs do just slightly better than iPhones but really get HOT, like burn your hand hot!  I had a Samsung Galaxy S4 warp it's shell from tethering to a POS system at a show last year.  Phone was fine, just needed a new back panel.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on September 29, 2014, 01:45:30 pm
Absolutely nothing.  It can however now do things that your Samsung has been able to do for quite some time. Your old Note 3 will give you more battery life under normal use too.

In fact, battery life is one of my main concerns when purchasing a com appliance. We've got some Motorolas that will go almost three days under regular use on a charge.  My HTC will give me two days if I remain in 4G land, but travel and roaming will drop me down to a little over 14hrs.  My old iPhone and the guys that still use iPhones around the office typically remain plugged in, and have become conditioned to keep a charger on them at all times.    

Tethering is another big issue. We use our phones for wireless internet all the time at trade shows and on-site presentations. Tethering on an iPhone will completely deplete the battery, even if plugged into the charger.  I think we were able to get about 3 hours out of one once at a trade show.  The HTCs, and Motorolas don't seem to have much more of a drain when tethering as normal data use, and you can use them tethered all day long.  Samsungs do just slightly better than iPhones but really get HOT, like burn your hand hot!  I had a Samsung Galaxy S4 warp it's shell from tethering to a POS system at a show last year.  Phone was fine, just needed a new back panel.




I have a Samsung Galaxy Note 1 that has a big add-on battery (5100 maH), and can usually get all day operation.  Tethering is very good with it, except for battery life, but the right charger can keep up with (charger from AT&T, high capacity).  Gets very warm but doesn't burn or melt....can easily hold in hand.

It has other issues from time to time, but have found that about 80% of them are due to AT&T.  Blech!!

Am going to try Verizon sim card with the phone to see if any better, but not expecting much.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on September 29, 2014, 01:56:57 pm
.....I had a Samsung Galaxy S4 warp it's shell from tethering to a POS system at a show last year.  Phone was fine, just needed a new back panel.



Interesting, I have an S5 for work and tethered at an event in Oklahoma City last month.  The phone got warm, but not excessively so.  Ran it most of the day tethered.  Maybe that was something they improved upon.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on September 29, 2014, 06:05:59 pm
This is from Forbes, the news source du jour around here after it ran a story about how great Obama was vs. Regean.

Quote
The climate change community has reacted to this wreck of a policy not with second thoughts or openness to alternative frameworks, but with rage.  The fact that global warming has slowed or stopped, and that an increasing number of peer reviewed studies conclude that climate sensitivity is overestimated (meaning that the problem is either over-predicted or will be much slower in developing) is greeted with denunciations, and a shockingly shallow new refrain that “97 percent of scientists believe in climate change,” which is like saying that “100 percent of scientists believe in gravity” in response to any query about the mysteries of how gravity actually works.  When you point out the unreality of green energy dreams, you are met with foam-flecked denunciations of the Koch brothers.  In fact the opposition to the climateers is tiny by comparison to the resources deployed by the environmental establishment, not to mention the massive sympathy they receive from an uncritical media.  From the way people like Al Gore complain you’d think the climateers were up against the teachers union.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenhayward/2014/09/29/climate-change-has-jumped-the-shark/


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: rebound on September 29, 2014, 07:39:57 pm
Interesting, I have an S5 for work and tethered at an event in Oklahoma City last month.  The phone got warm, but not excessively so.  Ran it most of the day tethered.  Maybe that was something they improved upon.

I use my iphone 5 all the time with my laptop when traveling.  But I use the phone to create a local hotspot instead of tethering directly.   All our demo guys (and gals) use the iphone hotspot, and it seems to work fine for them also.   

I practically live in Starbucks when traveling, and I've found I get better connectivity with the iphone hotspot than via the Starbucks wifi.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on September 29, 2014, 08:20:46 pm
I use my iphone 5 all the time with my laptop when traveling.  But I use the phone to create a local hotspot instead of tethering directly.   All our demo guys (and gals) use the iphone hotspot, and it seems to work fine for them also.   

I practically live in Starbucks when traveling, and I've found I get better connectivity with the iphone hotspot than via the Starbucks wifi.

For me, tethering = local hotspot.  Should have clarified that.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on September 29, 2014, 08:56:15 pm
For me, tethering = local hotspot.  Should have clarified that.

Sounds like Gaspar’s got really hot.  Maybe tethering is leading to global warming.  :o


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on September 30, 2014, 07:42:47 am
For me, tethering = local hotspot.  Should have clarified that.

Yeah.  Same here.  I don't know anyone who uses a cord any more.  That's so 2009.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: rebound on September 30, 2014, 08:14:48 am
Yeah.  Same here.  I don't know anyone who uses a cord any more.  That's so 2009.

I'm so old-school...    I tethered, with cord, for a few years.  Then about 4-5 years ago I moved over to a wireless card.  Then about three years ago work made us all choose between a dedicated card and the wireless hotspots.  The demo teams went to external hotspot devices, and then some over to using their iphones.  I just didn't trust the iphone, and was also worried about battery life, so was a little late to the party.  But I have not had any problems.  No heating issues, and battery life hasn't been an issue but for the most part I do keep it charging off the PC when set up the hot spot.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: patric on September 30, 2014, 10:20:30 am
Yeah.  Same here.  I don't know anyone who uses a cord any more.  That's so 2009.

GM's big thing now is select vehicles come with the option of in-vehicle MiFi... I guess for people who cant set it up on their smartphones but are willing to sign another 2-year data plan contract. 

If apple is three years behind android, where does this put GM?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on September 30, 2014, 11:44:09 am
GM's big thing now is select vehicles come with the option of in-vehicle MiFi... I guess for people who cant set it up on their smartphones but are willing to sign another 2-year data plan contract. 

If apple is three years behind android, where does this put GM?

Well, if you ever test drive one of the new Audi, Mercedes, ore even Hyundai, I'd say GM is about 7-8 years behind. The voice controls are almost conversational and the displays are very intuitive.

The Sync system in the Fords is nice, but the voice controls it that are still archaic (perhaps 3 years behind).  You get a ton of options with display on the Fords, and rarely need to take your eyes of the road to find something.

Chrisler is still in bracing for Y2K.  Rented an Avenger to drive from Vegas to Palm Springs CA a few months ago (trade show to trade show).  Had about 1,700 miles on it when I got it.  Crappy tech and cabin appointments.  It seems they spent a lot of energy making the weak little engine sound mean, instead of any real refinements. By the time I turned it in at the airport, almost nothing worked properly, and the CV joints were popping around corners.  Reminded me of an 80's Pontiac.  I can see why they discontinued them.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on September 30, 2014, 12:59:20 pm
Well, if you ever test drive one of the new Audi, Mercedes, ore even Hyundai, I'd say GM is about 7-8 years behind. The voice controls are almost conversational and the displays are very intuitive.

The Sync system in the Fords is nice, but the voice controls it that are still archaic (perhaps 3 years behind).  You get a ton of options with display on the Fords, and rarely need to take your eyes of the road to find something.

Chrisler is still in bracing for Y2K.  Rented an Avenger to drive from Vegas to Palm Springs CA a few months ago (trade show to trade show).  Had about 1,700 miles on it when I got it.  Crappy tech and cabin appointments.  It seems they spent a lot of energy making the weak little engine sound mean, instead of any real refinements. By the time I turned it in at the airport, almost nothing worked properly, and the CV joints were popping around corners.  Reminded me of an 80's Pontiac.  I can see why they discontinued them.



Might help if you didn’t treat it like a rental car!

(http://ama-cdn.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/superphoto/11569937.jpg)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on September 30, 2014, 01:25:56 pm
Might help if you didn’t treat it like a rental car!

(http://ama-cdn.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/superphoto/11569937.jpg)

No kidding!  :)

My last two cars have both been Avengers and the only problem I had with the first one was a leaking radiator well within the limits of the warranty.  My new one - knock on wood.  I'm single though, so I don't need to worry about family aside from being able to transport mom back and forth to various doctor appointments.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on September 30, 2014, 01:51:56 pm
Well, if you ever test drive one of the new Audi, Mercedes, ore even Hyundai, I'd say GM is about 7-8 years behind. The voice controls are almost conversational and the displays are very intuitive.

The Sync system in the Fords is nice, but the voice controls it that are still archaic (perhaps 3 years behind).  You get a ton of options with display on the Fords, and rarely need to take your eyes of the road to find something.

Chrisler is still in bracing for Y2K.  Rented an Avenger to drive from Vegas to Palm Springs CA a few months ago (trade show to trade show).  Had about 1,700 miles on it when I got it.  Crappy tech and cabin appointments.  It seems they spent a lot of energy making the weak little engine sound mean, instead of any real refinements. By the time I turned it in at the airport, almost nothing worked properly, and the CV joints were popping around corners.  Reminded me of an 80's Pontiac.  I can see why they discontinued them.




Had a Grand Caravan for a short little trip to Dallas last week.  Low miles, too.  Wasn't too bad...everything seemed to function and the cup holder count was just right.  Engine SCREAMED trying to get up to highway speed!! 

Biggest complaint was minor - the seats could have been better, but were much better than average newer car.  I have talked to some of the seat designers (both JCI and Lear) about that and they say it's because "everyone" wants "sporty" seating.  I call BS on that nonsense!








Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on November 11, 2014, 07:23:01 pm
It's that time of year again...

Quote
Those states are South Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and Arizona. While it’s still very early, the 10-day forecast shows a potential major snowstorm for the mid-Atlantic and Northeast states late next week.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/11/only-6-states-not-expecting-snow-in-the-coming-week/


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: RecycleMichael on November 11, 2014, 07:40:22 pm
I will try from fighting this whole battle again. It is not about air temperature or snowfall. It is about the ocean temperature. The Earth is 74% water. Hotter oceans cause climate extremes. And yes, we will still have some seasonal cold weather, but of the fifteen hottest calendar years, 13 of them have been from 2001 to 2013.

But I really know that you climate deniers will never be convinced.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 11, 2014, 08:41:18 pm

Well, if you ever test drive one of the new Audi, Mercedes, ore even Hyundai, I'd say GM is about 7-8 years behind. The voice controls are almost conversational and the displays are very intuitive.




Does that mean a C300 isn't a real Mercedes??  Friend took me for a ride in one about a week ago (2013).  Just another car....seats were reasonably comfortable for a small car...probably on a par with a Ford Fusion.


Way too much emphasis on electronics in all new cars.  Understandable due to the massive margins involved for adding all that "goo".... but leaves way too many opportunities for failure and VERY expensive repairs in a relatively short time!!  And then after just a few years, replacement parts are discontinued leaving one up the creek without a paddle....





Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on November 11, 2014, 09:23:56 pm
I will try from fighting this whole battle again. It is not about air temperature or snowfall. It is about the ocean temperature. The Earth is 74% water. Hotter oceans cause climate extremes. And yes, we will still have some seasonal cold weather, but of the fifteen hottest calendar years, 13 of them have been from 2001 to 2013.

But I really know that you climate deniers will never be convinced.

And July was one of the coldest ever.

http://www.weather.com/news/weather-forecast/polar-invasion-july-record-cold-temperatures-20140716 (http://www.weather.com/news/weather-forecast/polar-invasion-july-record-cold-temperatures-20140716)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on November 11, 2014, 09:26:32 pm
And July was one of the coldest ever.

http://www.weather.com/news/weather-forecast/polar-invasion-july-record-cold-temperatures-20140716 (http://www.weather.com/news/weather-forecast/polar-invasion-july-record-cold-temperatures-20140716)

Country <> Global...  you know?  That part of phrase so vilified by the flat-earthers "Global warming".

United States doesn't equal the world.  No matter how much isolationists would like it to be.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/7

If you don't want to click the link, I'll spare you....the highlight of the article reads:

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for July 2014 was the fourth highest on record for July, at 0.64°C (1.15°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.4°F).


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on November 11, 2014, 10:13:20 pm
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for July 2014 was the fourth highest on record for July, at 0.64°C (1.15°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.4°F).

So it wasn't the highest.

Let's see what happens next July.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on November 11, 2014, 11:02:35 pm
I will try from fighting this whole battle again. It is not about air temperature or snowfall. It is about the ocean temperature. The Earth is 74% water. Hotter oceans cause climate extremes. And yes, we will still have some seasonal cold weather, but of the fifteen hottest calendar years, 13 of them have been from 2001 to 2013.

But I really know that you climate deniers will never be convinced.

Relax RM, just having fun with this thread. I will not change your mind, and you won't change mine. Now, give me what for in here or some other thread..


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on November 12, 2014, 12:07:02 am
So it wasn't the highest.

Let's see what happens next July.



The temperature has been higher than average for quite some time now.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/global-temps.shtml

NASA scientists say 2013 tied with 2009 and 2006 for the seventh warmest year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. With the exception of 1998, the 10 warmest years in the 134-year record all have occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the warmest years on record. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analyzes global surface temperatures on an ongoing basis. The analysis of 2013 data shows how Earth continues to experience temperatures warmer than those measured several decades ago.

(NASA Press Release, 1/21/2014).


But phfftttt...they're just facts.  They can be easily ignored.

(http://efficientexercise.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/NDT-science.jpg)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on November 12, 2014, 07:40:37 am
The temperature has been higher than average for quite some time now.
But phfftttt...they're just facts.  They can be easily ignored.

And now from a different end of the world:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=82160

(http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/82000/82160/spseaice_am2_2013265.jpg)
The map above shows sea ice extent around Antarctica on September 22, 2013, when ice covered more of the Southern Ocean than at any other time in the satellite record. The map is based data from the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2) sensor on Japan’s Global Change Observation Mission 1st-Water (GCOM-W1) satellite. Land is dark gray, and ice shelves—which are attached to land-based glaciers but floating on the ocean—are light gray. The yellow outline shows the median sea ice distribution for September from 1981 to 2000. Sea ice extent is defined as the total area in which the ice concentration is at least 15 percent.

(http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/82000/82160/spseaicemax_extent_chart_2013.jpg)

Antarctic sea ice cover reaches its minimum extent each year in February or March; the ice cover then grows until reaching its maximum extent in September or October. The graph above shows the maximum extent for each September since 1979 in millions of square kilometers. There is variability from year to year, though the overall trend shows growth of about 1.5 percent per decade.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on November 12, 2014, 07:46:08 am
And now from a different end of the world:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=82160

(http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/82000/82160/spseaice_am2_2013265.jpg)
The map above shows sea ice extent around Antarctica on September 22, 2013, when ice covered more of the Southern Ocean than at any other time in the satellite record. The map is based data from the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2) sensor on Japan’s Global Change Observation Mission 1st-Water (GCOM-W1) satellite. Land is dark gray, and ice shelves—which are attached to land-based glaciers but floating on the ocean—are light gray. The yellow outline shows the median sea ice distribution for September from 1981 to 2000. Sea ice extent is defined as the total area in which the ice concentration is at least 15 percent.

(http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/82000/82160/spseaicemax_extent_chart_2013.jpg)

Antarctic sea ice cover reaches its minimum extent each year in February or March; the ice cover then grows until reaching its maximum extent in September or October. The graph above shows the maximum extent for each September since 1979 in millions of square kilometers. There is variability from year to year, though the overall trend shows growth of about 1.5 percent per decade.


Yeah, never mind that the world's top scientists don't dispute that climate change is happening.  But once again, pfffft...facts.

 ::)

http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on November 12, 2014, 09:04:01 am
Yeah, never mind that the world's top scientists don't dispute that climate change is happening.  But once again, pfffft...facts.

 ::)

http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

I bet if you asked, 9 out of 10 chiropractors would agree that everyone should visit the chiropractor regularly.

Climate Science is dependent on climate change, therefore the data will always provide for it, sometimes at any cost.  For government, it has become more of a tool than a science. 

pfffft...reality.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 12, 2014, 11:47:41 am

But phfftttt...they're just facts.  They can be easily ignored.

(http://efficientexercise.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/NDT-science.jpg)



Good thing about science, but not such a good thing about the reality of that science!  Deep caca for our kids and grandkids....



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Townsend on November 12, 2014, 12:12:54 pm
People who Fox News won't change the minds of people who science.

People who science won't change the minds of people who FOX news until it's too late.

We can all move on from here.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on November 12, 2014, 04:13:28 pm
Science is nowhere close to an absolute truth.  Claims of science are continually proven wrong and they evolve.

Has it ever occurred to anyone that we have better data collection methods for global temperatures today than 20 or 30 years ago?  That alone could account for anomalies in data, if there were parts of the globe we were not getting accurate data from before.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on November 12, 2014, 04:46:44 pm
Science is nowhere close to an absolute truth.  Claims of science are continually proven wrong and they evolve.

Has it ever occurred to anyone that we have better data collection methods for global temperatures today than 20 or 30 years ago?  That alone could account for anomalies in data, if there were parts of the globe we were not getting accurate data from before.

You can tell yourself whatever it takes to make you feel better over ignoring science for "what ifs?"

99% of the real experts are sure of man made climate change and you are choosing to disagree with no facts and no supporting arguments. It's ok, that's your choice. Just be aware you are now hanging out with the truthers, the birthers, the anti-vaccers, the evolution deniers and all the conspiracy nuts that tell themselves whatever it is that makes them ignore science and facts for the bullsh!t stories they read on the internets.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on November 12, 2014, 05:38:33 pm
People who Fox News won't change the minds of people who science.
People who science won't change the minds of people who FOX news until it's too late.
We can all move on from here.

You people who think you know everything really irritate those of us who do (know everything).
 
 :D



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: TheArtist on November 12, 2014, 06:57:55 pm
 Interesting thing is, that if we were to adopt better lifestyle and economic choices, this "problem" real or not, would go away.  If we were to change some habits to do some things that would better our health and help our pocketbooks at the same time,,, who wouldn't want to do that regardless.

Here is some take away from a recent study for example...

"We showed that the same dietary changes that can add about a decade to our lives, reduce incidence of type II diabetes by about 25 percent, cancer by about 10 percent and death from heart disease by about 20 percent" said Tilman, a professor in the University's College of Biological Sciences and resident fellow at the Institute on the Environment. "In particular, if the world were to adopt variations on three common diets (mediterranean diet as an example), health would be greatly increased at the same time global greenhouse gas emissions were reduced by an amount equal to the current greenhouse gas emissions of ALL cars, trucks, planes, trains and ships. In addition, this dietary shift would prevent the destruction of an area of tropical forests and savannas as large as half of the United States."

Then think about doing things like being more energy efficient.  Looking at changing regular bulbs to LED ones.  They are expensive, though less so all the time, but doing the math I have begun replacing all of the old bulbs in my shop and home because over time it will save me money.  Again who wouldn't want to do that, regardless of any reduced energy use/greenhouse emissions talk.  

I would love for electric cars to become more common.  I live near a highway and keep reading more studies of how that can negatively impact your health, take years off your life, etc.  (wish I could move but can't right now and almost feel guilty about the next people that would live there) Plus just being in traffic sucking in those fumes is not good for you (apparently billowing black smoke out your tailpipe is perfectly fine in Oklahoma, meanwhile our politicians sit in Washington breathing cleaner air than we are, how nice for them). But I digress, more energy efficient/cleaner cars, appliances, businesses, electric cars, more transit, more pedestrian friendly areas, etc. etc. will not "destroy the economy", but can just be part of a new, better, healthier for human beings, economy.

Again, there are so many changes that we could make that would be good for us health wise and economically, such that who cares if it also get's rid of any "global warming or not" climate change controversies?



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on November 13, 2014, 03:07:13 am
Science is nowhere close to an absolute truth.  Claims of science are continually proven wrong and they evolve.

Has it ever occurred to anyone that we have better data collection methods for global temperatures today than 20 or 30 years ago?  That alone could account for anomalies in data, if there were parts of the globe we were not getting accurate data from before.

This is similar to my thinking. Back in 1974 just before the June 8th tornados that hit Tulsa, you had to send ANG jets to see what the cloud formations were, and what the weather patterns were. We have only been mapping the earth by satellite for the last 40 years or so, and every few years the technology improves to get a better idea about what's going on. Yes there has been improvements in the area of actually measuring what's going on with regards to surface measurements, but there are still large areas that have yet to truly be studied. The disappearance of MH370 comes to mind, because they talk about the fact that this portion of the Indian Ocean is largely unexplored.

The earth has climatological cycles of warming and cooling, as well as changes in ocean currents, the jet stream, and this effect on the weather as a result I don't dispute. But saying that all of this is man made, I just think there is not enough real data. Who is to say that the written data collected before the technology we had in the 60's is accurate?

Just my opinion, people are trying to extrapolate data from hand written events, as well as evidence that has been found and theorized as to what happened on a global scale, and trying to develop a model of what could happen.

It's not a pure science or pure truth, it's a forecast based on partial data, and partial historical, and sometimes they get it right. It's easier to put a probe on a comet, then to predict what the earth is going to do.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 13, 2014, 09:19:08 am
Science is nowhere close to an absolute truth.  Claims of science are continually proven wrong and they evolve.

Has it ever occurred to anyone that we have better data collection methods for global temperatures today than 20 or 30 years ago?  That alone could account for anomalies in data, if there were parts of the globe we were not getting accurate data from before.


Collection anomalies are not the same as accurate data....temperature measurement - accurate to well within 1 deg F has been proven for a very long time.  We are NO better today at that type of measurement than we were 200 years ago.  In fact, a mercury thermometer of 1800's is better than a digital thermometer in your house or car or wherever - within a couple of tenth's  (0.1 or 0.2 deg) while all the digital thermometers you may around you are at best within about 1 degree.  (I guarantee they are using thermistors or semiconductors - diodes - and NOT RTD's!)

Data collection methods have changed too, but the accuracy is no better.  What really has changed is that we get data from many more places.  More data can help, but does NOT automatically mean better data.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on November 13, 2014, 10:15:23 am
You can tell yourself whatever it takes to make you feel better over ignoring science for "what ifs?"

99% of the real experts are sure of man made climate change and you are choosing to disagree with no facts and no supporting arguments. It's ok, that's your choice. Just be aware you are now hanging out with the truthers, the birthers, the anti-vaccers, the evolution deniers and all the conspiracy nuts that tell themselves whatever it is that makes them ignore science and facts for the bullsh!t stories they read on the internets.



Careful Swake, you are starting to sound like one of the mouth-breathing Rachael Madcow followers.  ;D Do you know where the “consensus” claim comes from?

Quote
So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”  Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

Quote
A more recent 2012 survey published by the AMS found that only one in four respondents agreed with UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent warming. And while 89% believe that global warming is occurring, only 30% said they were very worried.

A March 2008 canvas of 51,000 Canadian scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta (APEGGA) found that although 99% of 1,077 replies believe climate is changing, 68% disagreed with the statement that “…the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.” Only 26% of them attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” Regarding these results, APEGGA’s executive director, Neil Windsor, commented, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”

A 2009 report issued by the Polish Academy of Sciences PAN Committee of Geological Sciences, a major scientific institution in the European Union, agrees that the purported climate consensus argument is becoming increasingly untenable. It says, in part, that: “Over the past 400 thousand years – even without human intervention – the level of CO2 in the air, based on the Antarctic ice cores, has already been similar four times, and even higher than the current value. At the end of the last ice age, within a time [interval] of a few hundred years, the average annual temperature changed over the globe several times. In total, it has gone up by almost 10 °C in the northern hemisphere, [and] therefore the changes mentioned above were incomparably more dramatic than the changes reported today.”

The report concludes: “The PAN Committee of Geological Sciences believes it necessary to start an interdisciplinary research based on comprehensive monitoring and modeling of the impact of other factors – not just the level of CO2 – on the climate. Only this kind of approach will bring us closer to identifying the causes of climate change.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

Sure it’s op-ed, sure Larry Bell has his detractors.  He cites studies in his commentary.  Studies which clearly debunk the myth that 99% of “real experts” are in agreement about human-caused global warming.  Just because you have the cute “peer reviewed" meme saved to your computer doesn’t make it so.

There simply is NOT 99% agreement in the scientific community on AGW.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: TeeDub on November 13, 2014, 10:40:01 am

Again, there are so many changes that we could make that would be good for us health wise and economically, such that who cares if it also get's rid of any "global warming or not" climate change controversies?



Doesn't social security have enough trouble without unproductive old people living longer?   It's not like they are even enjoying themselves once they get to the adult diaper phase.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on November 13, 2014, 10:40:50 am
John Cook, who came up with the survey meme of “peer reviewed” papers on global warming, has very questionable methodology.  In fact, authors of papers which supposedly supported AGW were randomly sampled, and they were miffed at the conclusions reached by Cook’s panel.  There’s also overwhelming evidence that Cook’s team simply cherry picked key statements from papers, not even considering the context of how it was used in the paper.  This literally was not much more than a keyword search.

Quote
The paper, Cook et al. (2013) 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' searched the Web of Science for the phrases "global warming" and "global climate change" then categorizing these results to their alleged level of endorsement of AGW. These results were then used to allege a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.

To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.

Quote
Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."

Quote
Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.

What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun. This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely around 1.5 C or less, and that the 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more. Of that the sun contributed (more or less) as much as the anthropogenic forcings.

The "less" claim is based on alternative solar models (e.g. ACRIM instead of PMOD) and also on the observation that part of the observed global warming might be due to urban heat island effect, and not to CO2.

By using the 50% borderline a lot of so-called "skeptical works" including some of mine are included in their 97%."

Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper?

Scafetta: "Please note that it is very important to clarify that the AGW advocated by the IPCC has always claimed that 90-100% of the warming observed since 1900 is due to anthropogenic emissions. While critics like me have always claimed that the data would approximately indicate a 50-50 natural-anthropogenic contribution at most.

What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. Instead of apologizing and honestly acknowledging that the AGW theory as advocated by the IPCC is wrong because based on climate models that poorly reconstruct the solar signature and do not reproduce the natural oscillations of the climate (AMO, PDO, NAO etc.) and honestly acknowledging that the truth, as it is emerging, is closer to what claimed by IPCC critics like me since 2005, these people are trying to get the credit.

They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face.


Now they are misleadingly claiming that what they have always claimed was that AGW is quantified as 50+% of the total warming, so that once it will be clearer that AGW can only at most be quantified as 50% (without the "+") of the total warming, they will still claim that they were sufficiently correct.

And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006."

Quote
Dr. Shaviv, your paper 'On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Shaviv: "Nope... it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitiviity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).


I couldn't write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don't have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper."

Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper?

Shaviv: "Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren't necessarily correct. Moreover, as you can see from the above example, the analysis itself is faulty, namely, it doesn't even quantify correctly the number of scientists or the number of papers which endorse or diminish the importance of AGW."

Quote
Dr. Carlin, your paper 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Carlin: "No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper, 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' as "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize," nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper. I did not explicitly or even implicitly endorse AGW and did quantify my skepticism concerning AGW. Both the paper and the abstract make this clear.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/06/cooks-97-consensus-study-game-plan.html

I doubt you will take time to read it, but TCP (The Consensus Project) was clearly a contrived marketing campaign with a pre-determined outcome to match the message Cook and others wanted to convey:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/06/cooks-97-consensus-study-game-plan.html


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on November 13, 2014, 10:46:49 am
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lNEMrBg7UbA/UZmfTWImF9I/AAAAAAAAAtY/8S-TZpjhtuY/s400/97%25+Misclassified+Papers.gif)

Absolutely there is agreement in the scientific community about AGW, however, there’s nowhere close to 97% or even the 99% Swake claims. At least now you know the methodology of how the 97% meme was achieved in the first place.

Quote
The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up

Dana Nuccitelli writes that I “accidentally confirm the results of last year’s 97% global warming consensus study”. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I show that the 97% consensus claim does not stand up.

At best, Nuccitelli, John Cook and colleagues may have accidentally stumbled on the right number.

Cook and co selected some 12,000 papers from the scientific literature to test whether these papers support the hypothesis that humans played a substantial role in the observed warming of the Earth. 12,000 is a strange number. The climate literature is much larger. The number of papers on the detection and attribution of climate change is much, much smaller.

Cook’s sample is not representative. Any conclusion they draw is not about “the literature” but rather about the papers they happened to find.

Most of the papers they studied are not about climate change and its causes, but many were taken as evidence nonetheless. Papers on carbon taxes naturally assume that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming – but assumptions are not conclusions. Cook’s claim of an increasing consensus over time is entirely due to an increase of the number of irrelevant papers that Cook and co mistook for evidence.

The abstracts of the 12,000 papers were rated, twice, by 24 volunteers. Twelve rapidly dropped out, leaving an enormous task for the rest. This shows. There are patterns in the data that suggest that raters may have fallen asleep with their nose on the keyboard. In July 2013, Mr Cook claimed to have data that showed this is not the case. In May 2014, he claimed that data never existed.

The data is also ridden with error. By Cook’s own calculations, 7% of the ratings are wrong. Spot checks suggest a much larger number of errors, up to one-third.

Cook tried to validate the results by having authors rate their own papers. In almost two out of three cases, the author disagreed with Cook’s team about the message of the paper in question.

Attempts to obtain Cook’s data for independent verification have been in vain. Cook sometimes claims that the raters are interviewees who are entitled to privacy – but the raters were never asked any personal detail. At other times, Cook claims that the raters are not interviewees but interviewers.

The 97% consensus paper rests on yet another claim: the raters are incidental, it is the rated papers that matter. If you measure temperature, you make sure that your thermometers are all properly and consistently calibrated. Unfortunately, although he does have the data, Cook does not test whether the raters judge the same paper in the same way.

Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong. Cook’s consensus is also irrelevant in policy. They try to show that climate change is real and human-made. It is does not follow whether and by how much greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced.

The debate on climate policy is polarised, often using discussions about climate science as a proxy. People who want to argue that climate researchers are secretive and incompetent only have to point to the 97% consensus paper.

On 29 May, the Committee on Science, Space and Technology of the US House of Representatives examined the procedures of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Having been active in the IPCC since 1994, serving in various roles in all its three working groups, most recently as a convening lead author for the fifth assessment report of working group II, my testimony to the committee briefly reiterated some of the mistakes made in the fifth assessment report but focused on the structural faults in the IPCC, notably the selection of authors and staff, the weaknesses in the review process, and the competition for attention between chapters. I highlighted that the IPCC is a natural monopoly that is largely unregulated. I recommended that its assessment reports be replaced by an assessment journal.

In an article on 2 June, Nuccitelli ignores the subject matter of the hearing, focusing instead on a brief interaction about the 97% consensus paper co-authored by… Nuccitelli. He unfortunately missed the gist of my criticism of his work.

Successive literature reviews, including the ones by the IPCC, have time and again established that there has been substantial climate change over the last one and a half centuries and that humans caused a large share of that climate change.

There is disagreement, of course, particularly on the extent to which humans contributed to the observed warming. This is part and parcel of a healthy scientific debate. There is widespread agreement, though, that climate change is real and human-made.

I believe Nuccitelli and colleagues are wrong about a number of issues. Mistakenly thinking that agreement on the basic facts of climate change would induce agreement on climate policy, Nuccitelli and colleagues tried to quantify the consensus, and failed.

In his defence, Nuccitelli argues that I do not dispute their main result. Nuccitelli fundamentally misunderstands research. Science is not a set of results. Science is a method. If the method is wrong, the results are worthless.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming/print


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 13, 2014, 10:56:04 am
Careful Swake, you are starting to sound like one of the mouth-breathing Rachael Madcow followers.  ;D Do you know where the “consensus” claim comes from?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

Sure it’s op-ed, sure Larry Bell has his detractors.  He cites studies in his commentary.  Studies which clearly debunk the myth that 99% of “real experts” are in agreement about human-caused global warming.  Just because you have the cute “peer reviewed" meme saved to your computer doesn’t make it so.

There simply is NOT 99% agreement in the scientific community on AGW.




Really??  You are hanging your hat on Larry Bell and the Sasakawa Foundation...??


WOW!!   I mean... just wow!!


Yep,... no training, knowledge, or expertise will trump actual science backgrounds every time... in America!!


Wanna quick taste of reality..??  I know it can sometimes be slightly bitter - after all, it IS an acquired taste for most - but you certainly are mature enough (old?) to partake and develop the more sophisticated palate required!!     And this link by REAL scientists....

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/forbes-rich-list-of-nonsense/



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 13, 2014, 11:17:08 am
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lNEMrBg7UbA/UZmfTWImF9I/AAAAAAAAAtY/8S-TZpjhtuY/s400/97%25+Misclassified+Papers.gif)

Absolutely there is agreement in the scientific community about AGW, however, there’s nowhere close to 97% or even the 99% Swake claims. At least now you know the methodology of how the 97% meme was achieved in the first place.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming/print



Ahhhh.....  "Master of the Gish Gallop"


Bell uses the key technique that denialists use in debates, dubbed by Eugenie Scott the “Gish gallop”, named after a master of the style, anti-evolutionist Duane Gish. The Gish gallop raises a barrage of obscure and marginal facts and fabrications that appear at first glance to cast doubt on the entire edifice under attack, but which on closer examination do no such thing. In real-time debates the number of particularities raised is sure to catch the opponent off guard; this is why challenges to such debates are often raised by enemies of science. Little or no knowledge of a holistic view of any given science is needed to construct such scattershot attacks.



Bet you didn't know they had a name for the "Faux News" methodology, did ya...??



http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Tobias

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Mandia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish

http://www.nationalmemo.com/how-joe-biden-broke-the-gish-gallop/    (This one is particularly ironic...A truthful Gish Gallop....)

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/27/plimer-does-the-gish-gallop/



See what I did there?  And didn't even inflict 50 lines of copy/paste text on the board to do it...just linked the references!  Oh, yeah....didn't have to lie about it or "spread" a flood of BS, either!  Bonus!  (Hint on the quotes - University of Houston.)














Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on November 13, 2014, 12:09:08 pm
You obviously didn’t bother to read a sentence of what was posted.  Real scientists, who had their work misinterpreted to support the Cook meme.

You also did not bother to read any of the sources cited by Bell.  As expected, you went to his character and posted a link to a partisan hack pro-AGW web site.

That’s fine, you’ve made up your mind on this pop culture notion of global warming catastrophe based on flawed data.  You react just like those leading the movement do: any attempt to show the flaws in the data and the message are squelched, called kooks and “deniers”.

Wikipedia? Really?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on November 13, 2014, 12:48:43 pm
You obviously didn’t bother to read a sentence of what was posted.  Real scientists, who had their work misinterpreted to support the Cook meme.

They can't be real scientists if they don't support AGW.
 
 :(



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 13, 2014, 04:15:31 pm

Wikipedia? Really?




Just showing the ridiculousness - and I guessed it was missed - of referencing a guy like Bell. 

And Bell?  Really??


Couple of key points - Scott Mandia...actual professor with real background, credentials, and a degree related to the topic of climate.  Unlike Bell.

And Michael Tobias - PhD in the History of Consciousness - vastly more qualified than Bell on the topic of climate!!  And as a mountaineer, he has climbed the Himalayas, for crying out loud - looking at the climate directly!  Seeing it all first hand and in person!!


But feel free to Gish away....



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 13, 2014, 04:20:13 pm
Oh...I forgot... reading the post - yeah, I read it.  Richard Tol.  Professor of Economics.  The ultimate authority on climate, I am sure - just like Larry Bell.

Got a real scientist reference?  Then we can get away from the spin zone...




Gish, Gish, Gish, Gish....



Would like to have a real discussion sometime on this board related to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere...THAT is the point that is being danced around - pretty much by both sides - and what the effects of that will be (probably bad ones) and how soon (hard to say).  This whole cycle is dramatically/drastically different from the previous 400,000 years and it probably ain't gonna be pretty.  EVERY other cycle, we have seen temperature change way before CO2.  This time, they are moving together - plus all the other possible adverse events happening now.  Like equatorial rainforest - we don't know if losing that is a good thing or a bad thing.  (My bet is on 'bad thing').

Higher CO2 could literally mean more plant life, which would bring about more oxygen, which would lead to more animal life.  This could be good....??  Or not.  Need less partisan BS and way more research - not more big oil obstructionism!

Anyone who dismisses out of hand the doubling of average CO2 in just the last couple hundred years, though, is a Luddite 1D-10-T  (Army nomenclature).







Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on November 13, 2014, 07:15:36 pm

Just showing the ridiculousness - and I guessed it was missed - of referencing a guy like Bell.  

And Bell?  Really??


Couple of key points - Scott Mandia...actual professor with real background, credentials, and a degree related to the topic of climate.  Unlike Bell.

And Michael Tobias - PhD in the History of Consciousness - vastly more qualified than Bell on the topic of climate!!  And as a mountaineer, he has climbed the Himalayas, for crying out loud - looking at the climate directly!  Seeing it all first hand and in person!!


But feel free to Gish away....



I’m sorry, how many of these people in the media and professional politicians who keep parroting “the script” on AGW have advanced degrees in climatology?  Pay attention to the message not the messenger.  Wait, that’s right, you aren’t capable of paying attention!  8)

Read the sources these guys cite, they are solid.  Read what CLIMATOLOGISTS say were intentional misinterpretations/misrepresentation of their works used to come up with the 97% AGW LIE.

I must have hit a soft spot otherwise you wouldn’t have started up with this gishing crap.

As an aside, an economist would have a pretty good grasp on statistics, accepted methods of sampling, and using a variety of sources to draw conclusions.  Yes? 


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on November 13, 2014, 07:22:09 pm

Would like to have a real discussion sometime on this board related to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere...THAT is the point that is being danced around - pretty much by both sides - and what the effects of that will be (probably bad ones) and how soon (hard to say).  This whole cycle is dramatically/drastically different from the previous 400,000 years and it probably ain't gonna be pretty.  EVERY other cycle, we have seen temperature change way before CO2.  This time, they are moving together - plus all the other possible adverse events happening now.  Like equatorial rainforest - we don't know if losing that is a good thing or a bad thing.  (My bet is on 'bad thing').

Higher CO2 could literally mean more plant life, which would bring about more oxygen, which would lead to more animal life.  This could be good....??  Or not.  Need less partisan BS and way more research - not more big oil obstructionism!

Anyone who dismisses out of hand the doubling of average CO2 in just the last couple hundred years, though, is a Luddite 1D-10-T  (Army nomenclature).



I agree about the point on less partisan views on it.  I’m digging beyond the partisan crap because the media keeps repeating what is being spoon fed to them by partisan interests.  That’s what I do, dig for the truth and reach my own conclusions.  I could give love all about what the major news nitworks keep spewing on AGW- for or against.

If you would read some of the source reports which are included in the 97% meme, you’d realize there’s little consensus between climatologists as to the overall effects of CO2 and it’s exact place in the equation.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: TheArtist on November 13, 2014, 09:14:19 pm


Would like to have a real discussion sometime on this board related to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere...THAT is the point that is being danced around - pretty much by both sides - and what the effects of that will be (probably bad ones) and how soon (hard to say).  This whole cycle is dramatically/drastically different from the previous 400,000 years and it probably ain't gonna be pretty.  EVERY other cycle, we have seen temperature change way before CO2.  This time, they are moving together - plus all the other possible adverse events happening now.  Like equatorial rainforest - we don't know if losing that is a good thing or a bad thing.  (My bet is on 'bad thing').

Higher CO2 could literally mean more plant life, which would bring about more oxygen, which would lead to more animal life.  This could be good....??  Or not.  Need less partisan BS and way more research - not more big oil obstructionism!

Anyone who dismisses out of hand the doubling of average CO2 in just the last couple hundred years, though, is a Luddite 1D-10-T  (Army nomenclature).







Old article but still speaks to what you are talking about.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120723162707.htm

The global temperature changed naturally because of the changing solar radiation caused by variations in Earth's orbit around the Sun, Earth's tilt and the orientation of Earth's axis. These are called the Milankowitch cycles and occur in periods of approximately 100,000, 42,000, and 22,000 years. These are the cycles that cause Earth's climate to shift between long ice ages of approximately 100,000 years and warm interglacial periods, typically 10,000 -- 15,000 years. The natural warming of the climate was intensified by the increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
"What we are observing in the present day is the mankind has caused the CO2 content in the atmosphere to rise as much in just 150 years as it rose over 8,000 years during the transition from the last ice age to the current interglacial period and that can bring the Earth's climate out of balance,"



Also interesting to note in this article how they talk about increased winds in areas of the antarctic.  Those winds btw also increase the amount of ice formed around the edges of the continent. Aka, the increased ice is the result of increased winds which are a result of increased warming.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on November 13, 2014, 09:39:42 pm
I wonder if any of us will live long enough to find out whether or not the earth's feedback is negative or positive.  (Oscillations or runaway)



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 13, 2014, 10:15:17 pm
I wonder if any of us will live long enough to find out whether or not the earth's feedback is negative or positive.  (Oscillations or runaway)




I think there is pretty good evidence from the last 400,000 years - the Vostok stuff - that is is negative.  The sinusoidal shapes point very strongly that way.  If it were positive, there should be 'flat' tops a lot of that time.  Or 'ringing' as in under-damped system.  One of these days, I want to try to find a point listing of the data to see if can run an FFT on it to see what that looks like.  Should be interesting!  Usually lots of 'hidden' information buried in those harmonics!

Did that change in the last 200 years?  Maybe what we are seeing is a positive feedback phenomenon from the sudden release of CO2.


Ice pack ebb and flow sidenote;
While I think the lunar cycle will always be the predominant flexing force on the planet, there may be a very long term flexing action due to build up and reduction of ice packs on the poles.  Flattening and releasing the planet to 'move' - imagine a gigantic pair of hands positioned on each pole pushing toward each other, then letting go.

Lunar motion is gonna be millimeters per tide, but ice pack movement could be meters to possibly kilometers.  Millimeters - would that generate enough friction/heat deep down to help keep the core molten?  That's a lot of friction....   Iron must be able to travel easily through a softer molten mass to get to the center....



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: TheArtist on November 13, 2014, 11:18:00 pm

I think there is pretty good evidence from the last 400,000 years - the Vostok stuff - that is is negative.  The sinusoidal shapes point very strongly that way.  If it were positive, there should be 'flat' tops a lot of that time.  Or 'ringing' as in under-damped system.  One of these days, I want to try to find a point listing of the data to see if can run an FFT on it to see what that looks like.  Should be interesting!  Usually lots of 'hidden' information buried in those harmonics!

Did that change in the last 200 years?  Maybe what we are seeing is a positive feedback phenomenon from the sudden release of CO2.


Ice pack ebb and flow sidenote;
While I think the lunar cycle will always be the predominant flexing force on the planet, there may be a very long term flexing action due to build up and reduction of ice packs on the poles.  Flattening and releasing the planet to 'move' - imagine a gigantic pair of hands positioned on each pole pushing toward each other, then letting go.

Lunar motion is gonna be millimeters per tide, but ice pack movement could be meters to possibly kilometers.  Millimeters - would that generate enough friction/heat deep down to help keep the core molten?  That's a lot of friction....   Iron must be able to travel easily through a softer molten mass to get to the center....



Oblate Spheroid, one of my favorite nerd phrases as a kid.  ;D   I know, I know, it's hard to imagine this cool, suave, sophisticated, man about town, as having once been a nerd.  8)  

Oh, and you know what actually causes the earth to be an oblate spheroid?  Well all anyone has to do is look at a standard desk globe and then use scientific observation to deduce that it's caused by the constant pressure applied by the wing-nuts at the poles.  

 I have plenty more science/nerd jokes I can regale you all with if you would like.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on November 13, 2014, 11:33:06 pm
I know, I know, it's hard to imagine this cool, suave, sophisticated, man about town, as having once been a nerd.

Once a nerd, always a nerd.
 
 ;D



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 16, 2014, 06:14:17 pm

Oh, and you know what actually causes the earth to be an oblate spheroid?  Well all anyone has to do is look at a standard desk globe and then use scientific observation to deduce that it's caused by the constant pressure applied by the wing-nuts at the poles.  



They got Tea Party at the poles...???!!!    I had no idea!  Learn something new every day!


Oh, wait...  THOSE wing-nuts...!   Sorry...



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on November 16, 2014, 06:27:34 pm
Needing some of that global warming right about now. 


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 16, 2014, 07:14:33 pm
Oblate Spheroid, one of my favorite nerd phrases as a kid.  ;D   I know, I know, it's hard to imagine this cool, suave, sophisticated, man about town, as having once been a nerd.  8)  

Oh, and you know what actually causes the earth to be an oblate spheroid?  Well all anyone has to do is look at a standard desk globe and then use scientific observation to deduce that it's caused by the constant pressure applied by the wing-nuts at the poles.  

 I have plenty more science/nerd jokes I can regale you all with if you would like.


You should come visit our office some time... it is like a real life version of "Big Bang Theory"....well, without the cute girls...

We actually did a rough calculation of estimated daily deflection of the earth due to lunar action - since we have tidal information, there should be analogous crustal tides....we figure it is in millimeters....     We haven't gotten to the estimated heating effect due to that motion - the friction.  Would expect that it could be sizable.  Would it be big enough to keep the early core molten over a couple billion years?  My guess is yes - or at least contribute to it.  Maybe the other planets just needed a big moon for some flexing...


At the risk of 'quoting' wikipedia....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide




Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: TheArtist on November 16, 2014, 11:20:14 pm
Hmmm....   

Warmest oceans ever recorded

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141114090009.htm


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on November 16, 2014, 11:35:58 pm
Hmmm....   

Warmest oceans ever recorded

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141114090009.htm

Naahh...that can't be!

 ;)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on November 17, 2014, 12:58:55 am
Hmmm....   

Warmest oceans ever recorded

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141114090009.htm
LOVED this passage:

Quote
From 2000-2013 the global ocean surface temperature rise paused, in spite of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. This period, referred to as the Global Warming Hiatus, raised a lot of public and scientific interest. However, as of April 2014 ocean warming has picked up speed again, according to Timmermann's analysis of ocean temperature datasets


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 17, 2014, 10:13:49 am
LOVED this passage:



There has been a lot of real scientists talking about that.  They seem to feel it is due to all the volcanoes we have seen erupting for those 10 years or so.  When the dust clears it should be interesting....if the temp starts back on the same tack, that presents some pretty strong evidence.  Dusty skies - level temps.  Clear skies - rising temps.  Just what is expected.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on November 17, 2014, 11:42:30 am
I tracked Timmerman through at least ten different stories.  Not a single one quotes him quantifying how much the temperature rose.  We are just supposed to take it on summary alone the earth is burning down?  M’kay.  I noted other articles went so far as to prognosticating 50% more lightning strikes as a result with absolutely ZERO data to back it up.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 17, 2014, 02:14:26 pm
I tracked Timmerman through at least ten different stories.  Not a single one quotes him quantifying how much the temperature rose.  We are just supposed to take it on summary alone the earth is burning down?  M’kay.  I noted other articles went so far as to prognosticating 50% more lightning strikes as a result with absolutely ZERO data to back it up.


Measuring lightning strikes seems like a relatively new technology (last few years - 15 or 20 maybe??).  Have you run across any info about past/present strike counts??  Just "watching/listening" to storms, I can't really tell a difference yet...



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on November 17, 2014, 02:31:04 pm
I think the title of this thread needs to be changed to "Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding/Global Warming Hiatus/Some Ocean Warming?"


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on November 17, 2014, 02:45:55 pm
I think the title of this thread needs to be changed to "Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding/Global Warming Hiatus/Some Ocean Warming?"

And yet, there’s another interesting aspect to the Timmerman article:  Many articles deny there was any sort of stagnation in ocean temps for the last 13 years, yet this one seems to agree.

For such a “consensus” amongst scientists, it’s anything but.


Title: Re:
Post by: Ed W on November 17, 2014, 04:17:56 pm
The Ryan Storm Scope tracked lightning strikes from an aircraft. It was the poor mans weather radar. Using an ADF antenna and proprietary software, it calculated range and direction, displaying lightning on a screen much like radar.

Ed W


Title: Re:
Post by: guido911 on November 17, 2014, 04:31:34 pm
The Ryan Storm Scope tracked lightning strikes from an aircraft. It was the poor mans weather radar. Using an ADF antenna and proprietary software, it calculated range and direction, displaying lightning on a screen much like radar.

Ed W

Interesting. I think this accounts for the ocean's warming.... :P


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: TheArtist on November 17, 2014, 06:21:31 pm
And yet, there’s another interesting aspect to the Timmerman article:  Many articles deny there was any sort of stagnation in ocean temps for the last 13 years, yet this one seems to agree.

For such a “consensus” amongst scientists, it’s anything but.

Be careful, there is a difference between "ocean temps" and "surface ocean temps".  Also, how can I say this... If for instance the sun was not putting out as much radiation during a certain amount of time (low sunspots) and the usual temperature drop would be 2 degrees, but the temperature drop was only 1 degree, you could still say that what you are measuring is warmer (than it would normally have been), even though the temperature dropped. What they are trying to measure in many instances is how much the CO2 is warming things over all and over the long term.  There will be fluctuations down caused by many things, but even then, they don't appear to be as "far down" as they would be without the CO2, thus it's still warming. Got it?  :D


Title: Re:
Post by: Ed W on November 17, 2014, 06:55:16 pm
Interesting. I think this accounts for the ocean's warming.... :P

It's much like listening to AM radio on a stormy night, Guido. All those static crashes are lightning strikes. An Automatic Direction Finder radio (ADF) will point to a nearby lightning strike as it has far more energy than a radio station. The Storm Scope adapted this principle by using the direction finding capability coupled with software that determined range. Storms nearer the equator produce lightning with more energy that those further north or south, something that I never knew. But if global warming produces greater atmospheric instability, more storms and more lightning strikes should be expected. Computerized operations make it easier to do these counts, so good data should be expected. Simple versions are available for golf courses or any other place where lightning could be dangerous for unprotected people. We use one of these at AA, for instance, to detect lightning within 3 miles of the base. You do not want to be standing under an aircraft during a storm,



Title: Re:
Post by: guido911 on November 17, 2014, 09:55:21 pm
It's much like listening to AM radio on a stormy night, Guido. All those static crashes are lightning strikes. An Automatic Direction Finder radio (ADF) will point to a nearby lightning strike as it has far more energy than a radio station. The Storm Scope adapted this principle by using the direction finding capability coupled with software that determined range. Storms nearer the equator produce lightning with more energy that those further north or south, something that I never knew. But if global warming produces greater atmospheric instability, more storms and more lightning strikes should be expected. Computerized operations make it easier to do these counts, so good data should be expected. Simple versions are available for golf courses or any other place where lightning could be dangerous for unprotected people. We use one of these at AA, for instance, to detect lightning within 3 miles of the base. You do not want to be standing under an aircraft during a storm,



I remember listening to the AM radio late a night when I was a kid. That's all we had. Something about visualizing a story for myself...


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on November 17, 2014, 09:55:52 pm
This is how some conservative leaning folks view the consensus.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/11/17/what-the-mainstream-media-wont-tell-you-about-global-warming/

And a link found on that site about ice accumulating on Lake Superior.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/ice-visible-lake-superior-weeks-ahead-schedule/story?id=26939239&google_editors_picks=true


Title: Re:
Post by: rebound on November 17, 2014, 10:22:43 pm
Simple versions are available for golf courses or any other place where lightning could be dangerous for unprotected people.

"Weatherbug" and "Hi-Def Radar" apps for the iphone (and I'm sure others) have lightning strike alerts and indicators.   We used to use them a lot during soccer games.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: TheArtist on November 17, 2014, 10:51:53 pm
This is how some conservative leaning folks view the consensus.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/11/17/what-the-mainstream-media-wont-tell-you-about-global-warming/


OMG, does anyone actually believe that stuff? lol


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 18, 2014, 12:30:09 am
OMG, does anyone actually believe that stuff? lol

guido quoted;
This is how some conservative leaning folks view the consensus.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/11/17/what-the-mainstream-media-wont-tell-you-about-global-warming/



Some do actually believe that stuff.  Including some here we all know and love....

What the Murdochian World won't tell you about climate change....

#1.  Slowing isn't the same as stopping OR reversing....   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus

#2.  For 2 years...that's not a trend, no matter what Rupert wants you to believe.

#3.  Distortion, dissemination, lies, and outright deception.  Like so many of Rupert's Gish Gallop moments... CO2 is indispensable, but it is also a pollutant.  Just like eating a tomato can be tasty and good for you, but eating 100 can be the opposite.

#4.  Where did that statement come from?  References?  Again, lies, distortions, deception.  In fact, CO2 is at its highest levels in over 400,000 years and the earth has been warming for 200 years.  Approximately 12,750 years ago, before big cars and coal plants, CO2 levels were NOT higher than today, but in fact were much lower.  During the past 400,000 years, CO2 has ranged from about 200 ppm the larger amount of the time, with excursions to 280 ppm.  Today it is at 400 ppm - double the past.  Never in that 400,000 years has the level been 20x today's.

#5.  Irrelevant.  Just a little bit of cyanide can kill ya, so really no point at all to that comment except as "Gish Gallop" filler.

#6.  Dissemination with meaningless jibber-jabber...pretty much the definition of Gish Gallop.  Ocean levels are up.  Countries in the Pacific have flooded.  The trend continues today, and the 'pauses' have been explained by volcanic action.

#7.  Tooth fairy is what they want ya to believe in.... What Cook actually said was of papers stating a position, the 97% said climate change was human caused.  The big piece missing in this puzzle is what the 65% or so who expressed no position.  Anybody who can read or even listen to the video should be able to understand that....

#8.  Maybe.  Maybe not - in the past, temp has always led CO2.  The difference today is that they have been increasing together.  That is a huge difference.  Rupert would like for all of us to just sit down and shut up and don't even think about it.  That would be the biggest mistake of all.

#9.  We may yet go into an ice age - it is what the planet has done in these type circumstances before - for over 400,000 years.  The ocean conveyor has yet to see any big changes that I have heard of yet.  The movie may still have it right.

#10.  Droughts have increased.  Here and other places in the world.  California, Colorado, a lot of the west is in deep stuff now because of exactly that.  We are still in drought in spite of recent rains - our soil moisture levels in most of OK are good to deeper than 10", but at 24" - deep soil moisture - most of the state is very dry....in drought.  The Sahara continues to grow, for whatever reasons - even the non-meteorological ones are still man made.

#11.  Polar bear populations are about half what they were in the past.  Seals too - their main food source.  Which came first - dying out of seals or dying out of bears?

#12.  Or;

"According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), precipitation intensity and variability have increased over most land areas. This is a result of warmer temperatures intensifying and accelerating the hydrological cycle, leading to an increase in evaporation that causes an increase in total annual precipitation. However, evidence from climate change models suggests that precipitation events will occur less frequently, resulting in an increase in the number of extreme storm events. In fact, meteorological records have shown an increase in the number of days with precipitation greater than 2 inches during the 20th century (Karl et al. 1996)."

http://www.theclimatechangeclearinghouse.org/CLIMATECHANGEIMPACTS/CHANGESSTORMINTENSITYFREQUENCY/Pages/default.aspx



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on November 18, 2014, 11:15:42 am
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 18, 2014, 11:50:54 am
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


Can't possibly be valid - there are no "Faux News" crony references!!

FUD for all !!



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Townsend on November 18, 2014, 12:21:35 pm
OMG, does anyone actually believe that stuff? lol

Lots of people can't identify the USA on a globe or don't know who won the American civil war.

Ask a few people who made up the Axis and Allied powers in WWII.

Ask someone to ID a prime number.

Just don't act too uppity about it or you'll be called an educated elitist.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on November 18, 2014, 12:41:02 pm
http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/MAB_2014.pdf


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on November 18, 2014, 01:16:25 pm
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

And if you survey all climatologists publishing papers agreeing with AGW er ACC, you will have a statistical agreement of 97-98%.

Quote
Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on November 18, 2014, 01:38:52 pm
http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/MAB_2014.pdf


What’s the report say, Swake, or are you just link dumping without reading the content?

I didn’t figure a bunch of retired military leaders would hold much sway with you since they aren’t climatologists.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on November 18, 2014, 01:43:21 pm

What’s the report say, Swake, or are you just link dumping without reading the content?

I didn’t figure a bunch of retired military leaders would hold much sway with you since they aren’t climatologists.

here's what your report said:
Quote
We show that the expertise and prominence, two integral components of overall expert credibility, of climate researchers convinced by the evidence of ACC vastly overshadows that of the climate change skeptics and contrarians. This divide is even starker when considering the top researchers in each group.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on November 18, 2014, 02:16:01 pm
So basically: “We discount anyone whose research and opinion doesn’t fit our paradigm.”  Thank you.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on November 18, 2014, 02:17:39 pm
So basically: “We discount anyone whose research and opinion doesn’t fit our paradigm.”  Thank you.

In today's world, that is known as "republicanism".


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on November 18, 2014, 02:19:51 pm
So basically: “We discount anyone whose research and opinion doesn’t fit our paradigm.”  Thank you.

you didn't read the methodology, and it's your paper.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on November 18, 2014, 02:25:05 pm

What’s the report say, Swake, or are you just link dumping without reading the content?

I didn’t figure a bunch of retired military leaders would hold much sway with you since they aren’t climatologists.

My great grandfather, grandfather and uncle all were career military officers with 30+ years in each. One of the things high ranking members of the military better be good at is risk assessment. No?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on November 18, 2014, 02:36:52 pm
In today's world, that is known as "republicanism".


Ah yes, the theory that the left is always right, and the right is always wrong, and compromise is a dirty word never to be used.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on November 18, 2014, 03:05:43 pm

Ah yes, the theory that the left is always right, and the right is always wrong, and compromise is a dirty word never to be used.

No, the left is often stupid about science as well.

The far left are being idiots over vaccinations and GMO foods for example. And healing crystals and cleansing toxins from your body and the health benefits of a wheat grass based diet. Don’t get me started on Dr Oz.

The right is much just worse over  rejecting science, but both sides do it.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on November 18, 2014, 03:41:20 pm

Ah yes, the theory that the left is always right, and the right is always wrong, and compromise is a dirty word never to be used.

If you take the first two phrases and reverse the ideology, you'd have nailed the current far-right wing talking mantra.

Consider Sen. Cruz's asinine comments about something he knows nothing about - net neutrality.  Calling it 'the Obamacare of the Internet' doesn't exactly inspire enthusiasm that he's researched the subject.  Which gets to the 'compromise being a dirty word' part of your statement.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on November 18, 2014, 04:24:00 pm
you didn't read the methodology, and it's your paper.

Hah!  It’s source material used in your NOAA link.  It clearly states that they marginalized anyone who dissents from AGW as the methodology, as I previously quoted from the paper.  That’s really easy to come up with a consensus when you give credibility to one subset and completely dismiss another subset as being inferior. 

You can set your criteria to include or exclude any subset from a study, there’s nothing terribly objective about that.  Don’t you think 1,372 climate researchers sounds like a terribly small sampling considering there are thousands of climate researchers across the globe?

Again from pnas.org:

Quote
Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

So basically, yes, if you surveyed a subset of scientists in agreement on AGW, it’s a no-brainer you will have near unanimity they believe in human caused climate change.  Problem is, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest there are other credible causes and plenty of researchers who believe this but they are being marginalized by the pro AGW bloc as “deniers” or being on the payroll of the kooky right, Koch Brothers, Exxon Mobil, *insert bogeyman here*. 

There’s no doubt climate changes, as it has since day one. 


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on November 18, 2014, 04:40:12 pm
materials and methods
Quote
We compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers and classified each researcher into two categories: convinced by the evidence (CE) for anthropogenic climate change (ACC) or unconvinced by the evidence (UE) for ACC. We defined CE researchers as those who signed statements broadly agreeing with or directly endorsing the primary tenets of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report that it is “very likely” that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth's average global temperature in the second half of the 20th century (3). We compiled these CE researchers comprehensively from the lists of IPCC AR4 Working Group I Contributors and four prominent scientific statements endorsing the IPCC (n = 903; SI Materials and Methods). We defined UE researchers as those who have signed statements strongly dissenting from the views of the IPCC. We compiled UE names comprehensively from 12 of the most prominent statements criticizing the IPCC conclusions (n = 472; SI Materials and Methods). Only three researchers were members of both the CE and UE groups (due to their presence on both CE and UE lists) and remained in the dataset, except in calculations of the top 50, 100, and 200 researchers’ group membership.

Between December 2008 and July 2009, we collected the number of climate-relevant publications for all 1,372 researchers from Google Scholar (search terms: “author:fi-lastname climate”), as well as the number of times cited for each researcher's four top-cited articles in any field (search term “climate” removed). Overall number of publications was not used because it was not possible to provide accurate publication counts in all cases because of similarly named researchers. We verified, however, author identity for the four top-cited papers by each author.

To examine only researchers with demonstrated climate expertise, we imposed a 20 climate-publications minimum to be considered a climate researcher, bringing the list to 908 researchers (NCE = 817; NUE = 93). Our dataset is not comprehensive of the climate community and therefore does not infer absolute numbers or proportions of all CE versus all UE researchers. We acknowledge that there are other possible and valid approaches to quantifying the level of agreement and relative credibility in the climate science community, including alternate climate researcher cutoffs, publication databases, and search terms to determine climate-relevant publications. However, we provide a useful, conservative, and reasonable approach whose qualitative results are not likely to be affected by the above assumptions. We conducted the above analyses with a climate researcher cutoff of a minimum of 10 and 40 publications, which yielded very little change in the qualitative or strong statistically significant differences between CE and UE groups. Researcher publication and citation counts in Earth Sciences have been found to be largely similar between Google Scholar and other peer-review-only citation indices such as ISI Web of Science (20). Indeed, using Google Scholar provides a more conservative estimate of expertise (e.g., higher levels of publications and more experts considered) because it archives a greater breadth of sources than other citation indices. Our climate-relevant search term does not, understandably, capture all relevant publications and exclude all nonrelevant publications in the detection and attribution of ACC, but we suggest that its generality provides a conservative estimate of expertise (i.e., higher numbers of experts) that should not differentially favor either group.

Publication and citation analyses are not perfect indicators of researcher credibility, but they have been widely used in the natural sciences for comparing research productivity, quality, and prominence (21–24). Furthermore, these methods tend to correlate highly with other estimates of research quality, expertise, and prominence (21–26). These standard publication and citation metrics are often used in many academic fields to inform decisions regarding hiring and tenure. Though these methods explicitly estimate credibility to other academics, which might not directly translate to credibility in broader discourse, polls suggest that about 70% of the American public generally trust scientists’ opinions on the environment, making this assessment broadly relevant (27). Criticisms of the two methods center around issues of self-citation, additionality of multiple authors, clique citation, and age demographic (e.g., age distribution where older researchers can accrue more publications and citations) differences between groups (21–26, 28, 29). All of these criticisms are expected to have the least influence at high levels of aggregation (e.g., an entire field) and high levels of citations, both of which are analyzed here (21–23, 25, 28, 29).

Regarding the influence of citation patterns, we acknowledge that it is difficult to quantify potential biases of self-citation or clique citation in the analysis presented here. However, citation analysis research suggests that the potential of these patterns to influence results is likely to decline as sample size of researchers, possible cliques, and papers analyzed for citations considered increases (22, 25–28). By selecting an expansive sample of 1,372 researchers and focusing our analysis only on the researchers’ four most-cited papers, we have designed our study to minimize the potential influence of these patterns. Furthermore, we have no a priori basis for assuming any citation (e.g., self-citation rates) or demographic differences (e.g., age effect on publications or citations) between CE and UE groups. Preliminary evidence suggests these differences would likely favor the UE group. From the ∼60% of researchers where year of PhD was available, mean year of receiving a PhD for UE researchers was 1977, versus 1987 for CE researchers, implying that UE researchers should have on average more publications due to an age effect alone. Therefore, these methods are likely to provide a reasonable estimate of the preeminent researchers in each group and are useful in comparing the relative expertise and prominence between CE and UE groups.

Ultimately, of course, scientific confidence is earned by the winnowing process of peer review and replication of studies over time. In the meanwhile, given the immediacy attendant to the state of debate over perception of climate science, we must seek estimates while confidence builds. Based on the arguments presented here, we believe our findings capture the differential climate science credentials of the two groups.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on November 18, 2014, 04:53:13 pm
Hah!  It’s source material used in your NOAA link.  It clearly states that they marginalized anyone who dissents from AGW as the methodology, as I previously quoted from the paper.  That’s really easy to come up with a consensus when you give credibility to one subset and completely dismiss another subset as being inferior. 

You can set your criteria to include or exclude any subset from a study, there’s nothing terribly objective about that.  Don’t you think 1,372 climate researchers sounds like a terribly small sampling considering there are thousands of climate researchers across the globe?

Again from pnas.org:

So basically, yes, if you surveyed a subset of scientists in agreement on AGW, it’s a no-brainer you will have near unanimity they believe in human caused climate change.  Problem is, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest there are other credible causes and plenty of researchers who believe this but they are being marginalized by the pro AGW bloc as “deniers” or being on the payroll of the kooky right, Koch Brothers, Exxon Mobil, *insert bogeyman here*. 

There’s no doubt climate changes, as it has since day one. 

Why don't you go find a real study published in a real, well regarded journal that actually flat out rejects man made climate change. One that is cited by any climate researcher who is not working for or paid by the energy industry. Just one.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 18, 2014, 05:01:30 pm
Hah!  It’s source material used in your NOAA link.  It clearly states that they marginalized anyone who dissents from AGW as the methodology, as I previously quoted from the paper.  That’s really easy to come up with a consensus when you give credibility to one subset and completely dismiss another subset as being inferior. 

You can set your criteria to include or exclude any subset from a study, there’s nothing terribly objective about that.  Don’t you think 1,372 climate researchers sounds like a terribly small sampling considering there are thousands of climate researchers across the globe?

Again from pnas.org:

So basically, yes, if you surveyed a subset of scientists in agreement on AGW, it’s a no-brainer you will have near unanimity they believe in human caused climate change.  Problem is, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest there are other credible causes and plenty of researchers who believe this but they are being marginalized by the pro AGW bloc as “deniers” or being on the payroll of the kooky right, Koch Brothers, Exxon Mobil, *insert bogeyman here*. 

There’s no doubt climate changes, as it has since day one. 


Like swake says - show us 1 that's not bought and paid for by big oil.  Just one....



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on November 18, 2014, 07:20:29 pm
Why don't you go find a real study published in a real, well regarded by those who promote ACC, journal that actually flat out rejects man made climate change.

FIFY



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on November 18, 2014, 09:03:25 pm
Why don't you go find a real study published in a real, well regarded journal that actually flat out rejects man made climate change. One that is cited by any climate researcher who is not working for or paid by the energy industry. Just one.

Show me a pro AGW which isn’t paid for by alternative energy, or by political motive.  Just one.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on November 18, 2014, 11:00:03 pm
Show me a pro AGW which isn’t paid for by alternative energy, or by political motive.  Just one.



And thus the cycle continues, while our planet goes in the $h!tter.  We should probably stop arguing about it and actually do something meaningful...


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on November 18, 2014, 11:49:14 pm
We should probably stop arguing about it and actually do something meaningful...

Even if it is incorrect and ultimately harmful to the desired outcome.
 
 :(



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on November 19, 2014, 12:06:37 am
Even if it is incorrect and ultimately harmful to the desired outcome.
 
 :(



Why is that not an unexpected response, especially from you.

 ::)

Do you think that churning the emissions we've been churning into the atmosphere at the rates we have been is the answer?  Because if so, then I'll defer to your 'correctness'.  I sure would like to leave a somewhat liveable planet for future generations.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on November 19, 2014, 08:31:04 am
Show me a pro AGW which isn’t paid for by alternative energy, or by political motive.  Just one.



NASA?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on November 19, 2014, 08:39:54 am
NASA?

180 scientists in Iowa from 38 colleges
http://iowaenvironmentalfocus.org/2014/10/10/iowa-climate-statement-2014-impacts-on-the-health-of-iowans/

97.1% of scholarly papers?
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
Quote
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.


Seriously, rejecting the science at this point is nothing less than idiotic, delusional and more than a little sad.

Find a paper, anything. one paper. That study I just quoted looked at over 11,000.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 19, 2014, 08:45:03 am
NASA?


Careful with that....and your next post - you know how reality is such an everlasting gobstopper to most of the people of this state!  And the rest of the country for that matter!  The real world can't even get them to understand the counting of tree rings and ice layers!


Edit -
I bet the RWRE hidden agenda is directly related to ice sheets....they are the single most unambiguous testament to the fact that the earth is over 6,000 years old - layers going back well over 400,000 years!   If the radical reactionary religious elements can keep global warming going "just long enough" to melt the ice sheets, then there is no remaining eyeball count item that proves their lies!!  400,000 years of history erased for all time!    Don't think it hasn't crossed their minds....






Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on November 19, 2014, 09:07:26 am
180 scientists in Iowa from 38 colleges
http://iowaenvironmentalfocus.org/2014/10/10/iowa-climate-statement-2014-impacts-on-the-health-of-iowans/

97.1% of scholarly papers?
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Seriously, rejecting the science at this point is nothing less than idiotic, delusional and more than a little sad.

Find a paper, anything. one paper. That study I just quoted looked at over 11,000.



Uh Swake, I already posted a few pages back that the flawed methodology of the Cook et al study to arrive at the 97% consensus was completely bunk.  Cook’s research team cherry-picked key words from papers and apparently did not even read the entire content.  At least according to authors of those papers sampled.  As I posted last week and you apparently ignored:

Quote
John Cook, who came up with the survey meme of “peer reviewed” papers on global warming, has very questionable methodology.  In fact, authors of papers which supposedly supported AGW were randomly sampled, and they were miffed at the conclusions reached by Cook’s panel.  There’s also overwhelming evidence that Cook’s team simply cherry picked key statements from papers, not even considering the context of how it was used in the paper.  This literally was not much more than a keyword search.

Quote
The paper, Cook et al. (2013) 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' searched the Web of Science for the phrases "global warming" and "global climate change" then categorizing these results to their alleged level of endorsement of AGW. These results were then used to allege a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.

To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.

Quote
Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."

Quote
Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.

What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun. This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely around 1.5 C or less, and that the 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more. Of that the sun contributed (more or less) as much as the anthropogenic forcings.

The "less" claim is based on alternative solar models (e.g. ACRIM instead of PMOD) and also on the observation that part of the observed global warming might be due to urban heat island effect, and not to CO2.

By using the 50% borderline a lot of so-called "skeptical works" including some of mine are included in their 97%."

Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper?

Scafetta: "Please note that it is very important to clarify that the AGW advocated by the IPCC has always claimed that 90-100% of the warming observed since 1900 is due to anthropogenic emissions. While critics like me have always claimed that the data would approximately indicate a 50-50 natural-anthropogenic contribution at most.

What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. Instead of apologizing and honestly acknowledging that the AGW theory as advocated by the IPCC is wrong because based on climate models that poorly reconstruct the solar signature and do not reproduce the natural oscillations of the climate (AMO, PDO, NAO etc.) and honestly acknowledging that the truth, as it is emerging, is closer to what claimed by IPCC critics like me since 2005, these people are trying to get the credit.

They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face.

Now they are misleadingly claiming that what they have always claimed was that AGW is quantified as 50+% of the total warming, so that once it will be clearer that AGW can only at most be quantified as 50% (without the "+") of the total warming, they will still claim that they were sufficiently correct.

And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006."

Quote
Dr. Shaviv, your paper 'On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Shaviv: "Nope... it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitiviity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).

I couldn't write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don't have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper."

Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper?

Shaviv: "Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren't necessarily correct. Moreover, as you can see from the above example, the analysis itself is faulty, namely, it doesn't even quantify correctly the number of scientists or the number of papers which endorse or diminish the importance of AGW."

Quote
Dr. Carlin, your paper 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Carlin: "No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper, 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' as "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize," nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper. I did not explicitly or even implicitly endorse AGW and did quantify my skepticism concerning AGW. Both the paper and the abstract make this clear.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/06/cooks-97-consensus-study-game-plan.html

I doubt you will take time to read it, but TCP (The Consensus Project) was clearly a contrived marketing campaign with a pre-determined outcome to match the message Cook and others wanted to convey:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/06/cooks-97-consensus-study-game-plan.html


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on November 19, 2014, 09:08:50 am
NASA?

Where does NASA’s funding come from? 


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on November 19, 2014, 09:11:24 am
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lNEMrBg7UbA/UZmfTWImF9I/AAAAAAAAAtY/8S-TZpjhtuY/s400/97%25+Misclassified+Papers.gif)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on November 19, 2014, 09:29:59 am
nm. no message.

not even worth it.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on November 19, 2014, 09:39:34 am
nm. no message.

not even worth it.

Swake, you'll never change the deniers, much like the deniers will never change us.

The way I look at is that when the problems start occurring that our children and children's children have to start dealing with, they'll look back and wonder why we did nothing.  Arguing about it seems to be the normal thing to do.

Instead of actually...maybe...doing something prevantative.  Even if there are those in disagreement.  What does that hurt?  And before you guys say we *are* doing something, we aren't doing nearly enough.  IMO.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 19, 2014, 09:48:17 am
Uh Swake, I already posted a few pages back that the flawed methodology of the Cook et al study to arrive at the 97% consensus was completely bunk.  Cook’s research team cherry-picked key words from papers and apparently did not even read the entire content.  At least according to authors of those papers sampled.  As I posted last week and you apparently ignored:



Cook specifically defined how he got those numbers - it was from the abstract (summary) of the papers, taken only from papers that expressed an opinion one way or the other in the abstract, thereby summarizing what was in the paper.  He also very clearly said that about 65% of the papers showed no opinion, removing them from the 'count'.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on November 19, 2014, 09:52:31 am
Swake, people who are absolutely convinced their actions are contributing to AGW need to start acting on it if they feel so strongly instead of sitting around blathering about it.  The the most irritating part of it is the people I personally know who talk loudest about AGW lead the least sustainable lifestyles.  Start walking, riding your bike, and taking public transit, buy an electric car.  Install wind and solar power on your house.  Grow/raise as much of your own food as possible. 

I believe there is climate change, in fact, most educated people do.  The climate has always changed and evolved on earth.  I believe some of it, such as heat islands, are most definitely the result of human activity.  It’s impossible to believe that there hasn’t been some change to the overall climate since the start of the industrial revolution purely based on increased emissions and waste BTU’s going into the atmosphere.

Here’s where I depart from your dogma:  Panic and outright lies induced by forced conclusions and political agendas for power and monetary gain. 



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 19, 2014, 09:59:34 am
Swake, you'll never change the deniers, much like the deniers will never change us.

The way I look at is that when the problems start occurring that our children and children's children have to start dealing with, they'll look back and wonder why we did nothing.  Arguing about it seems to be the normal thing to do.

Instead of actually...maybe...doing something prevantative.  Even if there are those in disagreement.  What does that hurt?  And before you guys say we *are* doing something, we aren't doing nearly enough.  IMO.


That's always the human condition.  The heirs to this world are well and truly stuffed....

We are not proactively doing anything!  There are entities in the world (along the lines of Elon Musk) who are taking certain fields to the next level.  Countries like Germany that are pushing very hard on solar/wind, etc.  But the US is just kinda coasting along - with some places....Oklahoma! - actively discouraging progress in these areas!  And we just keep on electing them... yeah, OK is gonna be an easy sell to the kind of outside companies we are hearing about when the Liar In Chief talks about good paying jobs...Not!

Coca-Cola and Google represent two extremely high profile/visibility companies that will likely have a long term presence here, but when you look at their proactive embrace of solar, it doesn't take much in the mental horsepower area to figure out they will not consider Oklahoma 'key' to their larger efforts.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 19, 2014, 10:20:31 am
Swake, people who are absolutely convinced their actions are contributing to AGW need to start acting on it if they feel so strongly instead of sitting around blathering about it.  The the most irritating part of it is the people I personally know who talk loudest about AGW lead the least sustainable lifestyles.  Start walking, riding your bike, and taking public transit, buy an electric car.  Install wind and solar power on your house.  Grow/raise as much of your own food as possible. 

I believe there is climate change, in fact, most educated people do.  The climate has always changed and evolved on earth.  I believe some of it, such as heat islands, are most definitely the result of human activity.  It’s impossible to believe that there hasn’t been some change to the overall climate since the start of the industrial revolution purely based on increased emissions and waste BTU’s going into the atmosphere.

Here’s where I depart from your dogma:  Panic and outright lies induced by forced conclusions and political agendas for power and monetary gain. 




What public transit would that be...??

Don't forget simple things like caulking windows and doors, etc.  That is something literally anyone can do for very little money and in the overall scheme of things would have at least as much impact as some of the other "bigger" things.  Add some insulation to the attic if one has a slightly higher level of 'mechanical' skills.  Add storm windows.  Change old windows to new efficient windows.  Change A/C to more efficient unit.  The costs go up, but so do the benefits.  Well, except for the A/C thing....if you currently have unit that works properly, it will always be less expensive total than replacing with a more efficient unit - but if it's broke and ya gotta buy one anyway, well swing for the fences!  Get the highest SEER you can!!  Even a 14 will provide visible results on your bill.

There are huge things that can be done, but our "deregulate everything" mentality won't force the issue and the companies involved claim "cost effective".  Very large, highly visible one is something talked about here before - losses in power transmission lines!  About 1/3 of the total power generated is lost in sending it from the generator to the next place in line.  Bigger conductors would have a cost - long term capital expense versus direct deduction today, so we gotta change the tax structure for this one.  Cutting losses by half would mean a much longer time until new power plant is needed, and how many $$ billion per plant?

And yeah, solar is NOW - not some nebulous time in the future - NOW - cost competitive with coal fired power plant capital costs.  And wind is obviously right there with it - especially for higher cost areas like west of here.



...forced conclusions and political agendas for power and monetary gain...

Funny, but I agree completely - and it's big oil that has controlled the agenda for a hundred years - just ask Jim Inhofe who he is beholden to!  And coal before and during most of that.  What is even "funnier" (as in bizarrely strange, warped, and twisted....) is that so many can't see that, or just deny it...



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on November 19, 2014, 06:02:31 pm
Where does NASA’s funding come from? 
Pretty much the same place a lot of college research funding comes from.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on November 19, 2014, 06:07:51 pm
Why is that not an unexpected response, especially from you.
Because your condescending attitude allows you to discount anything you don't like.

Quote
Do you think that churning the emissions we've been churning into the atmosphere at the rates we have been is the answer?  Because if so, then I'll defer to your 'correctness'.  I sure would like to leave a somewhat liveable planet for future generations.
Do you really think that everyone who disagrees with "settled science" wants to turn the USA into China?  Wants to build new dirty coal plants without scrubbers, etc.  Wants to return to 10 MPG family cars? ...
I don't believe so.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on November 19, 2014, 06:50:44 pm
South Park's global warming guy (strangely reminds of ____)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXmZ89eJMbA[/youtube]


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 19, 2014, 07:53:54 pm

Do you really think that everyone who disagrees with "settled science" wants to turn the USA into China?  Wants to build new dirty coal plants without scrubbers, etc.  Wants to return to 10 MPG family cars? ...
I don't believe so.



Bush wanted to.  And especially wanted to prevent any new scrubbers that would take arsenic out.

And Limbaugh does want to return to 10 mpg family cars.  He says so regularly...

So according to your expressed beliefs right there with that post - you have been arguing against your own innermost true feelings.  And against the people that agree with you.  And for the people you don't believe in....



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on November 20, 2014, 01:50:13 pm
This might just sum it up as well as one could.

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/604137_10152517259656167_299092468572676938_n.jpg?oh=ab7a283696b97573334165e454475815&oe=550DA160&__gda__=1427190011_041e0f08e7a03cac94dd3dcfb6e4c973)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 20, 2014, 03:17:24 pm
100% of scientists now agree climate change has at least slowed.  Duh... just like we have been talking about for months.  Media is either wrong (Faux) or slow.....



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on November 20, 2014, 10:06:13 pm
100% of scientists now agree climate change has at least slowed.  Duh... just like we have been talking about for months.  Media is either wrong (Faux) or slow.....



I don’t think there’s that much consensus on it. 

Keep repeating the “consensus” lie and it doesn’t become any more true. (Ahem, Swake).


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on November 23, 2014, 10:18:54 pm
Will somebody raise the temperature of Lake Bixhoma. I am freezing over here...


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on November 24, 2014, 04:24:26 am
Just an observation, unscientific of course, the weather in the US is going through cycles. The lake levels and snow pack at Mt. Shasta and Shasta Lake were/are at levels not seen in the last 10 years. There are parts of Shasta Lake that you can walk across right now, and in September, Mt. Shasta had very little snow pack. Last weekend, Shasta Lake was still low, but Mt. Shasta and the surrounding peaks had a nice cover of snow. Here in the PNW the rainfall is on par, if not above normal amounts. Lakes Powell and Mead are also going through cycles where levels have been normal and below normal.(Yes some of the low levels have been severe, but there is a cycle to them)

I get the fact that I am talking about the US portion of climate change, and I'm not disputing the fact that there is a change in the climate globally, I just get tired of the Al Gore doomsday scenario. I still think that even though there have been numerous studies of ice cores, tree core samples, atmospheric, radar/infrared/global mapping by satellite that we are still in the infancy of the understanding of the way the earth works. And I am so tired of if you disagree with the "Climate Change" people, you are a denier homer and drink from the corporate kool aid.

There are as many studies about the melting of the Poles and Greenland, as their are studies that say it isn't.

It's as bad as if you disagree with the current administration, that you are a racist hater because Obama is black.

If you want to believe that "2012" and "The Day After Tomorrow" are actually documentaries, that's fine. Just don't crap all over the others that are still looking for scientific proof.

**off my soap box**


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on November 24, 2014, 07:53:01 am
^^^flat earther.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: TheArtist on November 24, 2014, 08:32:42 am
I just get tired of the Al Gore doomsday scenario.
If you want to believe that "2012" and "The Day After Tomorrow"

Apparently you and perhaps 4 or 5 extreme right wing and left wing nut cases (oddly enough about half the earths population of those seem to be on here) are the only ones still reading/watching/thinking anything about, those things.  


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on November 24, 2014, 01:40:38 pm
^^^flat earther.

BFF of Kurt Glassco. ;)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on November 24, 2014, 02:56:39 pm

I get the fact that I am talking about the US portion of climate change, and I'm not disputing the fact that there is a change in the climate globally, I just get tired of the Al Gore doomsday scenario. I still think that even though there have been numerous studies of ice cores, tree core samples, atmospheric, radar/infrared/global mapping by satellite that we are still in the infancy of the understanding of the way the earth works. And I am so tired of if you disagree with the "Climate Change" people, you are a denier homer and drink from the corporate kool aid.

There are as many studies about the melting of the Poles and Greenland, as their are studies that say it isn't.

It's as bad as if you disagree with the current administration, that you are a racist hater because Obama is black.

If you want to believe that "2012" and "The Day After Tomorrow" are actually documentaries, that's fine. Just don't crap all over the others that are still looking for scientific proof.

**off my soap box**

Well said, thank you!


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on December 01, 2014, 08:08:21 pm
Will somebody raise the temperature of Lake Bixhoma. I am freezing over here...


Stop swimming until next summer....



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on December 01, 2014, 11:25:50 pm

Stop swimming until next summer....



Well said.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on December 02, 2014, 09:03:35 am
Well said.


Or better yet - and what I plan to do - is build a nice little covered room over the pool.... I have stayed in a hotel somewhere up north - can't remember where - that had this, with a water surface wall that led to outside part of the pool.  4 season use.  And the glass room was amazing to swim in when there was a snowstorm going on!!  It probably deserves a place in a top ten list of most excessive, decadent experiences that one can enjoy! 



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on January 05, 2015, 07:40:25 pm
How bad has global warming gotten? This bad:

Quote
Severe cold throughout the state is having an impact, starting with a Duluth area ski resort closing Sunday because of “extremely low temperatures and intense windchill factors.”

http://www.startribune.com/local/287449321.html


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: ZYX on January 05, 2015, 11:30:48 pm
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2014-officially-hottest-year-on-record/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2014-officially-hottest-year-on-record/)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on January 06, 2015, 01:41:56 am
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2014-officially-hottest-year-on-record/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2014-officially-hottest-year-on-record/)

Well Minnesota certainly did not get that memo.  ::) I guess if it is a thousand degrees on one continent for a summer the whole globe is warming...


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Townsend on January 06, 2015, 08:57:18 am
Well Minnesota certainly did not get that memo.  ::) I guess if it is a thousand degrees on one continent for a summer the whole globe is warming...

Got anything to support how the temperature of Minnesota brought down the global temps or are you just tossing cow patties in the air?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: cannon_fodder on January 06, 2015, 01:20:23 pm
Well Minnesota certainly did not get that memo.  ::) I guess if it is a thousand degrees on one continent for a summer the whole globe is warming...

I ate a full breakfast and full lunch today. Therefore starvation is fictional.   *   *   *   *    I was cold today, therefore Global Warming isn't real.

I really can't believe this thread, let alone this entire debate is still going on.

97+% of scientists and a corresponding proportion of peer reviewed journals agree on global warming. The consensus of scientists agreeing it is either man-made or heavily contributed to by man is nearly as large. There is a greater consensus on climate change than there is on the theory of gravity (which remains un-unified) or on the tobacco-cancer link. Global warming is a scientific fact.

You can say you don't like that. You can argue that you think there is nothing we can do about it, so why try. But arguing against the fact that the earth is warming is simply wrong. Arguing that man did not heavily contribute to is contrary to  (if not outright cause) our vast body of science. It is believing in a conspiracy of academia and science against industry. Of thousands of labs, universities, and institutions all conspiring against massive corporations. Even the US Defense department acknowledges climate change as a strategic threat and has plans to deal with it.

Like all science, it is subject to revision upon the discovery of better data. That's what science is. But I'm not about to jump off of a bridge because the "theory of gravity" is subject to revision (maybe I WONT accelerate on 9.8m/s^2 this time!).

I can't argue GMOs are safe because science says so, that evolution and germ theory should continue to be utilized to progress medicine, or that vaccines don't cause autism because science says so... and then choose to disregard the science that doesn't agree with what I want it to say. That's why science is so great. Your opinion doesn't matter.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: RecycleMichael on January 06, 2015, 02:06:33 pm
According to a Gallup Poll from a few years back, 18% of Americans thought the Sun revolves around the Earth.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/3742/New-Poll-Gauges-Americans-General-Knowledge-Levels.aspx

3% of scientists don't believe in global climate change? I am surprised it is that low. Especially when there is money to be made in denial.

Remember, one out of five dentists recommend sugared gum to the patients who chew gum.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on January 06, 2015, 05:01:30 pm
According to a Gallup Poll from a few years back, 18% of Americans thought the Sun revolves around the Earth.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/3742/New-Poll-Gauges-Americans-General-Knowledge-Levels.aspx

3% of scientists don't believe in global climate change? I am surprised it is that low. Especially when there is money to be made in denial.

Remember, one out of five dentists recommend sugared gum to the patients who chew gum.


Mmmm....gum!!


Polls aren't surprising at all....look at the clown show we elect here in Okrahoma - over 50% !!




Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on January 06, 2015, 08:43:22 pm
Remember, one out of five dentists recommend sugared gum to the patients who chew gum.

I believe that is a false assumption based on 4 out of 5 dentists recommending sugarless gum to patients who chew gum.  You are assuming that the remaining 20% will not recommend something else like not chewing gum at all.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on January 06, 2015, 08:56:23 pm
Global warming is a scientific fact.

Like all science, it is subject to revision upon the discovery of better data. That's what science is.

You seem to be a bit inconsistent here.

Quote
But I'm not about to jump off of a bridge because the "theory of gravity" is subject to revision (maybe I WONT accelerate on 9.8m/s^2 this time!).

Go jump off a really high mountain.  You will accelerate just a bit less than 9.8 m/s^2 (32.17 ft/s^2 for us old-timers). Gravity is not constant, just nearly so where we inhabit the earth.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on January 06, 2015, 09:29:35 pm
Well Minnesota certainly did not get that memo.  ::) I guess if it is a thousand degrees on one continent for a summer the whole globe is warming...

Localized cold does not get entered into the statistics.  Only the warm localized temperatures get entered into the statistics.  You should know that by now.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: cannon_fodder on January 08, 2015, 01:28:51 pm
You seem to be a bit inconsistent here.

No sir. I'm merely trying to use precise language. Under the scientific method, even "facts" are subject to revision upon new information.  A fact is, most basically, a scientific theory that has been so well research and such a degree of agreement has been reached, we feel confident that it is true. BUT, it was a "fact" for many years that energy could not escape black holes... which it turns out was not true (not by coincidence, today is Dr. Hawking's birthday).

From the "National Academy of Sciences":

Quote
In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on January 08, 2015, 05:24:59 pm
I ate a full breakfast and full lunch today. Therefore starvation is fictional.   *   *   *   *    I was cold today, therefore Global Warming isn't real.

I really can't believe this thread, let alone this entire debate is still going on.

I say keep it going.  You never know what new evidence will show up.  Resting on "facts" in the specific definition you presented is not acceptable.   I remember when the now accepted primary cause of stomach ulcers was treated as heresy.  There was talk of taking away the doctor's license, as I remember it.

Quote
A bacterium called H. pylori—not spicy cuisine or stress—is most often the cause of stomach ulcers.
http://www.livescience.com/34799-stomach-peptic-gastric-ulcers.html


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on January 09, 2015, 02:40:16 pm
I say keep it going.  You never know what new evidence will show up.  Resting on "facts" in the specific definition you presented is not acceptable.   I remember when the now accepted primary cause of stomach ulcers was treated as heresy.  There was talk of taking away the doctor's license, as I remember it.
http://www.livescience.com/34799-stomach-peptic-gastric-ulcers.html

Funny you would mention that.  Many docs back in the day, my dad included, started treating ulcer patients with erythromycin because it worked.  The hospitals and insurance companies would have nothing to do with it, so docs would simply add a secondary diagnosis for minor prophylactic treatment of _____ infection if the patient wanted insurance to cover it, or the hospital/nursing home to accept it.  This was in the early 80s when docs knew ulcers and even mouth cankers were bacteria related.  This happens more than you think in medicine, where the practitioners are in disagreement with the academics.  Okay, it happens in every profession. 

In medicine, we see the same today with statin drugs.  Most physicians are now aware that LDL cholesterol levels are a result of vascular inflammation rather than a cause of cardiovascular disease.  After over 20 years of prescribing statins, there is no evidence that higher LDL cholesterol levels lead to heart attack or stroke. The folks that have been taking statins all that time exhibit the same incidence of cardiovascular disease and death, except they are more likely to develop dementia because they have been blocking their body's ability to produce cholesterol in the brain where it acts as the primary antioxidant.

Starting in the 70s and 80s this started having a major effect on what we eat.  We were taught that high cholesterol and saturated fat foods lead to high blood cholesterol levels, and that a fatty diet caused obesity. Again, there was and is no correlation.  Most of the cholesterol in your body is produced by your liver in response to inflammation.  Prick your finger and you develop a scab.  Inflame your blood vessels and you generate more cholesterol.  When you eat fat, your body does not just slap it onto your hips.  Fat from a cow, chicken, or aardvark are not the same as human fat.  Your body has to break all of that fat down, then convert it into sugar, then your cells convert it into human fat.  Basically it takes much more work to turn bacon into love handles than sugar or starch.  Also, eating a slab of bacon does almost nothing to insulin production, so if you want to gain weight, you would need to add a few twinkles to the mix to produce the insulin necessary to make your body store it.

Many docs have known this for quite a while, Atkins was just the first to break the silence about it, even though he really didn't completely understand all of the mechanisms himself.   Now with a growing folio of research even academics are beginning to understand that spikes in blood sugar (and therefore insulin) caused by high carbohydrate diets, and refined sugars, cause immediate and lasting inflammation in the vascular system, and that inflammation is what contributes to heart disease, and a whole host of other ailments including many cancers.  The increase in insulin production from our high carbohydrate diets is what has made us a nation of blimps, not our Spam intake.

Personally I lost 39lbs this last year, basically eating a simi-PALEO diet.  I probably eat twice as much as I did before.  I really don't keep track any more. I like meat and eggs and butter and cheese and vegetables, and nuts and just eat with abandon. My cholesterol (which was always borderline high) is now in the mid to low range, and about 6 months ago I got my old cardiologist dad doing the same thing. He's about 20lbs down and in better shape than ever. 

That ribeye steak will do you no harm, it's that donut that's going to kill you!
Give this a peek.  If you've got Amazon Prime, it's free:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Perfect-Human-Diet/dp/B00AX4QEAS/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1357502705&sr=8-2&keywords=the+perfect+human+diet


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: cannon_fodder on January 09, 2015, 06:01:18 pm
Ok, wait. Are we trying to compare dieting plans with the study of climate change? Sounds like a new thread to me. Let me try one more time...

The beauty of science is that it can change our understanding of the world. It improves with new evidence. At a certain point, enough evidence has been gathered to consider a conclusion a "fact" and we are able to then utilize that information in planning. While we don't exactly know how the flu virus will evolve, we understand that it will and we attempt to plan for that with new flu vaccines. We really don't have a full grasp of relativity, but we know enough to make GPS work.

All I'm trying to say is that we know enough about climate change to consider it a fact. Very specifically, all data shows that a rise C02 will be reflected in a corresponding rise in temperature (at least it has over the last 800,000 years or so from which they can extrapolate data, in lab tests, computer models, and in observable data). Similarly, the C02 rate has been cyclical between 200mil ppm (ice age) and 300ppm (interglacier period) for ~800,000 years.  We are now over 400ppm, which came to pass in a massive spike of Co2 omissions that corresponds with the Industrial Revolution and accelerates in lock step with human C02 emissions.  These facts are not in dispute - the only thing disputed is the conclusion drawn from them. Sure, this sudden spike could be a natural anomaly that simply hasn't ever happened before and is totally unrelated to our observable facts on C02 as a greenhouse gas and the correlation with our c02 emissions.  But that conclusion is not supported by the evidence.

Gaspar, if every time you ate sugar you put on weight... then stopped eating sugar and lost weight, then ate sugar again and put on weight - we can safely say that sugar is causing you to gain weight. If suddenly you begin injecting yourself with triglycerides (Sugar in - monosaccharides [e.g. fructose] into the blood stream - excess monosaccharides to the liver which converts them to triglycerides, which is stored as FAT!), more than you have ever been exposed to before and you see a corresponding sudden rise in weight --- you would immediately say that the injection of triglycerides is causing the weight spike.  Sure, it could be sudden onset of a select few diseases or a spontaneous appearance of a hormonal disorder that just happens to correspond to the injections, but given the known inject of triglycerides I don't think John's Hopkins is going to want to do too many studies.

In real life, you found a diet that helped you eliminate the extra triglycerides and therefore the fat. On planet earth, we need to find a diet to either eliminate the extra C02, or otherwise deal with it.  At very least we need to move past the base line and acknowledge that it is happening, we very likely caused it, and try to figure out what it means as well as if we can practicably do anything about it.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: rebound on January 10, 2015, 12:08:43 pm
Ok, wait. Are we trying to compare dieting plans with the study of climate change? Sounds like a new thread to me. Let me try one more time...

The beauty of science is that it can change our understanding of the world. It improves with new evidence. At a certain point, enough evidence has been gathered to consider a conclusion a "fact" and we are able to then utilize that information in planning. While we don't exactly know how the flu virus will evolve, we understand that it will and we attempt to plan for that with new flu vaccines. We really don't have a full grasp of relativity, but we know enough to make GPS work.

All I'm trying to say is that we know enough about climate change to consider it a fact. Very specifically, all data shows that a rise C02 will be reflected in a corresponding rise in temperature (at least it has over the last 800,000 years or so from which they can extrapolate data, in lab tests, computer models, and in observable data). Similarly, the C02 rate has been cyclical between 200mil ppm (ice age) and 300ppm (interglacier period) for ~800,000 years.  We are now over 400ppm, which came to pass in a massive spike of Co2 omissions that corresponds with the Industrial Revolution and accelerates in lock step with human C02 emissions.  These facts are not in dispute - the only thing disputed is the conclusion drawn from them. Sure, this sudden spike could be a natural anomaly that simply hasn't ever happened before and is totally unrelated to our observable facts on C02 as a greenhouse gas and the correlation with our c02 emissions.  But that conclusion is not supported by the evidence.

Gaspar, if every time you ate sugar you put on weight... then stopped eating sugar and lost weight, then ate sugar again and put on weight - we can safely say that sugar is causing you to gain weight. If suddenly you begin injecting yourself with triglycerides (Sugar in - monosaccharides [e.g. fructose] into the blood stream - excess monosaccharides to the liver which converts them to triglycerides, which is stored as FAT!), more than you have ever been exposed to before and you see a corresponding sudden rise in weight --- you would immediately say that the injection of triglycerides is causing the weight spike.  Sure, it could be sudden onset of a select few diseases or a spontaneous appearance of a hormonal disorder that just happens to correspond to the injections, but given the known inject of triglycerides I don't think John's Hopkins is going to want to do too many studies.

In real life, you found a diet that helped you eliminate the extra triglycerides and therefore the fat. On planet earth, we need to find a diet to either eliminate the extra C02, or otherwise deal with it.  At very least we need to move past the base line and acknowledge that it is happening, we very likely caused it, and try to figure out what it means as well as if we can practicably do anything about it.

Can I continue the analogy?  I think there are corresponding emotional reactions to both obesity (at a personal level) and climate change (at a societal level).  In both cases, the causes and effects are generally known.  But for some people (and societies), the changes required to address the problem (i.e. eat right and exercise, and/or quit burning so many fossil fuels) are so intrusive to their current lifestyle that they would rather deny the problem exists or attempt re-define what is acceptable.  For the obese, or for a society deeply dependent on fossil fuels, getting "fit" may seem impossible.  But making the effort to change is immensely better than continuing down the current path.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: RecycleMichael on January 10, 2015, 12:49:39 pm
But making the effort to change is immensely better than continuing down the current path.

Accept what you cannot change. Especially in large denominations.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on January 11, 2015, 02:55:00 am
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scu-O1c1cy8#t=103[/youtube]


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: BKDotCom on January 11, 2015, 09:37:55 am
The best program I've seen explain climate change is episode 12 of the excellent Cosmos series

Streaming on Netflix (it's only 41 minutes)
http://www.netflix.com/WiPlayer?movieid=80004608&trkid=13641909


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: RecycleMichael on January 11, 2015, 12:51:06 pm
The best program I've seen explain climate change is episode 12 of the excellent Cosmos series

Streaming on Netflix (it's only 41 minutes)
http://www.netflix.com/WiPlayer?movieid=80004608&trkid=13641909

Come on BKDotCom. There is no way that people who deny climate change are going to click on that. Science is a liberal plot.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on January 11, 2015, 10:04:16 pm

All I'm trying to say is that we know enough about climate change to consider it a fact. Very specifically, all data shows that a rise C02 will be reflected in a corresponding rise in temperature (at least it has over the last 800,000 years or so from which they can extrapolate data, in lab tests, computer models, and in observable data). Similarly, the C02 rate has been cyclical between 200mil ppm (ice age) and 300ppm (interglacier period) for ~800,000 years.  We are now over 400ppm, which came to pass in a massive spike of Co2 omissions that corresponds with the Industrial Revolution and accelerates in lock step with human C02 emissions.  These facts are not in dispute - the only thing disputed is the conclusion drawn from them. Sure, this sudden spike could be a natural anomaly that simply hasn't ever happened before and is totally unrelated to our observable facts on C02 as a greenhouse gas and the correlation with our c02 emissions.  But that conclusion is not supported by the evidence.




Just a quick note - your CO2 level numbers are right.  What is out of sync is the order of when all this happens.  It is very clear from all the ice core data that temperature always moves first - followed by CO2.  By hundreds if not thousands of years....both up and down.

The 400 ppm average we are seeing today is the thing that I have been talking about for a long, long time - that is the big difference from the past and is why we should be very cautious.  And try to stop this kind of increase.  We should actually be scared sh$tless!!  If things get hot like they were in the time of the dinosaurs, we are gonna have nothing to eat!  At least not on a level we are eating today! 

It is much like the wild, headlong rush to GMO foods - we are performing massive, world scale experiments with big "toys" we really don't understand.  One of these times, it's gonna bite us in the butt and it ain't gonna be fun!!   Somehow, "I told you so..." just won't quite cut it...!



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on January 16, 2015, 12:58:48 pm
Those hippies at NOAA agree with the Japanese that 2014 was hottest on record. 3rd time in the last decade the record has been broken.

http://www.startribune.com/business/288822531.html



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Gaspar on January 16, 2015, 01:28:08 pm
According to the NYT, the oceans are all gonna die again.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/science/earth/study-raises-alarm-for-health-of-ocean-life.html

Also, the planet is no longer fit for human occupation.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/01/14/science.1259855

It was nice knowing y'all. See ya on the other side.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: RecycleMichael on January 16, 2015, 01:29:36 pm
Those hippies at NOAA agree with the Japanese that 2014 was hottest on record. 3rd time in the last decade the record has been broken.

http://www.startribune.com/business/288822531.html

Science is a liberal plot.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on January 16, 2015, 05:37:22 pm
Those hippies at NOAA agree with the Japanese that 2014 was hottest on record. 3rd time in the last decade the record has been broken.

http://www.startribune.com/business/288822531.html



According to this link from drudge, hippies are being hippies.


http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/scientists-balk-at-hottest-year-claims-we-are-arguing-over-the-significance-of-hundredths-of-a-degree-the-pause-continues/


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on January 19, 2015, 04:40:45 am
Only posting this because the headline is funny. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on January 19, 2015, 04:34:26 pm
Only posting this because the headline is funny. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline

Shhhhhh!  This is what settled science looks like Guido.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: TheArtist on January 19, 2015, 06:56:20 pm
Shhhhhh!  This is what settled science looks like Guido.

Most of the time the "Science" is fine, it's when you get scientists inaccurately talking about it and reporters inaccurately reporting about it that the rest of us get a bunch of muddled poop.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: cannon_fodder on January 20, 2015, 01:11:03 pm
Great point William. You really do have to look for a source that clearly discusses the scientific ramifications. To state categorically that 2014 was "the hottest year on record" is too far to stretch the science. TO state that global temperature readings suggest that 2014 was the hottest year on record would be an accurate statement. Plus, the "hottest year on record" is irrelevant sensationalism. It is the long term trend that matters.

Scientific America does a really good job of not overstating what evidence supports:

Quote
This year will likely be the hottest on record for the planet, with global temperatures 1.03 degrees Fahrenheit higher than the 1961-to-1990 average, according to a new report from the World Meteorological Organization.

This would make 2014 the 38th consecutive year with an anomalously high annual global temperature.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2014-to-be-hottest-year-ever-measured/

Or... we could look at "Climate Depot," a website set up by a lobbying group (which apparently utilizes an 8 year old web master) to confront the "global warming establishment" about "conning the public" with climate change hoaxes.  After all, the article Guido linked to does say "Climate Depot’s Marc Morano issued this statement." Yep, the website Climate Depot quoted Climate Depot's employee as a source.

The entire point of the organization is to fight the idea of global warming and any reaction to it and to encourage oil drilling in the arctic and north slope of Alaska. It is funded mostly by Chevron, Exxon, Koch Industries, Melon Industrial  trusts, etc.  The highest paid employee is Morano (who wrote the article quoting Morano) who believes  Climate Scientists deserve to be publicly flogged.  This is the same guy who did the "Swift Boat" stories on Kerry that were rated as lies by fact check. He also trolled an AIDS benefit on behalf of the Family Research Council (which has been designated a hate group), claiming that the conference was a homosexual free-for-all and he tried really hard to catch it all on video. The guy is a classic troll on all fronts.

Here;s a hint: if a, entire website is set up with conspiratorial goals, funded directly by groups who will benefit front said goal, and the source of that funding is not transparent; it's probably not a very good source.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on January 20, 2015, 03:31:35 pm


https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/135-years-global-warming-one-terrifying-animation-161538777.html



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on January 21, 2015, 04:44:43 pm
This settles it.  ;D

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-votes-98-1-climate-change-not-hoax-n290831


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on January 21, 2015, 06:29:35 pm
This settles it.  ;D

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-votes-98-1-climate-change-not-hoax-n290831


I truly hope that you are right about all this and that everyone else in the world ends up looking silly!! 



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on February 08, 2015, 04:23:00 pm
Drudge headline.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on February 08, 2015, 09:11:55 pm
Hasn't the managing editor of NBC News Brian Williams been warning us about global warming?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on February 08, 2015, 10:01:06 pm
Drudge headline.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html


And you have been reduced to quoting Drudge....  ??  M'kay...



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on February 08, 2015, 10:05:14 pm

And you have been reduced to quoting Drudge....  ??  M'kay...



Reduced?  You're saying that like he's never quoted them before.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on February 08, 2015, 10:12:54 pm
Reduced?  You're saying that like he's never quoted them before.


I think with his selective memory of past events, he may have forgotten by now...


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on February 09, 2015, 01:26:21 am

And you have been reduced to quoting Drudge....  ??  M'kay...


Um, Drudge didn't write the story. He linked to it. I announced it was from Drudge because I was admonished many years ago by someone telling me that essentially everyone reads Drudge already and that I was not really breaking any news by linking from him. I thought it was BS then, but still.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on February 26, 2015, 04:57:34 pm
For all to enjoy...

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sen-inhofe-threw-a-snowball-on-the-senate-floor-today-because-climate-change/


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on February 26, 2015, 05:20:04 pm
For all to enjoy...

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sen-inhofe-threw-a-snowball-on-the-senate-floor-today-because-climate-change/
Makes sense, because he's an idiot.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on February 26, 2015, 06:38:33 pm
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61CK0DXYGTL.jpg)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on February 26, 2015, 06:45:13 pm
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61CK0DXYGTL.jpg)

Swake ain't all bad.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on February 26, 2015, 06:53:01 pm
Swake ain't all bad.

Wasn't necessarily referring ro swake..........


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on February 26, 2015, 06:56:28 pm
Wasn't necessarily referring ro swake..........

I was completely kidding. But your "necessarily" qualifier....hmm...


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on February 26, 2015, 07:03:36 pm
Years ago in my telecom days I had a DSL/VPN tech working for me that would talk to customers on the phone in a perfect Hank Hill voice.

Hilarious. Funniest thing ever.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on February 26, 2015, 07:15:42 pm
Years ago in my telecom days I had a DSL/VPN tech working for me that would talk to customers on the phone in a perfect Hank Hill voice.

Hilarious. Funniest thing ever.

I’ve been told I do a pretty good Hank Hill, my boss can riff on Boomhauer pretty well too.  We get started and we can get people around us laughing pretty good.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on February 26, 2015, 07:17:17 pm
Years ago in my telecom days I had a DSL/VPN tech working for me that would talk to customers on the phone in a perfect Hank Hill voice.

Hilarious. Funniest thing ever.

My imitation of Hank wasn't bad and I had a guy named Bobby one of my cabling crews that was always getting "AAAAHHHHH DAMMIT BOBBY" he was from Abilene and had more fun telling people that the show is a lot like small town Texas.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on February 26, 2015, 07:42:31 pm
My imitation of Hank wasn't bad and I had a guy named Bobby one of my cabling crews that was always getting "AAAAHHHHH DAMMIT BOBBY" he was from Abilene and had more fun telling people that the show is a lot like small town Texas.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kvd2lMYrDhs[/youtube]


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on February 27, 2015, 10:12:46 am
^^^ Now that's funny!


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: patric on May 07, 2015, 10:33:49 pm
Center Of 'Tornado Alley' Shifting To Green County, Research Shows


TULSA, Oklahoma - Scientists are pouring over new models pointing to more extreme weather in Oklahoma's future, including an increase in tornado outbreaks.

Severe weather patterns are changing according to a noted scientist with the National Severe Storms Lab in Norman, and it could put Green Country in line for even worse tornado outbreaks.

In fact, some of the most violent storms that typically start west of Oklahoma City could start firing up immediately west of Tulsa.

Dr. Harold Brooks said alarming evidence shows a semi-permanent drought developing over the high plains is pushing tornado alley east, putting Green County closer to the bull's-eye.
"Many of the climate models project that drying will move east, and, as a result, that'll have a huge impact on where we see storms, because storms essentially happen where it rains," he said.

That's because moisture is the lifeblood of thunderstorm and tornadoes.

"Does the dry part in western Oklahoma move east? And the most likely answer is probably ‘yes.' And at that point, if we move the average position of the dry line from the middle of the Texas Panhandle to central Oklahoma, which, as far as the earth is concerned isn't a big difference, then storms will move east along with that," Brooks explained.

He said Tornado Alley has shifted about 50 miles east since the 1950s, and now the shift could be accelerating; and that's not the only change he's finding in our weather patterns, there's an alarming trend on when tornadoes are happening.
"The big days have gotten bigger, and so we're distributing tornadoes in different ways. It's like we're having more outbreaks, but fewer days in which tornadoes occur," Brooks said.

More days with dozens of tornadoes mean wider-spread damage, and that adds up to a bigger strain on resources for homeowners and emergency management.

The differences are also greater year-to-year.
In just the past five years, we've set the record for the most number of tornadoes and a record for the least number of tornadoes in a 12-month stretch.

It's not clear why, but Brooks said the likely culprit is global warming; and the rising temperatures are also changing the start of severe weather season.
"The season may be happening as much as two or three weeks earlier than it did 30 or 40 years ago," Brooks said.

That's because warmer winter months leading into spring tend to produce severe weather sooner.

And here's the other issue researchers are warning about, the drought expanding eastward.
"That's, in some senses, the single biggest and scariest question, is if we move the dry part of the United State east by, say, 250 miles, that has huge impacts on what we can do with agriculture," Brooks said.

The impact on central and western Oklahoma could be crippling.
"It affects what we can do with our land, and we can't run near the number of cattle that we'd like to if there's a long-term drought out here," said Charlie Coblentz with Coblentz Farms.

Some of our driest years in the past decade have only produced between five and ten inches of rainfall to parts of western Oklahoma.
"If you're not even getting five inches rainfall total a year, there's no water to water the stock, there's no water to grow the grass, and the wells are drying up so there's no water for irrigation if it continues like this," Coblentz said.

It's important to keep in mind that we've always had bursts of extreme weather like major dry spells, tornado outbreaks and flooding rains, but the bottom line, according to Brooks, is that with earth's weather patterns changing, extreme events like a 100-year flood or drought will now likely happen every ten years.
http://www.newson6.com/story/29010930/center-of-tornado-alley-shifting-to-green-county-research-shows



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on May 08, 2015, 05:31:03 am
Wow.

https://news.vice.com/article/as-carbon-pollution-hits-record-level-senator-james-inhofe-says-climate-change-is-greening-the-planet

If he's a product of Oklahoma public education (ha) then no wonder we suck.

"People don't realize you can't grow things without CO2," Inhofe, the Republican chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said on the chamber's floor Wednesday. "CO2 is a fertilizer. It's something you can't do without. No one ever talks about the benefits that people are inducing from that as a fertilizer." That buildup has led "to a greening of the planet and contributed to increasing agricultural productivity," he said.

(http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/forest-whitaker-eye.jpg)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on May 08, 2015, 07:11:50 am
Wow.

If he's a product of Oklahoma public education (ha) then no wonder we suck.

"People don't realize you can't grow things without CO2," Inhofe, the Republican chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said on the chamber's floor Wednesday. "CO2 is a fertilizer. It's something you can't do without. No one ever talks about the benefits that people are inducing from that as a fertilizer." That buildup has led "to a greening of the planet and contributed to increasing agricultural productivity," he said.




It's just a 'little' more complicated than that, Jim.  But would never expect him to understand that.....


After having spent Wednesday afternoon out driving around through all that - trying to dodge the tornadoes - it was notable by the way all those storms were so different from most past events.  Every single thing that happened has occurred before, but the way it all came together was odd.  At the fringe...



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: patric on June 26, 2015, 10:33:18 am

It's just a 'little' more complicated than that, Jim.  But would never expect him to understand that.....



Sen. Inhofe throws Pope under the bus, gets on Daily Show again.
http://ecowatch.com/2015/06/26/jon-stewart-gop-pope-francis/

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/4iq5sj/popeular-science


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on June 26, 2015, 12:18:15 pm

Sen. Inhofe throws Pope under the bus, gets on Daily Show again.
http://ecowatch.com/2015/06/26/jon-stewart-gop-pope-francis/

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/4iq5sj/popeular-science


What is so breathtakingly stupid about Inhofe is that he doesn't even bother to find out anything about the people he spews about.  As it turns out, even just the tiniest, most cursory look into the Pope's background would cause information to move into Inhofe's head - and we can't have that...

The Pope is a Chemical Engineer.  Something that puts him about half a galaxy in light years ahead of anything Inhofe will ever be.  And vastly more qualified to say something about science topics than Inhofe will ever be about ANYTHING!! 






Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Townsend on August 03, 2015, 03:46:43 pm
Oklahoma Officials Vow To Keep Fighting Obama Plan To Cut Power Plant Pollution

https://stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/2015/08/03/oklahoma-officials-vow-to-keep-fighting-obama-plan-to-cut-power-plant-pollution/#more-24657 (https://stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/2015/08/03/oklahoma-officials-vow-to-keep-fighting-obama-plan-to-cut-power-plant-pollution/#more-24657)

(https://stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/files/2013/10/pruitt-sots.jpg)

Quote
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Monday finalized its Clean Power Plan, the Obama Administration’s attempt to cut carbon emissions from power plants by more than 30 percent nationwide.

Though just finalized, the plan has been in the works for two years, and Oklahoma officials have opposed it every step of the way.

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt has already filed two lawsuits against the EPA over the Clean Power Plan, in July calling it “an unlawful attempt to expand federal bureaucrats’ authority over states’ energy economies in order to shutter coal-fired power plants.” Both lawsuits were dismissed, but are being appealed now that the rule is final.

In April, Governor Mary Fallin issued an executive order pledging not to comply with the new rules. States are supposed to come up with their own plans to meet the carbon reduction goals, but the federal government will do it for states, like Oklahoma, that refuse.

as The Oklahoman’s Chris Casteel reports, it all adds up to a protracted legal fight:

A White House official said Sunday that the rule represents “the single biggest step any president has made to curb carbon pollution that is fueling climate change.”

The rule could be tied up in court for years and may ultimately be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. [EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy] said Sunday it is a “legally very strong rule.”

If this all sounds familiar, that’s because it is. Whether the issue is the EPA’s Regional Haze Rule, the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, or any of the environmental regulations pursued by the Obama Administration, Oklahoma can be counted on to fight against it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.

In the meantime, Oklahoma’s largest utility companies are already busy upgrading coal-fired power plants or converting them to natural gas to comply with previous EPA regulations.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on August 03, 2015, 08:55:18 pm
Oklahoma Officials Vow To Keep Fighting Obama Plan To Cut Power Plant Pollution

https://stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/2015/08/03/oklahoma-officials-vow-to-keep-fighting-obama-plan-to-cut-power-plant-pollution/#more-24657 (https://stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/2015/08/03/oklahoma-officials-vow-to-keep-fighting-obama-plan-to-cut-power-plant-pollution/#more-24657)

(https://stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/files/2013/10/pruitt-sots.jpg)


Pruitt does a great meerkat pose.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on August 03, 2015, 09:08:32 pm
Pruitt does a great meerkat pose.

Sorry, all I see in this picture here is 'derp, derp...derpity, derp..derp...derp'.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on August 04, 2015, 08:38:53 am
Let me get this straight, and pollution aside, we are going to fight regulations that will force power plants to use less coal and more natural gas. Coal is a product that we in Oklahoma import and natural gas is our leading export. These regulations should help Oklahoma's economy but because Obama, we say no?





Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: cannon_fodder on August 04, 2015, 09:04:52 am
Nothing to worry about, Pruitt's track record on lawsuits on behalf of the State of Oklahoma is about as good as Inhofe's arguments against Climate Change.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Townsend on August 04, 2015, 11:13:34 am
Nothing to worry about, Pruitt's track record on lawsuits on behalf of the State of Oklahoma is about as good as Inhofe's arguments against Climate Change.

But the jackass keeps spending taxpayer money and wasting taxpayer time.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: patric on April 18, 2017, 10:12:27 am
Nothing to worry about, Pruitt's track record on lawsuits on behalf of the State of Oklahoma is about as good as Inhofe's arguments against Climate Change.


A process that would ordinarily take thousands of years — or more — happened in just a few months in 2016.

Climate Change Reroutes a Yukon River in a Geological Instant

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/science/climate-change-glacier-yukon-river.html



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on July 19, 2017, 03:17:37 pm
Many of you may also remember when the world was destroyed because the hole in the ozone. It was a very bad day.  https://realclimatescience.com/2017/07/twenty-five-years-since-the-ozone-hole-killed-us-all/


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on July 19, 2017, 04:08:12 pm
Many of you may also remember when the world was destroyed because the hole in the ozone. It was a very bad day.  https://realclimatescience.com/2017/07/twenty-five-years-since-the-ozone-hole-killed-us-all/

And we banned CFCs in 1987 leading it to recover. Science.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ozone-hole-was-super-scary-what-happened-it-180957775/



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on July 19, 2017, 04:11:17 pm
And we banned CFCs in 1987 leading it to recover. Science.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ozone-hole-was-super-scary-what-happened-it-180957775/



Yeah, that pesky science and stuff...

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BwUHESZ69B4/UD1PKljRIaI/AAAAAAAAEPw/Q-kKT1rOPOk/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/533+magnus_pyke_science.jpg)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on July 19, 2017, 08:47:27 pm
And we banned CFCs in 1987 leading it to recover. Science.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ozone-hole-was-super-scary-what-happened-it-180957775/



Didn't read my link did ya...Not to worry. Saw this on drudge too. There's hope.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4710672/Man-wants-bring-BRAIN-DEAD-life.html


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on July 19, 2017, 09:28:50 pm
Oh I read it, it's just bullish!t.

As always. I hope your judgement and research skills as a lawyer are better than this. Gullible idiots don't make good lawyers.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=49040



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on July 20, 2017, 10:40:43 am
What is even more exciting is the R410a - the stuff we use today - is dramatically less Ozone unfriendly - but NOT completely!  And is a greenhouse gas, too!!  But fear not, intrepid Earthlings!!  Replacements for R410a are on the way, too!!  That WILL be more friendly to the Ozone!!  Less of a greenhouse gas!!  

But they are highly flammable...like propane!  Maybe more so - I think I read sometime in the near past that the flame speed is higher than propane - may be conflated memory, though.  Which is kind of ironic, because regular old propane makes a very good refrigerant!!   At least as good as most.  Maybe I will convert my A/C over for some long term testing...will keep you posted if I do!  Plus, if it does leak, you are gonna smell it WAY before it will blow up on you!  Like natural gas.  So at least there will be an early warning of impending doom!


And there is a "new" replacement for your old R22 system they are calling R22A that some are actually pushing!  As in heroin "pushers" - not to be confused with Heiron!  Not good.  It is highly flammable, too, but let's you get by with using the old equipment just a little bit longer...  The big issue I can see there is that after capacitors going out on all the motors in the system, leaks are probably the next biggest cause of  making your system not work.  That leak is most often going to be in the evaporator section - the coil inside your house.  Which strategically positions it in exactly the right place to blow up your house!   Moral to that story - bite the bullet and buy new equipment when the old craps out!


Well, I guess we could just go with water as refrigerant - yeah, that works - but it is horribly inefficient, takes very complicated machinery that would be difficult (impossible) to manufacture cost-effectively, and would cost more.  Much more.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: patric on July 20, 2017, 01:35:53 pm

Well, I guess we could just go with water as refrigerant - yeah, that works - but it is horribly inefficient, takes very complicated machinery that would be difficult (impossible) to manufacture cost-effectively, and would cost more.  Much more.


The house we bought in midtown actually had a water cooling tower in the corner, fed by pipes to the compressor shed that ran on 3-phase power.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on July 20, 2017, 01:58:04 pm
The house we bought in midtown actually had a water cooling tower in the corner, fed by pipes to the compressor shed that ran on 3-phase power.


Chiller setup.  Or water source heat pump.  Tower inside??  That is strange in residential, but a lot of tall commercial buildings will do that just because they can't use the roof or ground around it.  Think New York Skyscrapers.  Entire floors dedicated to cooling/heating with vents out the side wall for air exchange.

I have a small portable A/C unit by Whynter that works like a charm - standard method, but has two hoses connected to plate that mounts in window for air to blow across the condenser coil.  Very efficient!  Also has heat pump function!

3 phase is good!   I love 3 phase for everything.  Am planning to replace table saw motor with 3 ph and put a variable speed drive on it. 

Ammonia is really good, but probably even more toxic than some of the newer refrigerants - not from poison point of view so much as oxygen displacement (suffocation)....



The one I am talking about uses water as the refrigerant - special compressor, condenser, evaporator - a lab curiosity, but it does seem to work...not practical.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on July 20, 2017, 02:00:51 pm
The house we bought in midtown actually had a water cooling tower in the corner, fed by pipes to the compressor shed that ran on 3-phase power.

I didn't even think 3-phase power was allowed in private residential buildings?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on July 20, 2017, 02:12:57 pm
I didn't even think 3-phase power was allowed in private residential buildings?


Codes allow, but it will be very much more expensive than single phase.  A VFD on point uses for equipment would cost much less - 220vac converted to 3ph.  If the power company will even let you do that....haven't asked PSO, but since I have it in my shop, don't really need it in the house...well, except for air conditioning...that would be nice!



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on July 20, 2017, 06:08:44 pm
I didn't even think 3-phase power was allowed in private residential buildings?

Our rental house in Wedgwood at 21st & Yale has a three phase A/C system.  It was built in 1959 and I’m told that was not terribly uncommon back then.

Not sure what ‘hood Patric lives in but a cooling tower for the condenser would have been pretty old school and likely would have been a larger system.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: TeeDub on July 21, 2017, 07:59:58 pm

You could always just use a swamp cooler.   Doesn't work well in higher humidity areas like Tulsa.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: patric on July 21, 2017, 11:39:46 pm
Our rental house in Wedgwood at 21st & Yale has a three phase A/C system.  It was built in 1959 and I’m told that was not terribly uncommon back then.

Not sure what ‘hood Patric lives in but a cooling tower for the condenser would have been pretty old school and likely would have been a larger system.

The 3-phase went away when AEP rebuilt the overhead wiring for my neighborhood after the '07-08 ice storm.
The compressor shed looked like a storage shed, was loud and scary.  All that remains is the pipe stub where the house plumbing connected to the buried water lines that ran between the compressor and the water tower.  I dont know if there was any sort of backflow protection or if that was a thing in the '50's.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on July 23, 2017, 10:45:22 am
The 3-phase went away when AEP rebuilt the overhead wiring for my neighborhood after the '07-08 ice storm.
The compressor shed looked like a storage shed, was loud and scary.  All that remains is the pipe stub where the house plumbing connected to the buried water lines that ran between the compressor and the water tower.  I dont know if there was any sort of backflow protection or if that was a thing in the '50's.

My sole experience with cooling towers and chillers are commercial units from 10 ton to 20,000 ton systems so my knowledge of residential “wet” condensers is comparatively low.

I’m guessing a cooling tower the size which would have been on your property (unless you live in a Philbrook size mansion) would have been an atmospheric draft wooden tower (i.e. no draft fan like on larger commercial units) but would have had a basin and pump to pump the water back to the top of the tower where it could atomize, evaporate, and cool.  It would have a float type mechanical water make up valve in the basin of the tower so only fresh water, and not recirculating water would have been in the pipe from the house, really no need for a back flow preventer in that case.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on July 23, 2017, 08:35:24 pm
Backflow preventer maybe if connected to the city water lines - in addition to the float makeup valve.  Not sure they understood the water supply contamination possibilities very well back when that was installed.  That would be similar to swimming pool in terms of maintenance - different chemicals, but treatment would have been required to keep the chemistry proper.

Can you tell how big the water tower would have been from where it was?  I would guess something maybe the size a few of the old time swamp coolers might have been enough.  Maybe 6' x 6' x 6' - ish.... Maybe a little bigger.??




Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: patric on July 23, 2017, 09:08:41 pm
Backflow preventer maybe if connected to the city water lines - in addition to the float makeup valve.  Not sure they understood the water supply contamination possibilities very well back when that was installed.  That would be similar to swimming pool in terms of maintenance - different chemicals, but treatment would have been required to keep the chemistry proper.

Can you tell how big the water tower would have been from where it was?  I would guess something maybe the size a few of the old time swamp coolers might have been enough.  Maybe 6' x 6' x 6' - ish.... Maybe a little bigger.??

I remember it was shaped like an upright refrigerator but larger.  A couple feet taller than me but I was smaller then as well.  Sat in the corner of the yard surrounded by a wire fence.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on August 01, 2017, 05:32:05 pm
 I love today's global cooling… I mean weather.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Ed W on August 01, 2017, 05:37:58 pm
Common mistake. Climate is macro. Weather is micro.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on August 01, 2017, 05:39:36 pm
Common mistake. Climate is macro. Weather is micro.

Yes, micro, like trumps hands.....


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on August 01, 2017, 09:50:09 pm
I love today's global cooling… I mean weather.

Cooler than normal weather does not enter into the models for climate change, only hotter than normal days count.  Washington and Oregon are presently having our normal (or maybe a bit warmer) August weather, proving beyond a doubt that Al Gore's Gulfstream causes global warming.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: cannon_fodder on August 02, 2017, 07:06:13 am
Cooler than normal weather does not enter into the models for climate change, only hotter than normal days count.  Washington and Oregon are presently having our normal (or maybe a bit warmer) August weather, proving beyond a doubt that Al Gore's Gulfstream causes global warming.

Not sure if a joke, or gross ignorance.

(https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder431/500x/60553431/sinking-titanic-the-ship-cant-be-sinking-my-end-just-rose-200-feet.jpg)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on August 02, 2017, 08:42:28 am
Not sure if a joke, or gross ignorance.

(https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder431/500x/60553431/sinking-titanic-the-ship-cant-be-sinking-my-end-just-rose-200-feet.jpg)



It's a heavy dependence on Fake Fox News Sound Bite Worldview....disguised as a joke.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on August 02, 2017, 10:38:12 am
Not sure if a joke, or gross ignorance.

(https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder431/500x/60553431/sinking-titanic-the-ship-cant-be-sinking-my-end-just-rose-200-feet.jpg)

I was discussing with a guest the other day such issues.  Putting it into perspective, the current belief in global warming, climate change, or whatever we want to call it, is only about 25 or so years old.  It seems like a very young science with so many variables at work to be so absolute in its conclusions so as not to give any dissension credibility.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on August 02, 2017, 11:02:09 am
I was discussing with a guest the other day such issues.  Putting it into perspective, the current belief in global warming, climate change, or whatever we want to call it, is only about 25 or so years old.  It seems like a very young science with so many variables at work to be so absolute in its conclusions so as not to give any dissension credibility.


The big difference that is highly visible between this warming/CO2 event and all the previous ones is the sequence.  The Vostok cores show us history for half a million years where temps and CO2 have gone up and down in a regular if not quite predictable pattern.  EACH of these events was led by temperature changing...meaning for whatever reason, temperature increased followed sometime later by increased CO2 levels.

THIS event is the exact opposite of that.  CO2 levels started rising followed by increases in temperature.  That one reason alone should not just give pause, but should be cause flashing red lights, screaming sirens, and blaring announcements from loudspeakers!   We have turned around 100% in the opposite direction from what is a natural, cyclical event of nature to the exact opposite!  Caused by man's activities.

Anyone not at least very concerned, either should be, or is a complete fool.


Not actually a belief - it is measurable data for 200+ years.  And the fact that CO2 is now at an average level of 400 ppm - about 100 ppm higher than any of the previous Vostok levels - puts another little alarm there.




Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: TheArtist on August 03, 2017, 04:03:43 am
Years ago I pointed out some of the models show that Oklahomas weather could moderate once we shift to a more "tropic" zone.  Summers may not be as hot but winters will be warmer. 

2 things to point out though.

 During the transition we could see wilder weather swings until whatever "new normal" sets in.

That new normal could either be us being Death Valley dry and with 120+ temps killing everything we have. Or Tropical with more rain and warm winters.

I am hoping for the latter. Would love to have palm trees and tropical plants in my yard year round!



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on August 03, 2017, 09:02:07 am
I was discussing with a guest the other day such issues.  Putting it into perspective, the current belief in global warming, climate change, or whatever we want to call it, is only about 25 or so years old.  It seems like a very young science with so many variables at work to be so absolute in its conclusions so as not to give any dissension credibility.

Um, no. Climate Science is hundreds of years old. The first prediction of global warming due to human caused CO2 dates to the late 19th century, almost 125 years ago, not 25 years ago.

https://skepticalscience.com/history-climate-science.html
https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm

You are being lied to by the energy industry

Remember when oil drilling didn't cause earthquakes and smoking didn't cause cancer?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on August 03, 2017, 09:28:40 am

Remember when oil drilling didn't cause earthquakes and smoking didn't cause cancer?



You are reminding us what we have to look forward to if Trump is impeached - Mike Pence!   He still believes and spews the verbal vomit that smoking doesn't cause cancer!   Or any other disease or adverse reaction...

I would much rather have the old swamp than the new swamp....

One would have hoped, but we DID get fooled again...at least many of the weak minded did...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYMD_W_r3Fg




Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on August 03, 2017, 07:24:41 pm
Would love to have palm trees and tropical plants in my yard year round!

I would like to have year 'round Tepin chile pepper plants.  They are grown in southern Texas as ornamental shrubs.  I like the peppers, little round ones the size of a green pea.  Yes, they are hot.





Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on August 03, 2017, 07:27:23 pm
Um, no. Climate Science is hundreds of years old. The first prediction of global warming due to human caused CO2 dates to the late 19th century, almost 125 years ago, not 25 years ago.

https://skepticalscience.com/history-climate-science.html
https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm

You are being lied to by the energy industry

Remember when oil drilling didn't cause earthquakes and smoking didn't cause cancer?


Again: Putting it into perspective, the current belief in global warming, climate change, or whatever we want to call it, is only about 25 or so years old.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: TheArtist on August 03, 2017, 10:35:03 pm
Again: Putting it into perspective, the current belief in global warming, climate change, or whatever we want to call it, is only about 25 or so years old.

I think 25 years is quite a long time actually.  A lot of "hypothesis" get shot down in months to only a couple of years these days. 

For quite a while I kept expecting that you would see more "Well we hadn't thought of this and it really changes our views that perhaps global whatever may not happen/be as bad etc.  Then you would see some ideas and discoveries shift back, then to the other direction and so fourth.

After the 70s and early 80s when scientists were indeed throwing out big ideas and new notions (I mean, there were not many before this time that really believed that we puny humans could have an appreciable effect on the climate of the entire earth?! Surely you jest!) and there was broader arguments going on as new ideas shifted the possibilities back and fourth. 

But after that in an amazingly short time actually, what I have instead seen is the occasional "this actually may have a cooling effect" but then that is followed by ever more and stronger "oh we have also learned that this will make things warmer" things. 

Instead of the idea becoming weaker or more questionable as time has gone on, the idea just keeps getting on ever firmer and ever more detailed footing.  I keep waiting for that big "Oh no why didn't we think of that?" notion to pop up.  But it hasn't and what we have instead seen is a growing avalanche in the opposite direction.  Every year that goes by adds more data points, more studies are finished, more "this should knock it down" disproven, ever more detailed and powerful models STILL pointing in the same direction and more often than not, we find that we have UNDERESTIMATED the warming potential.

The "arrow" keeps MORE firmly pointing in one direction. 


For me though, my main concern has become about health.  Cars spewing out pollutants.

Again, here more and more studies keep showing bad health effects from auto exhaust.   And of course as fate would have it... I live right near a highway.  It was my choice, should have thought of that before moving here. But there you are.  Do I move and let some other family move in and it harm their health?  What if they have children? That would bother me.  So I am becoming more and more a fan of renewable energy and clean/electric vehicles.  My and others health is a more immediate concern than climate warming/change.  But as luck would have it, working to make the world safer and cleaner for ourselves and our families would also go a long way to allaying whatever climate concerns there are.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: cannon_fodder on August 04, 2017, 08:21:54 am
Again: Putting it into perspective, the current belief in global warming, climate change, or whatever we want to call it, is only about 25 or so years old.

That isn't accurate.

As previously stated, the original hypothesis is more than 125 years old.  The tools to begin measuring it started in earnest in the 1930s.  But the 1960s satellite data, core samples, and historic measurements were being confirmed by climate models.  By 1977 scientists for Exxon concluded that global warming caused by man made C02 emissions was a scientific consensus.   by the mid 1980s nearly every scientific organization had issued statements confirming the consensus.  BY the end of the 1980s there had been multiple worldwide conferences on limited C02 emissions (consistently veto'd, refused, or withdrawn from by only one advanced nation).

This isn't a "current" belief any more than the current "belief" in any other scientific endeavor.  The list of scientific discoveries or achievements that are newer than this is long and distinguished, and nearly all of them go unquestioned.    From seedless watermelons to smart phones.  From GPS to stealth technology.  From  the 401k to Al Gore inventing the internet (OK, I grant the 401k isnt a science, but I was trying to think of something opposite of Al Gore inventing the internet).  Scientists have discovered an un-observable sub-atomic universe consisting of stringy things that pop in and out of existence at random but somehow comprises the static world we know, and everyone went "wow, that's weird, but OK."  Scientists tell us for a couple of generations that there is observable evidence that man made C02 emissions are warming the planet and there's push back...

This might sound like a wild conspiracy, but in the midst of a scientific consensus on global warming and the oil bust of the 1980s - an industry group was formed to try to lobby America into thinking that there wasn't a consensus, that the science was too new, and that the course of action was unclear.  It even had a name straight out of a scary conspiracy handbook:  "The Global Climate Coalition," and included some of the same companies whose internal scientists were telling them to start planning for climate change. Unlike the conspiracies though, this wasn't some covert or hidden operation.  Setting up a paradigm to deny global warming and to stop efforts to fight it that would hinder their industries was the state purpose.

Denial of the scientific consensus became a part of the GOP platform and persists, even as the industry group folded and scientific evidence continues to mount. But it remains a fact that there is as much or more scientific consensus on global warming as there is on just about anything else, and there has been for a long time.  It isn't new.  it isn't a "belief" any more than any scientific consensus is.  And the "current" belief has only changed in that it has become more accurate with new data (a pesky rule in science).  You can only argue that the scientific consensus is too new for so many decades...

https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm
https://history.aip.org/climate/public.htm#L_M032
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Stewart_Callendar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauna_Loa_Observatory
http://what-when-how.com/global-warming/villach-conference-global-warming/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: patric on August 04, 2017, 10:54:47 am
I love today's global cooling… I mean weather.


Someone please explain why being supportive of our energy industry means you have to become a science denier?

It doesnt seem that far off from the deeply religious who deny scientific explanations for the world around them because it might contradict long-held beliefs that are based on profound misunderstandings of physics, biology, etc.

Last night Mr. Trump rallied he “ended the war on beautiful, clean coal” to West Virginia billionaire coal baron Gov. Jim Justice and his slogan-swallowing peons.  He really said that.  Maybe he was "just joking" like last week's rally promoting brutality in front of a police department who recently had to replace their chief for beating up a man who stole his bag of dildos?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Townsend on August 04, 2017, 11:16:00 am
this is long and distinguished

(http://www.screenused.com/images/topgun/VLC103.jpg)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on August 04, 2017, 05:01:10 pm
Another example of the science being settled:

http://www.jyi.org/issue/delayed-gratification-why-it-took-everybody-so-long-to-acknowledge-that-bacteria-cause-ulcers/



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on August 05, 2017, 06:37:09 am
Another example of the science being settled:

http://www.jyi.org/issue/delayed-gratification-why-it-took-everybody-so-long-to-acknowledge-that-bacteria-cause-ulcers/




Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.  Years of denial by the ulcer deniers who only wanted to maintain their kickbacks from the Nexium crowd.  Two hospital visits over 6 years with serious internal bleeding, with a strong recommendation by the gastropod for "exploratory surgery".  The surgeon chosen came in and talked to me.  Looked thoroughly disgusted, put me on the twin antibiotics intravenously.  Continued with pills for 3 weeks after getting out of hospital.  No more ulcers/acid reflux/gastritis for over 10 years.


Much the same way the climate change deniers are digging in, dragging us down solely to maintain their revenue stream.





Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on August 05, 2017, 01:13:58 pm
Great research! Follow your timeline.  The period I speak of starts with:

“1990 First IPCC report says world has been warming and future warming seems likely. =>International”

So I was off by two years.  This is my recollection: that the momentum started around 1990 or 1991 on the current and more solidified belief that man-made global warming was a thing.  In the 1970’s it was smog, acid rain, and the potential of cooling.  In the 1980’s it was the hole in the ozone layer.  IIRC, global warming was identified somewhat as an environmental issue in the 1992 POTUS election.

As recent as this year, there have been dust ups amongst noted climatologists about how data is collected and interpreted.  (Google “Karl Study" on the 1998-2013 warming “hiatus” which was essentially disproven by the Karl report but the methodology rankled some NOAA scientists).  No one is trying to say this makes the theory of global warming climate change bunk, but it does seem to indicate some dissension in the ranks of climatologists in the way data is collated and interpreted.  Hence: this is still a rather new era of climate science and there is still some protocol which appears to be in dispute or disagreement.

Many of the devices (satellites, sea buoys, etc.) used to collect the data scientists are using in their predictions have been deployed in the last 20-25 years.  So this is a relatively new field of study with so many scientists and apparatus now dedicated to tracking and interpreting the data.

It is certainly believable that we might be able to change the course of climate change as smog and emissions regulations employed in the 1970’s mitigated acid rain and many smog issues. As an interesting aside and somewhat off-topic, there are writings from Spanish explorers of the smog or haze in the L.A. basin dating back hundreds of years before the internal combustion engine due to temperature inversion.

Ostensibly restricting CFC’s is helping to mitigate the hole in the ozone layer which was discovered in 1985.  Oh wait, that continues to grow, but scientists say it grows later in the season and forms at a slower rate, so that’s a win even though the goal posts moved somewhat.  Even with restrictions on CFC’s it continued to grow.  So much for human intervention there, right?  http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-sci-sn-ozone-hole-healing/  Perhaps limiting CFC’s helps or perhaps this hole is cyclical like other climate issues.

I’m all for cleaner air, and there’s little doubt that increased emissions and BTU’s sent into the atmosphere do help contribute to climate change.  I simply see a certain amount of hubris when mankind seems to think it has all the keys to changing something as huge as our atmosphere.

YMMV

That isn't accurate.

As previously stated, the original hypothesis is more than 125 years old.  The tools to begin measuring it started in earnest in the 1930s.  But the 1960s satellite data, core samples, and historic measurements were being confirmed by climate models.  By 1977 scientists for Exxon concluded that global warming caused by man made C02 emissions was a scientific consensus.   by the mid 1980s nearly every scientific organization had issued statements confirming the consensus.  BY the end of the 1980s there had been multiple worldwide conferences on limited C02 emissions (consistently veto'd, refused, or withdrawn from by only one advanced nation).

This isn't a "current" belief any more than the current "belief" in any other scientific endeavor.  The list of scientific discoveries or achievements that are newer than this is long and distinguished, and nearly all of them go unquestioned.    From seedless watermelons to smart phones.  From GPS to stealth technology.  From  the 401k to Al Gore inventing the internet (OK, I grant the 401k isnt a science, but I was trying to think of something opposite of Al Gore inventing the internet).  Scientists have discovered an un-observable sub-atomic universe consisting of stringy things that pop in and out of existence at random but somehow comprises the static world we know, and everyone went "wow, that's weird, but OK."  Scientists tell us for a couple of generations that there is observable evidence that man made C02 emissions are warming the planet and there's push back...

This might sound like a wild conspiracy, but in the midst of a scientific consensus on global warming and the oil bust of the 1980s - an industry group was formed to try to lobby America into thinking that there wasn't a consensus, that the science was too new, and that the course of action was unclear.  It even had a name straight out of a scary conspiracy handbook:  "The Global Climate Coalition," and included some of the same companies whose internal scientists were telling them to start planning for climate change. Unlike the conspiracies though, this wasn't some covert or hidden operation.  Setting up a paradigm to deny global warming and to stop efforts to fight it that would hinder their industries was the state purpose.

Denial of the scientific consensus became a part of the GOP platform and persists, even as the industry group folded and scientific evidence continues to mount. But it remains a fact that there is as much or more scientific consensus on global warming as there is on just about anything else, and there has been for a long time.  It isn't new.  it isn't a "belief" any more than any scientific consensus is.  And the "current" belief has only changed in that it has become more accurate with new data (a pesky rule in science).  You can only argue that the scientific consensus is too new for so many decades...

https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm
https://history.aip.org/climate/public.htm#L_M032
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Stewart_Callendar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauna_Loa_Observatory
http://what-when-how.com/global-warming/villach-conference-global-warming/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on August 06, 2017, 10:15:32 am
there are writings from Spanish explorers of the smog or haze in the L.A. basin dating back hundreds of years before the internal combustion engine due to temperature inversion.

Burning wood for cooking etc probably contributed to the smog part.  Haze due to water vapor is what it is.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on August 06, 2017, 11:52:10 pm
Lat night's unusual August tornado obviously a result of climate change. Or manbearpig was secretly rummaging through the Promenade area.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on August 07, 2017, 09:49:57 am
Lat night's unusual August tornado obviously a result of climate change. Or manbearpig was secretly rummaging through the Promenade area.

Tornado's in August unusual and rare? Don't think so. December 1975 was rare. I would say they are more common in the northern US in August but they are far from rare or unusual in Oklahoma.

http://www.ustornadoes.com/2015/08/17/heres-where-tornadoes-typically-form-in-august-across-the-united-states/ (http://www.ustornadoes.com/2015/08/17/heres-where-tornadoes-typically-form-in-august-across-the-united-states/)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: cannon_fodder on August 08, 2017, 10:00:41 am
Great research! Follow your timeline.  The period I speak of starts with:

“1990 First IPCC report says world has been warming and future warming seems likely. =>International”

So I was off by two years.  This is my recollection: that the momentum started around 1990 or 1991 on the current and more solidified belief that man-made global warming was a thing.  In the 1970’s it was smog, acid rain, and the potential of cooling.  In the 1980’s it was the hole in the ozone layer.  IIRC, global warming was identified somewhat as an environmental issue in the 1992 POTUS election

. . .

I’m all for cleaner air, and there’s little doubt that increased emissions and BTU’s sent into the atmosphere do help contribute to climate change.  I simply see a certain amount of hubris when mankind seems to think it has all the keys to changing something as huge as our atmosphere.

Let me try to be more clear on the timeline:

Global warming from man emitted CO2 was identified as an issue in the late 1800s.  It was studied throughout the 1900s.  IN 1977 Exxon scientist felt it was a scientific consensus.  The conclusions had been drawn much earlier than that even - this is when Exxon scientists internally came to accept it.  1977.  The National Academy of Science, known for being a conservative body (scientifically, not politically), declared global warming "highly credible" in 1979.

By the mid 1980s almost all  bodies had declared a consensus.  The IPPC was formed in the late 1980s after a near universal consensus was reached to try to clarify the damage and what can be done.  That's why their first report wasn't issued until the early 1990s - they didn't exist much before that.

If political discord is an important signal in science, Ronald Reagan discussed climate change when he first ran for the White House.  More than a decade before the first IPPC report.  Climate change and funding for research has been a conservative issue since the early 1980s.  International conferences for action on climate change took place before the end of the 1980s.  Industry groups joined forces for a lobbying and PR effort against the science before the 1980s ended. 

There has been 80 years of research on the issue and broad scientific consensus for more than 30 years.  The general principal that man made co2 emission are causing Earth to warm is about as solid a scientific consensus as ever exists. There is a broader consensus on global warming than there is on the link between smoking and cancer.  There is very little that can be done to make the scientific fact of global warming more robust.

That doesn't mean it is set in stone (no science ever should be), but it does mean that there is as little basis to deny global warming as about any other scientific fact.  If we had to wait longer than 30 or 40 years to act on a scientific fact, we'd be living in the 1970s still.

(see all the previous citations, no need to repeat)

- - -


Also, BTUs into the air have little effect.  All the BTUs man has ever produced pale in comparison to the energy adsorbed from the sun in a few days (fun fact: the energy from the sub hitting the earth in an hour and a half has more energy in it than all energy used by humans in a year.  The sunlight hitting earth is 89,300 TeraWatts of energy).

Finally, the atmosphere isn't nearly as vast as you may believe and changes to it are easy to measure.  When put into scale of the earth, there is a tiny sliver of atmosphere.  The total volume of C02 is a known quantity:

- 3200 gigatons of C02, that's not much for the entire atmosphere - about .041% of the atmosphere.

- At the start of the industrial revolution, the CO2 concentration was 280ppm, ice core samples and other isolated pockets (such as lava) show that it was stable for ~10,000 years before that.

- Current concentrations are 403 PPM, and rising an average of 2ppm per year (that's a lot compared to how much there is).

- The best evidence suggests 400 ppm is the highest the earth has seen in more than 10 million years.

- Man made emissions of CO2 are about 10 gigatons per year

- Measurements of CO2 concentrations are accurate enough to see the effects of the growing season in the different hemispheres - as plants absorb C02.

- Water is able to absorb some CO2 (making it more acidic), but not nearly all of it.

There is no scientific doubt about the levels of CO2 or that they are rising.  There is no doubt about the greenhouse effect of CO2.  The questions that remain is what is the buffering ability of the oceans, how dependent are the currents on stable temperatures, and what the effects will be at different intervals of CO2 concentration and temperature (and other variables can come into play - changes to the sun, volcanic eruptions, snow coverage and other weather patters, etc.).  The facts don't care about human hubris, they don't care if most people think it is impossible.  They simply are.

http://calgary.rasc.ca/images/Earth_Atmosphere1.gif

http://www.sandia.gov/~jytsao/Solar%20FAQs.pdf

CO2 Summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on August 08, 2017, 10:49:00 am


- At the start of the industrial revolution, the CO2 concentration was 280ppm, ice core samples and other isolated pockets (such as lava) show that it was stable for ~10,000 years before that.

- Current concentrations are 403 PPM, and rising an average of 2ppm per year (that's a lot compared to how much there is).




The Vostok cores show CO2 ranging from about 200 to about 300 ppm, repeatedly, over more than 400,000 years.  (I have posted links to those here, also repeatedly over the last 400,000 years!)

Not sure any direct evidence has been found yet like the actual CO2 found in the cores, but I am betting it would be hundreds of million or quite likely billions of years ago since it was this high.  Back when oceans were forming and we had little to no oxygen in the atmosphere.



Oh, yeah...almost forgot...the earth is only 6,000 years old, too...!!  And climate change is a Chinese plot...




Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on August 09, 2017, 10:45:14 pm
Let me try to be more clear on the timeline:

Global warming from man emitted CO2 was identified as an issue in the late 1800s.  It was studied throughout the 1900s.  IN 1977 Exxon scientist felt it was a scientific consensus.  The conclusions had been drawn much earlier than that even - this is when Exxon scientists internally came to accept it.  1977.  The National Academy of Science, known for being a conservative body (scientifically, not politically), declared global warming "highly credible" in 1979.

By the mid 1980s almost all  bodies had declared a consensus.  The IPPC was formed in the late 1980s after a near universal consensus was reached to try to clarify the damage and what can be done.  That's why their first report wasn't issued until the early 1990s - they didn't exist much before that.

If political discord is an important signal in science, Ronald Reagan discussed climate change when he first ran for the White House.  More than a decade before the first IPPC report.  Climate change and funding for research has been a conservative issue since the early 1980s.  International conferences for action on climate change took place before the end of the 1980s.  Industry groups joined forces for a lobbying and PR effort against the science before the 1980s ended. 

There has been 80 years of research on the issue and broad scientific consensus for more than 30 years.  The general principal that man made co2 emission are causing Earth to warm is about as solid a scientific consensus as ever exists. There is a broader consensus on global warming than there is on the link between smoking and cancer.  There is very little that can be done to make the scientific fact of global warming more robust.

That doesn't mean it is set in stone (no science ever should be), but it does mean that there is as little basis to deny global warming as about any other scientific fact.  If we had to wait longer than 30 or 40 years to act on a scientific fact, we'd be living in the 1970s still.

(see all the previous citations, no need to repeat)

- - -


Also, BTUs into the air have little effect.  All the BTUs man has ever produced pale in comparison to the energy adsorbed from the sun in a few days (fun fact: the energy from the sub hitting the earth in an hour and a half has more energy in it than all energy used by humans in a year.  The sunlight hitting earth is 89,300 TeraWatts of energy).

Finally, the atmosphere isn't nearly as vast as you may believe and changes to it are easy to measure.  When put into scale of the earth, there is a tiny sliver of atmosphere.  The total volume of C02 is a known quantity:

- 3200 gigatons of C02, that's not much for the entire atmosphere - about .041% of the atmosphere.

- At the start of the industrial revolution, the CO2 concentration was 280ppm, ice core samples and other isolated pockets (such as lava) show that it was stable for ~10,000 years before that.

- Current concentrations are 403 PPM, and rising an average of 2ppm per year (that's a lot compared to how much there is).

- The best evidence suggests 400 ppm is the highest the earth has seen in more than 10 million years.

- Man made emissions of CO2 are about 10 gigatons per year

- Measurements of CO2 concentrations are accurate enough to see the effects of the growing season in the different hemispheres - as plants absorb C02.

- Water is able to absorb some CO2 (making it more acidic), but not nearly all of it.

There is no scientific doubt about the levels of CO2 or that they are rising.  There is no doubt about the greenhouse effect of CO2.  The questions that remain is what is the buffering ability of the oceans, how dependent are the currents on stable temperatures, and what the effects will be at different intervals of CO2 concentration and temperature (and other variables can come into play - changes to the sun, volcanic eruptions, snow coverage and other weather patters, etc.).  The facts don't care about human hubris, they don't care if most people think it is impossible.  They simply are.

http://calgary.rasc.ca/images/Earth_Atmosphere1.gif

http://www.sandia.gov/~jytsao/Solar%20FAQs.pdf

CO2 Summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

Look Sonny, I know what I know and that’s all that matters.  Don’t try to school me on my personal recollections, whippersnapper.  ;D

I’m not denying the thought and hypothesis of global warming didn’t exist before 1990.  I believe I first heard of the theory late in elementary or early middle school in the late 1970’s or early 1980’s. You keep missing the simple point I’ve made that the GW community didn’t really start gaining a lot of momentum until the 1990’s with more funding and grooming a whole generation of climatologists dedicated specifically to that field of study nor was it at the forefront of the public conscience as it is today.  It didn't get much coverage outside of scientific journals or publications for general consumption like Popular Science or Popular Mechanics prior to the early 1990’s. 

If greenhouse gasses trap heat in the atmosphere, that necessarily would have to include human-generated BTU’s as some part of it.  As an immutable truth of physics, heat rises, correct?  I would also think that helps contribute to the heat island effect of large urban areas in addition to all the concrete and metal which reflect solar-generated heat.

If science has taught us anything it is that it is constantly evolving.  Old theories are disproven by new discoveries all the time.  The use of satellite data for climatological purposes is still very much, if not in its infancy, then it’s in its teen years.  We did not have that kind of reliable global observation of temperatures 150, 100, or even 50 years ago nor did we have the sort of coordination of data between scientists globally like we do today.  We also are putting a lot of faith in scientists who interpret ice core data to be 100% accurate.  Again, science evolves.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: cannon_fodder on August 10, 2017, 08:14:28 am
Argh!  You're killing me  smalls.  Really, I think you actually want the info.  So I will keep supplying it...here is another knowledge dump!

- - -

BTUs do contribute.  I did the math, human produced BTUs contribute less than 0.02% of the heat energy on planet earth each year (also please recall that nearly all of the heat energy the planet has in a year is lost to space...that's why it cools down overnight.  The concern is the retention rate, which is why a "greenhouse effect" is a thing).  Happy to stand corrected, so I showed my work.

The sun's energy reaching the earth is 8.93x10^16 Watts per hour.  24 hours a day, 365 days a year.  That's 7.82268 X 10^20 Watts of power per year of energy from the sun reaching the earth.

Humans produce and used  1.575 x 10^17 watts of energy in an entire year.

So...   1.575x10^17 / 7.82268x10^20 = .000201338.  Subtract from that energy generated from the sun (solar etc.) or energy generated from geothermal.  Subtract from that the heat radiance of the earth itself.  Even if we adjust more for reflection of energy (likely offset by core energy), it seems safe to say less than 2 one hundredths of 1% of the heat is from made generated BTUs.  

Also worth noting, heat islands are not so much caused by the heat we generate, as they are by creating surfaces that more efficiently absorb and radiate solar radiation.

- - -

On the larger issue - my entire point is this:  global warming is as robust of a scientific consensus as anything else.  You can choose to believe "hey, it might change," but that same lack of logic could be applied to any scientific consensus.  It isn't an honest intellectual debate (it appears the theory is flawed because...), its an expression of cognitive dissonance.  People don't want to accept the conclusion, so they choose not to.  

More specifically to your points - yes, we have been coordinating global scientific efforts for centuries.  Recall Ben Franklin's kite experiment made him a household name in Europe.  National Academies of science have been publishing papers since before Isaac Newton "discovered" gravity.  Things got done before the internet.  ;)

Also, we have been observing the earths weather for as long as there has been written records.  Tide, rain, and temperature most commonly.  The first weather satellite went up in 1960.  The standard thermometer was developed in 1709, the mercury thermometer in 1714 (well before the industrial revolution).  Of course before that we have records of the weather that are less accurate or reliable (it snowed today... or crop was killed by frost).  Many scientific fields use many methods to analyze temperatures way further back in time.  NASA has an entire webpage discussing the topic (https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_01/), but they use pollen, the presence of tropical fossils, or what animals lived there to get a general idea of climate (gee, Alaska used to be tropical).  To be more accurate you can look at the ice cores (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-are-past-temperatures/) - chemistry tells us the precise temperature at which calcium carbonate is formed (the ratio of oxygen isotopes varies depending on temperature at formation, you can recreate the results i a lab).  So we can go back 1.5 million years with great accuracy (probably more accurate than John Q. reading it off a thermometer).

If we want to go back further than ice cores allow (as stated about 1.5 million years),  you need to find layers of sediment (or rock at this point) that were formed under water.  There are several species of tiny sea creatures (think chalk) that use calcium carbonate to form their shells. This isn't a "hey look, a snail lived here so it was 85 degrees!"  Remember, there is a known ratio in chemistry of different oxygen isotopes depending on the temperature (https://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/research/equable/isotope.html) when it bonded with the Calcium and Carbon.  The difficulty is getting rid of externalities in the data (most notably the O18 concentrations in the water during formation) when you go back further than 1.5 million years.

Many scientific fields contribute to the knowledge base.  Chemistry, physics, geology, even biology and archaeology.    This isn't some "guess" or "theory" that just sounds good.  The components that go into proving it are testable, repeatable, and explanatory.  Again, it is as sound of a scientific fact as you are likely to ever find.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on August 10, 2017, 09:03:44 am
There’s plenty of room for cynicism or doubt.  Saying skeptics suffer from cognitive dissonance is a pretty strong characterization don’t you think? It’s almost as bad as the pejorative "climate change deniers”.  Denying sea levels are rising would be a good example of cognitive dissonance if the black and white data shows average sea levels have increased over 30 years or whatever.  Arguing about how or why it is happening is natural human curiosity, IMO.

I’m somewhere between man-made change and climatological cycles as to what our climate has been doing specifically since the industrial revolution.  I have a brain which is constantly seeking new information and doesn’t settle on spoon-fed pap so I have my doubts in both directions but I’m always open to new information.

I also believe someone who is hired to do a specific job will do what they are paid to do given a certain set of evidence.  As an attorney, when a client pays you to defend them in a civil or criminal case, even if the evidence suggests your client may be guilty or negligent, you were still paid to get others to reach a conclusion your client was not guilty or negligent with the evidence you have on hand.  In other words, you will present the evidence in such a way to try and reach the conclusion your client wanted when they hired you.

Let’s put it this way:  If you were awarded a grant which would cover your living expenses for ten years to study the eating habits of zebras, you are going to be looking at zebras not horses.  If the wording of your grant award were to prove glacial melting trends, you are going to be looking for and documenting areas where ice is retreating, not accumulating.

Read any non-media-generated articles on climate change and there are still many “probably”, “possibly”, “could be" and “maybe” to make one question as to how settled the science is to global warming er climate change.

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

Speaking to ice advance and retreat:

“While scientists have observed some stronger-than-normal pressure systems – which increase winds – over the last month or so, that element alone is probably not the reason for this year’s record extent, Meier said. To better understand this year and the overall increase in Antarctic sea ice, scientists are looking at other possibilities as well.

Melting ice on the edges of the Antarctic continent could be leading to more fresh, just-above-freezing water, which makes refreezing into sea ice easier, Parkinson said. Or changes in water circulation patterns, bringing colder waters up to the surface around the landmass, could help grow more ice.

Snowfall could be a factor as well, Meier said. Snow landing on thin ice can actually push the thin ice below the water, which then allows cold ocean water to seep up through the ice and flood the snow – leading to a slushy mixture that freezes in the cold atmosphere and adds to the thickness of the ice. This new, thicker ice would be more resilient to melting.

Five new NASA Earth science missions are launching in 2014 to expand our understanding of Earth’s changing climate and environment.
NASA's "Earth Right Now" website

“There hasn’t been one explanation yet that I’d say has become a consensus, where people say, ‘We’ve nailed it, this is why it’s happening,’” Parkinson said. “Our models are improving, but they’re far from perfect. One by one, scientists are figuring out that particular variables are more important than we thought years ago, and one by one those variables are getting incorporated into the models.”

For Antarctica, key variables include the atmospheric and oceanic conditions, as well as the effects of an icy land surface, changing atmospheric chemistry, the ozone hole, months of darkness and more.

“Its really not surprising to people in the climate field that not every location on the face of Earth is acting as expected – it would be amazing if everything did,” Parkinson said. “The Antarctic sea ice is one of those areas where things have not gone entirely as expected. So it’s natural for scientists to ask, ‘OK, this isn’t what we expected, now how can we explain it?’”

I do have a certain skepticism of government and governmental agencies, but I’ll take narrative ten times over from articles drawn directly from NASA or NOAA (still keeping in mind that they have a set idea that the conclusion they are trying to prove is man-made climate change) than I would interpretations of articles by journalists who are making a fine living reporting on climatological issues.

Read articles like the link posted above with an open mind and you’ll get my point that it’s still a young field with many things scientists still cannot explain about the phenomena. 


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on August 10, 2017, 09:45:17 am

I also believe someone who is hired to do a specific job will do what they are paid to do given a certain set of evidence.  As an attorney, when a client pays you to defend them in a civil or criminal case, even if the evidence suggests your client may be guilty or negligent, you were still paid to get others to reach a conclusion your client was not guilty or negligent with the evidence you have on hand.  In other words, you will present the evidence in such a way to try and reach the conclusion your client wanted when they hired you.

Let’s put it this way:  If you were awarded a grant which would cover your living expenses for ten years to study the eating habits of zebras, you are going to be looking at zebras not horses.  If the wording of your grant award were to prove glacial melting trends, you are going to be looking for and documenting areas where ice is retreating, not accumulating.




Horrible analogies.  Totally different worlds.

Scientists - real ones - are hired to study what is happening, whichever way it is going - open to reality.  

Real scientists are awarded grants to study glacial activity - not just looking for melting or freezing, but looking at what is really happening.  The big oil "scientists" are the ones getting grants to show that glaciers are not melting at all.  


Also, along the 'open mind' route - that's why it is global climate change, not just global warming.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: patric on August 10, 2017, 02:11:28 pm
https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2017/08/10/global-warming-2016-confirmed-earths-hottest-year-record/556405001


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on August 10, 2017, 03:33:10 pm
https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2017/08/10/global-warming-2016-confirmed-earths-hottest-year-record/556405001

As expected, an hysterical mic drop from USA Today without as so much as quantifying by how much it was hotter.  I suggest we stick closer to the source and not a media which likes to sensationalize it.

Here’s what NASA has to say about it:

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally

Quote
Earth’s 2016 surface temperatures were the warmest since modern recordkeeping began in 1880, according to independent analyses by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Globally-averaged temperatures in 2016 were 1.78 degrees Fahrenheit (0.99 degrees Celsius) warmer than the mid-20th century mean. This makes 2016 the third year in a row to set a new record for global average surface temperatures.

The 2016 temperatures continue a long-term warming trend, according to analyses by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. NOAA scientists concur with the finding that 2016 was the warmest year on record based on separate, independent analyses of the data.

Because weather station locations and measurement practices change over time, there are uncertainties in the interpretation of specific year-to-year global mean temperature differences. However, even taking this into account, NASA estimates 2016 was the warmest year with greater than 95 percent certainty.

“2016 is remarkably the third record year in a row in this series,” said GISS Director Gavin Schmidt. “We don’t expect record years every year, but the ongoing long-term warming trend is clear.”

The planet’s average surface temperature has risen about 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.

Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year – from January through September, with the exception of June – were the warmest on record for those respective months. October, November, and December of 2016 were the second warmest of those months on record – in all three cases, behind records set in 2015.

Phenomena such as El Niño or La Niña, which warm or cool the upper tropical Pacific Ocean and cause corresponding variations in global wind and weather patterns, contribute to short-term variations in global average temperature. A warming El Niño event was in effect for most of 2015 and the first third of 2016. Researchers estimate the direct impact of the natural El Niño warming in the tropical Pacific increased the annual global temperature anomaly for 2016 by 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit (0.12 degrees Celsius).  

Weather dynamics often affect regional temperatures, so not every region on Earth experienced record average temperatures last year. For example, both NASA and NOAA found the 2016 annual mean temperature for the contiguous 48 United States was the second warmest on record. In contrast, the Arctic experienced its warmest year ever, consistent with record low sea ice found in that region for most of the year.

NASA’s analyses incorporate surface temperature measurements from 6,300 weather stations, ship- and buoy-based observations of sea surface temperatures, and temperature measurements from Antarctic research stations. These raw measurements are analyzed using an algorithm that considers the varied spacing of temperature stations around the globe and urban heating effects that could skew the conclusions. The result of these calculations is an estimate of the global average temperature difference from a baseline period of 1951 to 1980.

NOAA scientists used much of the same raw temperature data, but with a different baseline period, and different methods to analyze Earth’s polar regions and global temperatures.


GISS is a laboratory within the Earth Sciences Division of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. The laboratory is affiliated with Columbia University’s Earth Institute and School of Engineering and Applied Science in New York.

NASA monitors Earth's vital signs from land, air and space with a fleet of satellites, as well as airborne and ground-based observation campaigns. The agency develops new ways to observe and study Earth's interconnected natural systems with long-term data records and computer analysis tools to better see how our planet is changing. NASA shares this unique knowledge with the global community and works with institutions in the United States and around the world that contribute to understanding and protecting our home planet.

The full 2016 surface temperature data set and the complete methodology used to make the temperature calculation are available at:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp

The slides for the Jan. 18, news conference are available at:

https://go.nasa.gov/2016climate

For more information about NASA's Earth science programs, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/earth

-end-

Last Updated: Aug. 4, 2017

Editor: Karen Northon


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on August 10, 2017, 04:10:38 pm
As expected, an hysterical mic drop from USA Today without as so much as quantifying by how much it was hotter.  I suggest we stick closer to the source and not a media which likes to sensationalize it.

Here’s what NASA has to say about it:

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally


The NASA report is very serious. I'm not sure what your issue with the USA Today story is re: the NASA report.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on August 10, 2017, 04:47:07 pm
The NASA report is very serious. I'm not sure what your issue with the USA Today story is re: the NASA report.

Did you see where USA Today quantified that the temperature has risen by about 2 degrees F since the turn of the last century?  I didn’t either because it wasn’t there.  Instead, they seek to sensationalize it by proclaiming it to be the “hottest on record in 800,000 years” as if it’s going to implode next year.

This is my issue.  Simpletons fall prey easily to sensational headlines and stories which leave out important details.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on August 10, 2017, 08:58:00 pm
Did you see where USA Today quantified that the temperature has risen by about 2 degrees F since the turn of the last century?  I didn’t either because it wasn’t there.  Instead, they seek to sensationalize it by proclaiming it to be the “hottest on record in 800,000 years” as if it’s going to implode next year.

This is my issue.  Simpletons fall prey easily to sensational headlines and stories which leave out important details.


The important detail that every layman just goes sailing past while thinking there is no difference is the BIG difference in the way it is manifested this time.  For 500,000 years or so, we the planet went through a consistent, almost "planned" predictable cycle where temperature went up followed by CO2.  And then back down in exactly the same way.  Time after time.  Hundreds of millenia.

This time is exactly 180 degrees opposite that - in no physically possible way could this happen without some serious disruption or interference or outside influence/input.  You cannot change stable, repeatable physical systems without some OTHER external influence.   Like the activity of man.  CO2 is leading this cycle.  Because of human activity.  Perhaps burning coal and oil is the minority contributor, but eliminating rain forests, massively increasing the bovine population, massively increasing the human population.  All together, these things are changing the world.  It remains to be seen whether for the better or the worse.  I am betting worse, since that is always how it seems to go....

As for those who say, "How can little ole man change something as big as our atmosphere/planet..."   Stupid question from stupid people.  OR big oil vested interests.  You are right - simpletons fall prey very easily!  Just one look at the entire northern expanse of Africa should be at least a clue.  During Biblical times, the Sahara was much, much smaller.  And is growing as a direct result of overpopulation and overgrazing.






Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: cannon_fodder on August 11, 2017, 07:22:19 am
I  wish I could make this short, but I want to address your arguments. I truly am happy to continue answering questions, but at a certain point it wonders away from actual data and into speculation.  When that happens, there is little merit to the discussion:

1. Nothing in the rebuttal from yestrday morning contained any suggestion of evidence contrary to the consensus held for more than a generation.  Maybe its just advocacy, the language isn't strong enough, we aren't sure about the effects... these are all possibilities, but just looking at them for a second casts them aside when we are framing the actual issue.  There is overwhelming data supporting the consensus on global warming.  Someone needs to present extraordinary evidence if they want to change the theory.  That hasn't happened in this thread or anywhere else, but at this point we have stopped even discussing scientific questions. Instead we are now raising possibilities and opinions and pretending they stand on their own merit.

2. Each "doubt" that you raised previously has a readily available answer backed by hard science.  Too young - its older than atomic physics or relativity.  Consensus not reach - it was reached in the 1970s.   They aren't sure about historic temperatures - here's the science.  It's human BTUs - here's the math.   Questioning and doubt aren't bad at all, but when all those questions are answered and there is basically nothing left to support the doubt - you are left with a strongly held belief, not a debate about science.  Is there any data, fact or explanation that will change your mind?  Probably not.   Often the entire debate can be reduced to "no matter what, I still won't believe you."

3. This isn't a matter of advocacy.  I can advocate against the notion of climate change in spite of overwhelming scientific data in support of it. But the data is not an endeavor in advocacy.  It sure feels that way when the conclusions are against what one either wants or thinks they should be, but the US Military or Exxon or China don't have any reason to advocate in favor of global warming, yet they accept the scientific data.  For that matter, the National Academy of Science had no stake in accepting or denying the premise when it did so 30+ years ago.  The status quo in the 1930s is that it was an unproven theory, the burden was on those who believed the premise to prove it.  Now that the data has accomplished that goal and it has a generation of additional research in support of it - there is a huge burden on anyone wishing to overturn the fact (that's how science works).  If someone wants to set out to prove smoking doesn't cause cancer - you have a huge burden to do so. 

And no one is presenting a solid case against climate change.  There are "questions" and conspiracy theories, but an examination of any of them fail to hold up.

4. Science isn't an absolute language. Another common argument is that scientists use words like "may" and "probably" or "evidence suggests."  A scientists will almost never say "that cannot happen,"  even if it is true that no evidence supports it and there is no current theory that would allow it.  The language of science is not usually the same as everyday speech, while a senator might hold a snowball and say "the earth is not getting warming," a scientist probably rebuts with "our best evidence suggests the earth is, in fact, warming." But often the problem is more basic than that, a desire by science to gain a better understanding is somehow held out as proof that they are all wrong.

Lets look at the language you linked to that is causing you doubts: It all discusses trying to improve what the effects of climate change will be.  Nothing in that article raises evidence to suggest that man made CO2 is causing the average global temperature to rise.  Rather, the entire article discusses scientific endeavors to try and model what the effects of the accepted fact of global warming will be .  But somehow the take away is - "See, they aren't sure about global warming!"  (incidentally, the term "Climate Change" was coined to try to bypass this very conversation.  "The earth isn't warming, it got colder in X!"  It is entirely anticipated that the warming will change climates differently [the current area of study], but that change is caused by an overall increase in temperature).  The fact is considered so well established that nearly everyone has moved on to the next questions:  what will the local effects be and what can we do?

5. A mass market nespaper didn't adaquately describe a scientific finding?  Say it ain't so!  Yet a page ago you were arguing that the media in the past was blathering about global cooling - and you used that as evidence that the science of global warming was unsettled.  By that logic, the article by USA Today must be evidence that the science is well settled - no?  Of course not.  Then again, it wasn't trynig to quantify the overall effects,

The mass media does an OK job of hitting the headlines.  But John Q Public is basically illiterate when it comes to science.  You previously pointed to the IPCC as a late-comer to the climate change concensus - if you want a scientific assessment lets start there.  Here is the 5th Assessment of the IPCC - finding 0.85 C (1.53F) temperature rise from 1880 to 2012.
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

The USA article describes NASAs newest data, which shows an even larger rise. They again use scientific language to describe it, which you bolded presumably to highlight the nature of the language. So I will say it again, scientists generally don't say things like "oh sh!t, it is getting hotter faster than we thought!"  And again, someone is trying to draw the best conclusion from available data, and somehow that fuels the idea that they don't know what they are doing?  Note that they provide all of the data and the methodology, anyone is free to go look at the data and tell them why they are wrong. That isn't happening for a reason.
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally


Which brings us back full circle, there is overwhelming evidence in support of CO2 produced by humans causing the planet to get warmer.  You don't have to like it or "believe" in it, but it is a scientific fact.  I'm happy to spend time answering questions, pointing out data, and trying to explain things.  It helps me learn too.  But for the vast majority of people who refuse to admit the existence of overwhelming scientific evidence in support of global warming, it doesn't matter at all. No fact, data, or explanation is going to change the opion.  Which means we aren't really discussing science.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: BKDotCom on August 11, 2017, 07:49:58 am
^ Incredibly well said


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: rebound on August 11, 2017, 08:36:38 am
And no one is presenting a solid case against climate change.  There are "questions" and conspiracy theories, but an examination of any of them fail to hold up.

I was listening to Steele and Ungar on POTUS radio ealier this week, and they had a scientist on discussing this issue.  For those not familiar,  (Michael) Steele is the ex GOP party head, and (Rick) Ungar is a noted liberal-ish columnist.  It's a great show where you can hear both sides of an issue discussed with very little of the hyperbole that often surrounds political topics.

The main issue for the scientist, who was a proponent of Climate Change, is/was "where are the papers?"   I yield to him on this as I did not go check, but he said that there have been no (zero) papers formally submitted for peer review that argue against climate change, or even against human-caused climate change.   There are numerous peer-reviewed papers supporting this argument, but none against it.  All the "anti" climate change arguments have been made outside this tested process.   

His suggestion was that if a valid argument can be scientifically made against climate change, and the position is to be taken seriously, it would have been (and still should be) submitted for public peer review.   Otherwise it's just propaganda, not actual science.





 


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: cannon_fodder on August 11, 2017, 09:21:28 am
His suggestion was that if a valid argument can be scientifically made against climate change, and the position is to be taken seriously, it would have been (and still should be) submitted for public peer review. 

A scientist that is able to come up with significant flaw in an established scientific principle gains world renown. Its hard to do and it is a long road, but its done all the time.  And each time it is done, we gain knowledge and end up better off.  What you will hear from science deniers on any established topic when you say there are no peer reviewed papers to the contrary is that it is a conspiracy.  No flat earth papers get published, no anti-vax papers get published, no big-foot papers get published...because the establishment won't let them.

Ignoring the fact that a journal that publishes a paper that casts strong doubt on an established theory gains notoriety, not too mention the author.  All you need to do to see what I mean is review the decades of papers in favor and against climate change to see the process at work.  Or look up the papers that almost gleefully destroy Einstein's theory of a static universe (after Einstein himself destroyed the existing understanding of relativity, the planet vulcan, and several other theories).  Attacking  scientific dogma earns great prizes, but you have to bring your A game.

When that happens concerning climate change, I will change my tune happily. God willing we see that reflective increases with temperature or some other stabilizing force presents itself. But no one is firing that caliber of ammunition.  At the moment, saying climate change is bogus is like saying you're sure the University of Tulsa is going to win the BCS Championship because they are the best (note the total lack of supporting data for my pipe dream).  That doesn't mean it can't happen, but if it does... I was right due to blind luck, not knowledge.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on August 11, 2017, 10:13:46 am
I was listening to Steele and Ungar on POTUS radio ealier this week, and they had a scientist on discussing this issue.  For those not familiar,  (Michael) Steele is the ex GOP party head, and (Rick) Ungar is a noted liberal-ish columnist.  It's a great show where you can hear both sides of an issue discussed with very little of the hyperbole that often surrounds political topics.

The main issue for the scientist, who was a proponent of Climate Change, is/was "where are the papers?"   I yield to him on this as I did not go check, but he said that there have been no (zero) papers formally submitted for peer review that argue against climate change, or even against human-caused climate change.   There are numerous peer-reviewed papers supporting this argument, but none against it.  All the "anti" climate change arguments have been made outside this tested process.   

His suggestion was that if a valid argument can be scientifically made against climate change, and the position is to be taken seriously, it would have been (and still should be) submitted for public peer review.   Otherwise it's just propaganda, not actual science.





 

That's an excellent point.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: erfalf on August 11, 2017, 10:52:33 am
That's an excellent point.

I've been keeping away, but this is low hanging fruit.

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2016/10/PeerReview.pdf

Peer Review does not equal correct. Basically, other experts make sure nothing completely ridiculous gets published. Now-a-days completely ridiculous = does not believe in AGW. As the article I posted notes, peer review is an excellent gate keeper. It has also had the effect of making discourse less open than it used to be and greatly biased against innovative work. Peer review, is a relatively new phenomenon as we know it today (a little over 40 or 50 years has it been widely used). And really there is no reliable study that goes to confirm the benefit of peer review.

With AGW, it is used as a stick to beat people over the head and say believe me, "it's peer reviewed".

*George Zweig’s paper announcing the discovery of quarks, one of the fundamental building blocks of matter, was rejected by Physical Review Letters. It was eventually issued as a CERN report.

*Berson and Yalow’s work on radioimmunoassay, which led to a Nobel Prize, was rejected by both Science and the Journal of Clinical Investigation. It was eventually published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation.

*Krebs’ work on the citric acid cycle, which led to a Nobel Prize, was rejected by Nature. It was published in Experientia.

*Wiesner’s paper introducing quantum cryptography was initially rejected, finally appearing well over a decade after it was written.

At best peer review an imperfect filter for validity and quality. At worst it has a chilling effect on true scientific breakthroughs.

And generally speaking, saying there are no peer review papers that are "anti-global warming" I think is a bit of play on words. There are tons of papers that attribute other factors much more heavily than human input to changes in global climate. I agree though, I doubt there are going to be any papers saying there is no change to the climate, ever. But those were two political hacks making that point, and being honest and genuine isn't exactly in there DNA.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: rebound on August 11, 2017, 11:29:24 am
I've been keeping away, but this is low hanging fruit.
Peer Review does not equal correct.

The argument is not regarding "correct".  It is regarding doing something in an established, scientific way so as to allow open discourse to support or refute the argument.  It is supposed to be a gate keeper.   But, there are many gates.   As you note below, even if it is initially rejected, a good idea will eventually find foothold and get reviewed.   

At best peer review an imperfect filter for validity and quality. At worst it has a chilling effect on true scientific breakthroughs.

This argument is similar to the argument against "mainstream media", and related to the proliferation of alternate news (such as it may be...) sources.  While it is fair to say that limiting discourse is a possible issue, the converse of allowing unsubstantiated arguments to enter the mainstream discussion without vetting is much more detrimental to real scientific progress.

But those were two political hacks making that point, and being honest and genuine isn't exactly in there DNA.

Are you talking about Steele and Ungar?  I agree with you that their role is to be political hacks, but I do think they are genuine in their arguing of their political positions. (and, that's their job on the show)  But, they weren't the ones making this argument.  The scientist was.   Holding aside the "peer reviewed" aspect of this,  his point was that there have been no formal papers submitted with formal, scientific, positions on alternate theories.  At least none that have survived scrutiny.

Also, one last point regarding access and the ability to publish these alternate papers.   There is a TON of money being made available by industry to anyone who can counter some of these warming claims.  So I do not accept that naysayers are restricted from publication.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on August 11, 2017, 12:25:11 pm
I  wish I could make this short, but I want to address your arguments. I truly am happy to continue answering questions, but at a certain point it wonders away from actual data and into speculation.  When that happens, there is little merit to the discussion:

1. Nothing in the rebuttal from yestrday morning contained any suggestion of evidence contrary to the consensus held for more than a generation.  Maybe its just advocacy, the language isn't strong enough, we aren't sure about the effects... these are all possibilities, but just looking at them for a second casts them aside when we are framing the actual issue.  There is overwhelming data supporting the consensus on global warming.  Someone needs to present extraordinary evidence if they want to change the theory.  That hasn't happened in this thread or anywhere else, but at this point we have stopped even discussing scientific questions. Instead we are now raising possibilities and opinions and pretending they stand on their own merit.

2. Each "doubt" that you raised previously has a readily available answer backed by hard science.  Too young - its older than atomic physics or relativity.  Consensus not reach - it was reached in the 1970s.   They aren't sure about historic temperatures - here's the science.  It's human BTUs - here's the math.   Questioning and doubt aren't bad at all, but when all those questions are answered and there is basically nothing left to support the doubt - you are left with a strongly held belief, not a debate about science.  Is there any data, fact or explanation that will change your mind?  Probably not.   Often the entire debate can be reduced to "no matter what, I still won't believe you."

3. This isn't a matter of advocacy.  I can advocate against the notion of climate change in spite of overwhelming scientific data in support of it. But the data is not an endeavor in advocacy.  It sure feels that way when the conclusions are against what one either wants or thinks they should be, but the US Military or Exxon or China don't have any reason to advocate in favor of global warming, yet they accept the scientific data.  For that matter, the National Academy of Science had no stake in accepting or denying the premise when it did so 30+ years ago.  The status quo in the 1930s is that it was an unproven theory, the burden was on those who believed the premise to prove it.  Now that the data has accomplished that goal and it has a generation of additional research in support of it - there is a huge burden on anyone wishing to overturn the fact (that's how science works).  If someone wants to set out to prove smoking doesn't cause cancer - you have a huge burden to do so. 

And no one is presenting a solid case against climate change.  There are "questions" and conspiracy theories, but an examination of any of them fail to hold up.

4. Science isn't an absolute language. Another common argument is that scientists use words like "may" and "probably" or "evidence suggests."  A scientists will almost never say "that cannot happen,"  even if it is true that no evidence supports it and there is no current theory that would allow it.  The language of science is not usually the same as everyday speech, while a senator might hold a snowball and say "the earth is not getting warming," a scientist probably rebuts with "our best evidence suggests the earth is, in fact, warming." But often the problem is more basic than that, a desire by science to gain a better understanding is somehow held out as proof that they are all wrong.

Lets look at the language you linked to that is causing you doubts: It all discusses trying to improve what the effects of climate change will be.  Nothing in that article raises evidence to suggest that man made CO2 is causing the average global temperature to rise.  Rather, the entire article discusses scientific endeavors to try and model what the effects of the accepted fact of global warming will be .  But somehow the take away is - "See, they aren't sure about global warming!"  (incidentally, the term "Climate Change" was coined to try to bypass this very conversation.  "The earth isn't warming, it got colder in X!"  It is entirely anticipated that the warming will change climates differently [the current area of study], but that change is caused by an overall increase in temperature).  The fact is considered so well established that nearly everyone has moved on to the next questions:  what will the local effects be and what can we do?

5. A mass market nespaper didn't adaquately describe a scientific finding?  Say it ain't so!  Yet a page ago you were arguing that the media in the past was blathering about global cooling - and you used that as evidence that the science of global warming was unsettled.  By that logic, the article by USA Today must be evidence that the science is well settled - no?  Of course not.  Then again, it wasn't trynig to quantify the overall effects,

The mass media does an OK job of hitting the headlines.  But John Q Public is basically illiterate when it comes to science.  You previously pointed to the IPCC as a late-comer to the climate change concensus - if you want a scientific assessment lets start there.  Here is the 5th Assessment of the IPCC - finding 0.85 C (1.53F) temperature rise from 1880 to 2012.
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

The USA article describes NASAs newest data, which shows an even larger rise. They again use scientific language to describe it, which you bolded presumably to highlight the nature of the language. So I will say it again, scientists generally don't say things like "oh sh!t, it is getting hotter faster than we thought!"  And again, someone is trying to draw the best conclusion from available data, and somehow that fuels the idea that they don't know what they are doing?  Note that they provide all of the data and the methodology, anyone is free to go look at the data and tell them why they are wrong. That isn't happening for a reason.
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally


Which brings us back full circle, there is overwhelming evidence in support of CO2 produced by humans causing the planet to get warmer.  You don't have to like it or "believe" in it, but it is a scientific fact.  I'm happy to spend time answering questions, pointing out data, and trying to explain things.  It helps me learn too.  But for the vast majority of people who refuse to admit the existence of overwhelming scientific evidence in support of global warming, it doesn't matter at all. No fact, data, or explanation is going to change the opion.  Which means we aren't really discussing science.

You go to an awful lot of trouble to reply to: “The science isn’t settled”.  ;)

It’s a simple point, CF:  The mechanism by which it is happening is not “settled”.  Too many laymen rely on this simple word to describe something which is far from settled as to the mechanism of the warming.  As I said, I do accept to an extent that warming is a result of human activity as well as normal climatological shifts which seems to be pretty much inline with what scientists seem to agree upon, right?  Reading NASA’s 2016 report on the state of the climate, warming was not entirely a function of human activity due to a lingering El Nino condition for the first third of the year after nearly a full year of it in 2015. 

There’s room for skepticism.  What if we go into a ten year cooling cycle while CO2 emissions remain static?  What would the explanation be?  Remember, at one point there was a “pause” between 1998 and 2013, which it was later claimed didn’t happen even though it is safe to assume that CO2 emissions were increasing by the year as other nations continued to industrialize (China anyone?).  Was that a shifting goal post or another sign of a science which is not really settled?



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on August 11, 2017, 11:59:23 pm
Can someone just tell me when Earth is going to turn into Venus already? I am getting frustrated over the delay.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on August 12, 2017, 02:13:11 am
Can someone just tell me when Earth is going to turn into Venus already? I am getting frustrated over the delay.

It'll happen when your briefs quit circling Uranus.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Ed W on August 12, 2017, 08:27:53 am
Can someone just tell me when Earth is going to turn into Venus already? I am getting frustrated over the delay.

In approximately 5 billion years, our sun will become a red giant as it burns helium. No one will care about your thoughts then, counselor, just as no one cares now. Some things never change.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on August 12, 2017, 11:04:35 am
warming was not entirely a function of human activity due to a lingering El Nino condition for the first third of the year after nearly a full year of it in 2015. 

Get with the program...
El Nino is cause by human activity.
 
  ;D



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on August 12, 2017, 11:05:12 am
Can someone just tell me when Earth is going to turn into Venus already? I am getting frustrated over the delay.

The day after I retire.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on August 12, 2017, 05:03:16 pm
Can someone just tell me when Earth is going to turn into Venus already? I am getting frustrated over the delay.


Explained already.  You weren't paying attention.  And denial about even hearing about it is yeah...Fake Fox News Sound Bite response.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on August 12, 2017, 09:40:01 pm
(https://scontent-dft4-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/20745968_1955395651397249_7945970359755868213_o.jpg?oh=382bed5d35e3bddb04e705fd47661cda&oe=5A20279E)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on August 12, 2017, 10:03:30 pm
(https://scontent-dft4-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/20745968_1955395651397249_7945970359755868213_o.jpg?oh=382bed5d35e3bddb04e705fd47661cda&oe=5A20279E)

...and another one bites the dust...


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: cannon_fodder on August 14, 2017, 08:33:14 am
You go to an awful lot of trouble to reply to: “The science isn’t settled”.  ;)

It’s a simple point, CF:  The mechanism by which it is happening is not “settled”. 

I can be short.  The science on mechanism very well settled (increase C02 = increase heat).  Results and externalities still being studied. 

My post was long because I explained the reasoning. As previously stated, the problem is that the quest to better understand is interpreted as "See, they don't know!!!!"  You can throw out as many possibilities or conspiracy theories as you want, it doesn't change the fact that the science is settled. Provide extra ordinary proof, or its just denial.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: BKDotCom on August 14, 2017, 11:50:37 am
Several years ago Microsoft announced that they were improving virus/malware protection in MS Windows.
The Mac fanboy in my office used this announcement as proof that Macs were superior

A few weeks later Apple announced that they were improving virus/malware protection in OSX
The Mac fanboy in my office used this announcement as proof that Macs were superior

how is this relevant?  People entrenched in belief and cognitive dissonance will hear whatever they want to hear.

"Scientists seek to better understand gravity"
"Scientists seek to better understand magnets"

Opposites attract?!?   They can't even agree that magnets are a thing. Science on magnets isn't settled.   Gravity is just a theory.




Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on August 14, 2017, 04:08:23 pm
I can be short.  The science on mechanism very well settled (increase C02 = increase heat).  Results and externalities still being studied.  

My post was long because I explained the reasoning. As previously stated, the problem is that the quest to better understand is interpreted as "See, they don't know!!!!"  You can throw out as many possibilities or conspiracy theories as you want, it doesn't change the fact that the science is settled. Provide extra ordinary proof, or its just denial.

Why exactly does it matter what someone else’s understanding or interpretation of “settled” science means?  If the only variable in the current hypothesis is that CO2 leads warming that seems to be the popular consensus at this time.  What do we say if the observations of the next 10 years are that it’s cooler but CO2 remains static or rises slightly?  

Let’s face it though, are we really that confident in our ability to estimate global average temperatures 800,000 years ago to within 2 degrees F? (vis-a-vis 2016 being the hottest year on record in 800,000 years).  Sorry, I’m still a bit skeptical of that claim as that trusts that our methodology in estimating temperatures is correct and that’s all we have to go on as we did not have global weather stations 800,000 years ago.

Science evolves and sophisticated climatology really is in it’s infancy.  They didn’t have computerized models and 6000+ data points with ships, bouys, and satellites when global warming was first postulated in the 1800’s, CF.  For everything we do know, there is so much more to learn.

And what do we really care about here?  That I share the same beliefs in climate change that you do?  I figure that matters as much as whether or not you share the same belief in what I believe makes a great wine or beer.

Or is the real point that people should be trying to achieve a smaller carbon footprint in their own little world to help lower emissions, which I’ve always said can’t be a bad thing?  I’m willing to bet since we moved to rural New Mexico that MC and I probably have a smaller carbon footprint than most people in this discussion.  Our B & B is built to take advantage of the sun to provide a good deal of heating and we don’t even have central A/C because summers are so temperate.  When we build our shop building on the property, I’m seriously mulling over either wind or solar to power it since we have an abundance of both.  On the average week, I doubt we go through more than 10 gal of gasoline these days and that includes making a weekly shopping trip to Taos or Raton.  We try and run whatever errands we can by bike or foot and I don’t have to commute to a job every day.  I don’t go so far as to purchase carbon credits which I think is total bullshit and profiteering off ignorance, but I’d say we are doing our part in our own way.  That IS the point, isn’t it?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on August 14, 2017, 06:48:33 pm
Scientists find 91 new volcanoes in Antarctica. Scientists fear that melting ice will reduce pressure on the volcanoes and possibly cause them to erupt.

Quote
A concern among scientists is the potential impact these volcanoes could have on further melting and destabilizing the Antarctic Ice Sheet. It does not appear any of the volcanoes are to blame for the recent melting of ice sheets in Antarctica. However, the likelihood of the volcanoes becoming active may increase over time. This is because the ice over top these active volcanoes likely acts to contain pressures building up in these volcanoes. As the ice melts, this will reduce overlying pressure on the volcanoes and make it easier for them to erupt if they have an over-pressured magma chamber.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2017/08/14/scientists-discover-91-volcanos-lying-beneath-antarctic-ice-sheet/#56587a3f24d1 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2017/08/14/scientists-discover-91-volcanos-lying-beneath-antarctic-ice-sheet/#56587a3f24d1)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on August 15, 2017, 09:45:16 am
Well, well...fancy that.

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/major-climate-change-denial-think-tank-admits-using-false-data/


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: cannon_fodder on August 15, 2017, 09:52:26 am
We are going full circle, so I'm sorry to repeat myself - but I shall persist!

Why exactly does it matter what someone else’s understanding or interpretation of “settled” science means?  If the only variable in the current hypothesis is that CO2 leads warming that seems to be the popular consensus at this time.  What do we say if the observations of the next 10 years are that it’s cooler but CO2 remains static or rises slightly?  

Because that's how science works.  I have not done the observations, I barely understand the math, and I don't have a lab.  So we can only declare a scientific fact by paying attention to the experts.  If the observable evidence changes and no longer fits the model, you must change your conclusion.  Again, that's the very basic notion of science.  In the present matter, the observable data and the conclusion have meshed for a long time and new observations buttress the findings.  Relying on an unknown "possibility" that the science is wrong is why the term "denier" is thrown around.  It isn't about the science or the conclusion, it is are refusal to accept the conclusion.

Quote
Let’s face it though, are we really that confident in our ability to estimate global average temperatures 800,000 years ago to within 2 degrees F? (vis-a-vis 2016 being the hottest year on record in 800,000 years).  Sorry, I’m still a bit skeptical of that claim as that trusts that our methodology in estimating temperatures is correct and that’s all we have to go on as we did not have global weather stations 800,000 years ago.

I went over this in painful detail and gave links to even more elaborate painful detail.  If you can come up with a study that disproves the method of temperature analysis utilizing calcium carbonate deposits formed by organisms, there is probably a fellowship and millions of dollars in grant money in it for you.  Recall, they can prove this method in a lab and they can repeat it - so you should be able to disprove it. You don't have to blindly agree, but if you feel the consensus is wrong the burden is on you to go out and prove it wrong.

Quote
Science evolves and sophisticated climatology really is in it’s infancy.  They didn’t have computerized models and 6000+ data points with ships, bouys, and satellites when global warming was first postulated in the 1800’s, CF.  For everything we do know, there is so much more to learn.

Again, we discussed this.  No, it isn't in its infancy any more than nuclear fission is or electronics are.  But yep.  We want to learn more.  Once again, that is the basics of science.  That's the entire point.  We cannot learn more if we assume everything we know "might be wrong" so we just throw it all out.  Literally every scientific discovery in history might be wrong (or in some instances we know it is wrong, for instance, we know the Theory of Gravity is wrong because it isn't unified. But we still use it because it is the best model we have and can predict certain things), but we continue to clarify them and build upon them.

Quote
And what do we really care about here?  That I share the same beliefs in climate change that you do?  I figure that matters as much as whether or not you share the same belief in what I believe makes a great wine or beer.

Or is the real point that people should be trying to achieve a smaller carbon footprint in their own little world to help lower emissions, which I’ve always said can’t be a bad thing?  

What I care about is two fold:  science and the future.   

Independent of any other consequences, the scientific method has advanced mankind in a few hundred years more than the 100,000 years before that.  When we cast aside its conclusions in favor of speculation, we are doing a huge disservice.  Science is presenting you with the most likely facts available.  Without that, we cannot make the best decisions possible (not just on this issue).

Which leads to number 2.  Yes, lowering your footprint at the micro level is great.  However, this is a macro problem.  If the threat is as bad as it may be, states like Florida and Louisiana (not to mention nations with similar topography) should be calling for drastic action.   As long as we continue to debate a settled topic (the "if") we cannot devout full effort into researching the "so what" element of the question.  What is likely to happen and what is the best way to address those issues?

It appears it is a compounding issue.  Small changes 40 years ago likely would have had a larger impact than drastic changes 40 years from now.  If you want, we can boil it all down to economics:  we need to figure out the most likely effects and the least damaging way of addressing them.  Our current plan is to wait and see if we need to panic.  That seems like a bad plan.


PS.  Am I still invited to the ranch.   :)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on August 15, 2017, 11:03:17 am
I can be short.  The science on mechanism very well settled (increase C02 = increase heat).  Results and externalities still being studied. 

My post was long because I explained the reasoning. As previously stated, the problem is that the quest to better understand is interpreted as "See, they don't know!!!!"  You can throw out as many possibilities or conspiracy theories as you want, it doesn't change the fact that the science is settled. Provide extra ordinary proof, or its just denial.



You stepped beyond the Fake Fox News Sound Bite reply and that is what confused so many of the minions....


And Conan, yeah.  The science is settled.  To anyone who knows anything about it and hasn't sold out to big oil to lie about it.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on August 15, 2017, 11:23:23 am
Why exactly does it matter what someone else’s understanding or interpretation of “settled” science means?  If the only variable in the current hypothesis is that CO2 leads warming that seems to be the popular consensus at this time.  What do we say if the observations of the next 10 years are that it’s cooler but CO2 remains static or rises slightly?  

Let’s face it though, are we really that confident in our ability to estimate global average temperatures 800,000 years ago to within 2 degrees F? (vis-a-vis 2016 being the hottest year on record in 800,000 years).  Sorry, I’m still a bit skeptical of that claim as that trusts that our methodology in estimating temperatures is correct and that’s all we have to go on as we did not have global weather stations 800,000 years ago.

Science evolves and sophisticated climatology really is in it’s infancy.  They didn’t have computerized models and 6000+ data points with ships, bouys, and satellites when global warming was first postulated in the 1800’s, CF.  For everything we do know, there is so much more to learn.

And what do we really care about here?  That I share the same beliefs in climate change that you do?  I figure that matters as much as whether or not you share the same belief in what I believe makes a great wine or beer.

Or is the real point that people should be trying to achieve a smaller carbon footprint in their own little world to help lower emissions, which I’ve always said can’t be a bad thing?  I’m willing to bet since we moved to rural New Mexico that MC and I probably have a smaller carbon footprint than most people in this discussion.  Our B & B is built to take advantage of the sun to provide a good deal of heating and we don’t even have central A/C because summers are so temperate.  When we build our shop building on the property, I’m seriously mulling over either wind or solar to power it since we have an abundance of both.  On the average week, I doubt we go through more than 10 gal of gasoline these days and that includes making a weekly shopping trip to Taos or Raton.  We try and run whatever errands we can by bike or foot and I don’t have to commute to a job every day.  I don’t go so far as to purchase carbon credits which I think is total bullshit and profiteering off ignorance, but I’d say we are doing our part in our own way.  That IS the point, isn’t it?


Temperature;

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_01/


CO2 is easier - direct measurement of ice entrapped gases.  Just under 300 ppm was the high mark for last 400,000 years until about 1950.   It's ALL man!

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/

https://scholarsandrogues.com/2012/01/28/csfe-co2-in-800000-year-old-air/




Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: cannon_fodder on August 16, 2017, 08:28:18 am
CO2 is easier - direct measurement of ice entrapped gases.  Just under 300 ppm was the high mark for last 400,000 years until about 1950.   It's ALL man!

That's sexist.  Oprah's private jet does just as much to murder the planet as Al Gores.   ;)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on August 16, 2017, 08:45:59 am
That's sexist.  Oprah's private jet does just as much to murder the planet as Al Gores.   ;)

Got me!

You are right - women, too!!   Women probably even more so...!

Ohhh....that is gonna get me in sooo much trouble..!!


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on August 16, 2017, 02:23:46 pm

Which leads to number 2.  Yes, lowering your footprint at the micro level is great.  However, this is a macro problem.  If the threat is as bad as it may be, states like Florida and Louisiana (not to mention nations with similar topography) should be calling for drastic action.   As long as we continue to debate a settled topic (the "if") we cannot devout full effort into researching the "so what" element of the question.  What is likely to happen and what is the best way to address those issues?

It appears it is a compounding issue.  Small changes 40 years ago likely would have had a larger impact than drastic changes 40 years from now.  If you want, we can boil it all down to economics:  we need to figure out the most likely effects and the least damaging way of addressing them.  Our current plan is to wait and see if we need to panic.  That seems like a bad plan.


PS.  Am I still invited to the ranch.   :)


Of course you are still invited!  I just have a penchant for verbally jousting with attorneys with a 160 IQ.  It’s how I roll.

I’ve got to get busy selling mass quantities of combustion equipment which will belch more CO2 into the atmosphere at the moment, but longer post later.

One thought: if we are too critical of individual efforts being futile though, then you are basically saying changing individual habits collectively is worthless.  If CO2 is the issue, then it takes some contribution from every consumer whether it is industrial, commercial, or individual.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on August 16, 2017, 04:34:46 pm
I just have a penchant for verbally jousting with attorneys with a 160 IQ. 

You like hanging out with the mentally challenged I guess.
 
 ;D





Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on August 16, 2017, 04:35:57 pm
If CO2 is the issue, then it takes some contribution from every consumer whether it is industrial, commercial, or individual.

I will try to breath shallowly.
 
 ;D


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on August 17, 2017, 07:27:23 am

I’ve got to get busy selling mass quantities of combustion equipment which will belch more CO2 into the atmosphere at the moment, but longer post later.

One thought: if we are too critical of individual efforts being futile though, then you are basically saying changing individual habits collectively is worthless.  If CO2 is the issue, then it takes some contribution from every consumer whether it is industrial, commercial, or individual.



Chainsaw!!  Make lots of fumes!!

Everyone has a hand in this.  7.5 billion of us.  Plus hundreds of millions of cattle.  Plus cutting down the rain forests at 40 acres a minute - this is a biggie!!  According to these people - 8.5 million hectares a year;

http://rainforests.mongabay.com/facts/rainforest-facts.html





Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: TeeDub on August 17, 2017, 08:30:06 am
Rise in atmospheric CO2 slowed by green vegetation
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37909361


Cliff Notes (picture version)
(https://shop.arborday.org/data/default/images/catalog/600/Turnkey/1/trees-for-america-673.jpg)



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on August 17, 2017, 08:34:54 am
Rise in atmospheric CO2 slowed by green vegetation
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37909361


Cliff Notes (picture version)
(https://shop.arborday.org/data/default/images/catalog/600/Turnkey/1/trees-for-america-673.jpg)





https://www.acf.org/




Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: TeeDub on August 17, 2017, 08:58:08 am

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will not list the Ozark chinquapin, a chestnut tree,   under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) because it is widespread in the interior highlands of Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.


We helped plant trees with my oldest's Scout group.... 


The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago, the second best time is now. Someone's sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on August 17, 2017, 10:09:45 am
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will not list the Ozark chinquapin, a chestnut tree,   under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) because it is widespread in the interior highlands of Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.


We helped plant trees with my oldest's Scout group.... 


The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago, the second best time is now. Someone's sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree.


I am gonna join the list for American Chestnut seeds and plant them in a place I know of in east TN.  Gonna put one here, too, just to see if it works.  Costs $300 for 4 seeds and there is a waiting list. 

The ones in TN will be replacing a huge tree that died and was cut down in the 50's on the family place - the remains of the stump are still up on the side of the mountain and is probably about 8 ft across.  Old family pic shows a bunch of kids (SWMBO included) sitting on the edge of it...her and 5 or 6 of her siblings.  They all fit.


Planting trees is an obsession with me, but I finally discovered the limits of what one should do in a neighborhood landscape.  No Silver Maple.  No Burr Oak.  No Ash, except for Autumn Purple Ash.  No Sweet Gum.  NEVER a Bradford Pear!!!!    And only MAYBE on Pin Oaks IF one has an oversized yard - but mostly no!!

Say yes to Redbud - especially Oklahoma Redbud.  Yes to Dogwood.  Maybe yes to Chinese Pistache.  And Japanese Maple of pretty much any variety.




Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: TheArtist on August 17, 2017, 09:25:27 pm

I am gonna join the list for American Chestnut seeds and plant them in a place I know of in east TN.  Gonna put one here, too, just to see if it works.  Costs $300 for 4 seeds and there is a waiting list. 

The ones in TN will be replacing a huge tree that died and was cut down in the 50's on the family place - the remains of the stump are still up on the side of the mountain and is probably about 8 ft across.  Old family pic shows a bunch of kids (SWMBO included) sitting on the edge of it...her and 5 or 6 of her siblings.  They all fit.


Planting trees is an obsession with me, but I finally discovered the limits of what one should do in a neighborhood landscape.  No Silver Maple.  No Burr Oak.  No Ash, except for Autumn Purple Ash.  No Sweet Gum.  NEVER a Bradford Pear!!!!    And only MAYBE on Pin Oaks IF one has an oversized yard - but mostly no!!

Say yes to Redbud - especially Oklahoma Redbud.  Yes to Dogwood.  Maybe yes to Chinese Pistache.  And Japanese Maple of pretty much any variety.




In our yard we have a pine tree, a pecan tree, blue spruce, cedar, redbuds, Japanese maple, catalpa, sycamore, 2 pear trees, an elm, bald cypress, mimosa, holly berry tree, crape myrtles, figs, Italian Cypress, Arborvitae...  And don't get me started on the number and types of shrubs lol.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on August 18, 2017, 08:12:14 am
In our yard we have a pine tree, a pecan tree, blue spruce, cedar, redbuds, Japanese maple, catalpa, sycamore, 2 pear trees, an elm, bald cypress, mimosa, holly berry tree, crape myrtles, figs, Italian Cypress, Arborvitae...  And don't get me started on the number and types of shrubs lol.


Sounds like my yard - in 65ft by 124 ft, with a house in the middle of it.  We have a sign referring to the jungle!   The great part is that it literally takes about 20 minutes to mow what little grass is not in garden beds!  


Pine tree - I see thousands of pine trees in the area and many do well, but SO many die an early death - because the owners don't understand the relationship between pine needles on the ground and the health and well being of the tree!  They need that mat of needles to thrive!  When they don't have it, you see them become susceptible and succumb to disease!  Every time!!

The lazier one might appear to be - by leaving the needles on the ground around the base of the tree - the better the tree will be!!


And that bald cypress is gonna get into your foundation and WILL damage it !!   Probably the top of the list of trees to not put in the landscape!   Worse than Silver Maple.

I love Mimosa - and the only downside is they are brittle and they leave seeds.  I am willing to endure both for that tree/bush/shrub/whatever it is...

Love Sycamore, too!  I have a Walnut waiting for me to cut down and a couple of Sycamores!   Both have beautiful wood for woodworking!!

How are you getting a Blue Spruce to survive here??  Is it in amongst the rest of the trees?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on August 18, 2017, 10:37:12 am
On our property, we have some spruce, some sort of evergreen which has been groomed into a large Bansai, cedar, some sort of willow which appears indigenous to our area or elevation, pine, yucca, and choya and paddle cacti on our property.  There’s pinion pine in the arroyo behind our place but thus far I’ve not been fortunate to get to the pine cones when the nuts are good and ripe or before the wildlife gets to them.  The only thing missing to me are Aspens.

Aspens have almost a spiritual presence to me, so moving to this part of the country I don’t have to go far to be amongst them.  I’m planning to plant some on the western part of our property so they can be enjoyed a little closer in.

There’s a local arborist I’ve befriended, who after getting a couple of racks of my spare ribs, wants to assure I have plenty of apple wood at my disposal.  He expressed concern that Aspens might not survive at our elevation (6400’ MSL) as it can get pretty dry, but I’m committed to keeping them well-watered as need be.  I also pointed out there’s a stand of Aspens in a yard near 27th & Toledo in Tulsa which have managed to come back year after year at around 700MSL so it can be done with the right care.  Getting good suckers off the root system is the trick to starting off on a good basis with them.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on August 18, 2017, 11:13:08 am
On our property, we have some spruce, some sort of evergreen which has been groomed into a large Bansai, cedar, some sort of willow which appears indigenous to our area or elevation, pine, yucca, and choya and paddle cacti on our property.  There’s pinion pine in the arroyo behind our place but thus far I’ve not been fortunate to get to the pine cones when the nuts are good and ripe or before the wildlife gets to them.  The only thing missing to me are Aspens.

Aspens have almost a spiritual presence to me, so moving to this part of the country I don’t have to go far to be amongst them.  I’m planning to plant some on the western part of our property so they can be enjoyed a little closer in.

There’s a local arborist I’ve befriended, who after getting a couple of racks of my spare ribs, wants to assure I have plenty of apple wood at my disposal.  He expressed concern that Aspens might not survive at our elevation (6400’ MSL) as it can get pretty dry, but I’m committed to keeping them well-watered as need be.  I also pointed out there’s a stand of Aspens in a yard near 27th & Toledo in Tulsa which have managed to come back year after year at around 700MSL so it can be done with the right care.  Getting good suckers off the root system is the trick to starting off on a good basis with them.



Love Aspens!   Wish they would grow here, but I think a small stand "misses" the collective way of growing - needs many more to thrive.  Hope they work out for you!  That would be magnificent!!

No birch??  That seems a little odd, but I don't really know your climate.  If you have moisture for a willow, I would think birch would do well, too.  Pic of willow??

I think a pinion pine would be almost worth putting a wildlife proof fence around just to get the seeds!!



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: rebound on August 18, 2017, 01:21:22 pm
On our property, we have some spruce, some sort of evergreen which has been groomed into a large Bansai, cedar, some sort of willow which appears indigenous to our area or elevation, pine, yucca, and choya and paddle cacti on our property.  There’s pinion pine in the arroyo behind our place but thus far I’ve not been fortunate to get to the pine cones when the nuts are good and ripe or before the wildlife gets to them.  The only thing missing to me are Aspens.

Aspens have almost a spiritual presence to me, so moving to this part of the country I don’t have to go far to be amongst them.  I’m planning to plant some on the western part of our property so they can be enjoyed a little closer in.

There’s a local arborist I’ve befriended, who after getting a couple of racks of my spare ribs, wants to assure I have plenty of apple wood at my disposal.  He expressed concern that Aspens might not survive at our elevation (6400’ MSL) as it can get pretty dry, but I’m committed to keeping them well-watered as need be.  I also pointed out there’s a stand of Aspens in a yard near 27th & Toledo in Tulsa which have managed to come back year after year at around 700MSL so it can be done with the right care.  Getting good suckers off the root system is the trick to starting off on a good basis with them.

Man,  you are making me jealous.    That area where you are, Cimarron Canyon and related, is just sublime.   One of my favorite places on earth. 


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on August 18, 2017, 02:05:04 pm
Man,  you are making me jealous.    That area where you are, Cimarron Canyon and related, is just sublime.   One of my favorite places on earth. 

You know where to find us!

Just FYI, I don't know if you've gotten much into gravel riding but MC and I are working on putting on a gravel ride or race out here for next April out through the Valle Vidal and back in Ponil Canyon.  I'm trying to figure out if we can fit it in between the Landrun 100 out in Stillwater and the DK-200 in Emporia in late May/Eary June.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: TeeDub on August 24, 2017, 02:01:32 pm

Someone got paid....

    Jennifer Marohasy, a scientist with a rather long list of impressive credentials, which includes the founding of The Climate Modeling Laboratory, opens her startling climate report with a dose of reality.

    “Our new technical paper … will likely be ignored,” she writes at The Spectator Australia.

    She goes on to explain why, “Because after applying the latest big data technique to six 2,000 year-long proxy-temperature series we cannot confirm that recent warming is anything but natural – what might have occurred anyway, even if there was no industrial revolution.”


https://www.spectator.com.au/2017/08/big-data-finds-the-medieval-warm-period-no-denial-here/


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: cannon_fodder on August 24, 2017, 03:36:19 pm
Headline:  CLIMATE CHANGE WRONG!

Reality:  someone built a computer model that disagrees with thousands of other computer models.

Here's the actual paper. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214242817300426)


It all comes down to what they put into the model, the data input, and the ultimate interpretation.  I'm sure the model will be reviewed and commented on (I'm sure I'm not the right person to do so in a meaningful way).  Again, that's how science works. 


I won't bother touching on the authors, journal, or funding sources as others have done - because it doesn't really matter.  Either the findings in her paper will lead to interesting new ideas or reasons will be given why the conclusion is wrong.  There are dozens of papers published monthly on climate change (actually far more than that, Heinonline says ~196k in the last 18 months over the entire broad topic), a single outlier makes headlines because it is an outlier.

But it is ironic that the same day a study held out as shockingly disproving decades of science is brought to light, Harvard publishes a new study concluding that Exxon Mobile acknowledged in research and internal communication that climate change is real and caused by human activity but spent years misleading the public:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/23/exxon-mobil-misled-the-public-on-climate-change-harvard-study-finds.html


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on September 06, 2017, 04:40:04 pm
The weather is just perfect. Feels like fall. Bless you global warming.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on September 06, 2017, 05:01:44 pm
While three hurricanes churn in the Atlantic Basin.  First time that's happened in seven years.  Yes, thanks alot.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on September 06, 2017, 05:06:10 pm
The weather is just perfect. Feels like fall. Bless you global warming.

And this week it's been 110 in San Jose and in the 90s in San Francisco.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on September 06, 2017, 05:17:27 pm
And this week it's been 110 in San Jose and in the 90s in San Francisco.

Well thank goodness we do not live in the middle of the Atlantic or in the San Francisco area.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: BKDotCom on September 06, 2017, 06:24:53 pm
Well thank goodness we do not live in the middle of the Atlantic or in the San Francisco area.

...or the gulf coast, or Florida, or the Caribbean...
We're not currently directly adversely affected, so who cares!


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on September 06, 2017, 06:29:38 pm
...or the gulf coast, or Florida, or the Caribbean...
We're not currently directly adversely affected, so who cares!

Kinda reminds me of something Stephen Colbert tweeted about it once:

Quote
Global warming isn't real because I was cold today! Also great news: World hunger is over because I just ate.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: cannon_fodder on September 07, 2017, 07:20:32 am
Same arguments, over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

Its not warmer right now.
Its too new.
3% of scientific papers disagree, so it isn't a consensus.
The science doesn't understand X, or Y, or Z.
We don't have data going far enough back.
Scientists keep updating the theory, so its all false.
There's this one person/paper/thing that disagrees, so its all false.

Repeat ad naseum.

It would be awesome if 40 years of scientific consensus proved to be wrong.  It would be great if observable, repeatable, and consistent experiments all were fabricated.   I would love it if the consensus of biologists, geologists, physicists, chemists, meteorologists, and climatologists happened to be coincidental and all the supporting data was wrong. I would be thrilled if the US Military, academia, and industry all reached the same conclusion and were all wrong.  I really hope we are wrong.

I also really hope a reply shows that TU won the OSU game last weekend.  Or that I read the lotto numbers wrong on that ticket last week. Or that I can finally be the King of Westeros.

But all the best evidence suggests that isn't likely. So I'm just going to keep planning for the reality that the best evidence suggests.  No matter how much I want it to be true, the evidence doesn't suggest a fat check from the lottery guys...time to return the Ferrari.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on September 07, 2017, 07:43:26 am
...or the gulf coast, or Florida, or the Caribbean...
We're not currently directly adversely affected, so who cares!

Now you're getting it.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: joiei on September 07, 2017, 11:45:28 am
...or the gulf coast, or Florida, or the Caribbean...
We're not currently directly adversely affected, so who cares!
I'm just waiting to see how much QT raises their gas prices this time. 


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on September 07, 2017, 12:06:56 pm
I'm just waiting to see how much QT raises their gas prices this time.  


They shouldn't, given that there aren't oil rigs/refineries in the region.  That's also been reported so if prices do go up, the reasoning will have to change.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: patric on September 07, 2017, 03:36:14 pm
...or the gulf coast, or Florida, or the Caribbean...
We're not currently directly adversely affected, so who cares!

I have family in Miami, so Ill just remind myself its all just a Chinese hoax.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Hoss on September 07, 2017, 05:25:29 pm
I have family in Miami, so Ill just remind myself its all just a Chinese hoax.

Or maybe you can subscribe to this moron's theory?

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/al-roker-rips-rush-limbaugh-hurricane-irma-conspiracy-theory-article-1.3475736


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: erfalf on September 07, 2017, 06:33:43 pm
I'm no Limbaugh fan, but I would hope that if Roker had actually read the transcript or heard the show (which I know is incredibly unlikely), he probably wouldn't have said what he said.

But as it stands, insulting Limbaugh is like insulting Nazi's, in other words, fair game for any reason, even if it's made up.

Not once did Limbaugh call the hurricane news fake. He simply noted that it is routinely hyped by the various news outlets who we all know have transformed regular weather news to all storm coverage. It's all part of creating interest in watching or reading, a perfectly known process of newsrooms.

He noted that Galveston was the course most promoted for Harvey but it was mostly spared compared to Houston. He suggested you be prepared at all times (incl filling up bottles of water from your taps vs. rushing out to buy bottled water) but to simply be aware that a hurricane often takes a path quite different from predicted and that panic buttons are often created when not necessary. But he never once said the hurricane news itself was fake. In other words be smart, be prepared but try not to let the media rush you into a panic.

But he said it was fake cause The Today Show "weatherman" said so... OK.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on September 08, 2017, 08:46:07 am
I'm just waiting to see how much QT raises their gas prices this time. 



I filled up at QT on Monday at $2.39.   Yesterday at OnCue (OKC area) regular is $2.18.  Gonna fill up at lunch for the ride back to town.




Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on September 08, 2017, 09:06:22 am
I'm no Limbaugh fan, but I would hope that if Roker had actually read the transcript or heard the show (which I know is incredibly unlikely), he probably wouldn't have said what he said.

But as it stands, insulting Limbaugh is like insulting Nazi's, in other words, fair game for any reason, even if it's made up.

Not once did Limbaugh call the hurricane news fake. He simply noted that it is routinely hyped by the various news outlets who we all know have transformed regular weather news to all storm coverage. It's all part of creating interest in watching or reading, a perfectly known process of newsrooms.

He noted that Galveston was the course most promoted for Harvey but it was mostly spared compared to Houston. He suggested you be prepared at all times (incl filling up bottles of water from your taps vs. rushing out to buy bottled water) but to simply be aware that a hurricane often takes a path quite different from predicted and that panic buttons are often created when not necessary. But he never once said the hurricane news itself was fake. In other words be smart, be prepared but try not to let the media rush you into a panic.

But he said it was fake cause The Today Show "weatherman" said so... OK.


Here is what he said.  Who does not have a bunch of empty plastic bottles laying around...??   Right.  Does that mean he keeps all his trash for weeks at a time, just in case of hurricane??   Sounds like a mental disease.   He is right that bottled water is stupid.  Use the tap water.

And then he goes on to attack the weather reporters that somehow telling people what is coming over the next 2 weeks is highly politicized.

"The reason that I am leery of forecasts this far out, folks, is because I see how the system works. Now, I don’t mean this to be a personal attack on anybody, but the one thing that’s undeniable throughout our culture is that everything has been politicized. And in that sense much of our public information system, including from the government, from the Drive-By Media, has been corrupted. It has been corrupted by the individual biases and whatever present bigotry of the people who hold these positions."

No.  It isn't.  It is reporting on what is seen now, and using the best models available now to predict what is gonna happen in a week.  Or two weeks.  But a well know science denier like that wouldn't understand anything related to science.   He also said he gathers all the information he can, then makes up his own mind on whether it is right or not.  So, yeah, he is telling people not to be concerned, because the weather service is actually just a political conspiracy exploiting fear.

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/09/05/my-analysis-of-the-hurricane-irma-panic/

He says the hype creates a "vicious cycle" - his words - of people actually preparing for whatever might be coming.  And yet, he is also one of the hawkers of gold as a 'prepper' financial plan!

"Well, the TV stations begin reporting this and the panic begins to increase. And then people end up going to various stores to stock up on water and whatever they might need for home repairs and batteries and all this that they’re advised to get, and a vicious circle is created. You have these various retail outlets who spend a lot of advertising dollars with the local media."



Here is just a tiny bit more of his hyperbole, and flat out lying...which is what he does best.  Nobody has said we are all gonna die.  Every single weather report I have seen - and there are plenty of them - have said this is big.  Get ready.  Leave.  No panic, get prepared and act.  Bimbaugh is the one who is jumping to the extreme position.  He said;


"Here’s another thing. Have you seen the graphics of these hurricanes as depicted on TV or on the internet? They’re these giant, flaming red, “Oh, my God, Mabel, look, it’s bigger than the Gulf of Mexico. We don’t have a prayer, Mabel. Even if it strikes 300 miles away, we are dead!”


Here...you can listen to his rationalization....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rush-limbaugh-says-hurricane-irma-is-conspiracy-evacuates-anyway_us_59b29c31e4b0354e44115aa8


Also, as an interesting side note, if Irma was overlaid on Oklahoma, it would reach 50 miles beyond each border into KS, TX, AR....



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: patric on September 08, 2017, 12:53:07 pm
“May as well… announce this. I’m not going to get into details because of the security nature of things, but it turns out that we will not be able to do the program here tomorrow,” Limbaugh said Thursday. “We’ll be on the air next week, folks, from parts unknown.

https://thinkprogress.org/limbaugh-to-evacuate-south-florida-after-claiming-irma-was-a-hoax-cb3fb5fb35b8/


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on September 10, 2017, 02:46:14 am
My favorite tweet on weather, er, climate change:

Quote
2006: "Hurricanes are going to be worse and more frequent!"
2007:
2008:
2009:
2010:
2011:
2012:
2013:
2014:
2015:
2016:
2017: "Told you so!"


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on September 10, 2017, 11:20:27 am
My favorite tweet on weather, er, climate change:


2006: "Hurricanes are going to be worse and more frequent!"
2007: Humberto, Dean
2008: Gustav, Dolly, Ike
2009:
2010: Igor
2011: Irene
2012: Sandy, Isaac
2013: Ingrid, Manuel
2014: Arthur
2015:
2016: Hermine, Matthew
2017: Harvey, Irma


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on September 10, 2017, 05:07:33 pm
Hurricanes and what category there were since 2005.

Quote
• Hurricane Matthew: Oct. 2016, Matthew devastated the southeast, Florida in particular, as a Category 4 storm before weakening to a Category 1 and making landfall in South Carolina .

• Hurricane Hermine: Sept. 2016, this Category 1 storm was the first hurricane to hit Florida since Hurricane Wilma in 2005.

• Hurricane Arthur: July 2014, this storm whipped North Carolina's Outer Banks with winds of 100 mph, making it a Category 2.

• Hurricane Sandy: Oct. 2012, Superstorm Sandy, the largest Atlantic system on record, slammed into New Jersey. It was the deadliest hurricane to hit the northeastern U.S. in 40 years and the second-costliest in the nation's history.

•Hurricane Isaac: Aug. 2012, this deadly Category 1 storm hit the coast of Louisiana and Mississippi right around the seventh anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.

• Hurricane Irene: Sept. 2011, Irene hit North Carolina as a Category 1 storm. The storm caused major flooding in the northeast, and Irene's effects were felt along the entire Eastern seaboard.

• Hurricane Ike: Sept. 2008, the last hurricane to strike Texas was Hurricane Ike, a powerful Category 2 storm that caused billions in damage and became the third most costly storm in the U.S., after Hurricanes Sandy and Katrina.

• Hurricane Gustav: Sept. 2008, tens of thousands evacuated before this Category 2 storm hit the Louisiana coast, New Orlean's first major storm since Katrina.

• Hurricane Dolly: July 2008, Dolly made landfall in Texas as a Category 2 storm and gradually weakened to a tropical storm as it progressed.

•Hurricane Humberto:Sept. 2007, although initially weak this record-breaking storm intensified rapidly before making landfall in Texas as a Category 1 storm.

• Hurricane Wilma: Oct. 2005, this intense Category 3 storm wreaked havoc when it made landfall in Florida. Wilma was one of the most powerful storms in the very active 2005 hurricane season.

• Hurricane Rita: Sept. 2005, often referred to as the "forgotten storm," this category 3 hurricane hit shortly after Katrina in a much less populated area along the Texas-Louisiana border.

• Hurricane Katrina: Aug. 2005, this Category 3 storm rocked Louisiana and the nation. Katrina caused $108 billion dollars in damage, making it the costliest storm in U.S. history.

• Hurricane Dennis: July 2005, Hurricane Dennis hit Florida as a Category 3 storm, in an area that was still recovering from the effects of Hurricane Ivan, which hit the year prior.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2017/08/24/all-hurricanes-hit-u-s-since-2005/598113001/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2017/08/24/all-hurricanes-hit-u-s-since-2005/598113001/)



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on September 10, 2017, 05:18:24 pm
^^^This was the point of that tweet. Not that other storms had happened. But I'll admit Sandy was a bad one. My Keurig coffee orders were way delayed.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: TheArtist on September 12, 2017, 08:37:45 am
My favorite tweet on weather, er, climate change:


Actually I have heard that with global climate change hurricanes may be less likely in some aspects.  Wind shear patterns, as one for instance, may change and break them up or not allow them to form as easily going forward. BUT, with the increased energy and moisture brought about by the warmth, IF and when the conditions are right for them to form, they can be much stronger and more frequent during that window.

In other words, the extremes will become more extreme.  Less likely than average during longer windows of time, more likely and stronger than average during others.

Hope thats not too complicated.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: cannon_fodder on September 12, 2017, 11:56:18 am
The results of climate change don't appear to be well understood, that is what they are currently trying to model effectively.  For the same reasons we can't predict the weather 10 days in the future, it is difficult to understand the specific impact of climate on the weather system years in advance.  While they know the overall temperature is rising, it isn't uniform, they don't know how a decrease in salinity will effect currents, they don't know if the currents will shift and/or stop - thereby causing dramatic weather shifts (e.g., London is 500+ miles north of Minneapolis, yet has milder winters than Tulsa), they don't know if the jet stream will shift, they don't know...

One of the problems of consistently revisiting the "if" is that it hinders the ability to research the effects. 

I'm crossing my fingers that Tulsa ends up with a Mediterranean climate.  Now, no model predicts that and it isn't going to happen, but come on baby!


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on September 12, 2017, 12:35:17 pm
The results of climate change don't appear to be well understood, that is what they are currently trying to model effectively.  For the same reasons we can't predict the weather 10 days in the future, it is difficult to understand the specific impact of climate on the weather system years in advance.  While they know the overall temperature is rising, it isn't uniform, they don't know how a decrease in salinity will effect currents, they don't know if the currents will shift and/or stop - thereby causing dramatic weather shifts (e.g., London is 500+ miles north of Minneapolis, yet has milder winters than Tulsa), they don't know if the jet stream will shift, they don't know...

One of the problems of consistently revisiting the "if" is that it hinders the ability to research the effects. 

I'm crossing my fingers that Tulsa ends up with a Mediterranean climate.  Now, no model predicts that and it isn't going to happen, but come on baby!

We have had five years in a row of milder than normal summers and almost no winter. Since 2011 when we had 115 degree days and two blizzards which are also not normal.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on September 12, 2017, 01:49:25 pm



I'm crossing my fingers that Tulsa ends up with a Mediterranean climate.  Now, no model predicts that and it isn't going to happen, but come on baby!



Don't we need a sea for that??   I guess if the New Madrid fault gave way, we could have our sea.

Might put Whitewater on the beach.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on September 12, 2017, 06:32:19 pm
^^^This was the point of that tweet. Not that other storms had happened. But I'll admit Sandy was a bad one. My Keurig coffee orders were way delayed.

Sorry, your sample size is too small to draw any conclusions from regardless of the side you are on. Just because there were no hurricanes in '06, '09, '10, '13 and '15 does not define any kind of average.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: bluelake on September 12, 2017, 10:20:12 pm
We have had five years in a row of milder than normal summers and almost no winter. Since 2011 when we had 115 degree days and two blizzards which are also not normal.

In terms of averages for the past 113 years the past 5 summers rank in terms of coolest:

2017 - 35
2016 - 103
2015 - 65
2014 - 32
2013 - 42

https://www.weather.gov/tsa/climo_tulsumstemp

Tulsa only hit 115 in 1936, and hit 114 three separate times, all of which were in 1936.  The hottest it hit in 2011 was 113, with three record highs in July (104 on 7th, 107 on 10th, 107 on 27th) and 3 record highs, and one tie, in August (113 on 3rd, 112 on 5th, 109 on 6th which also occurred in a previous year, 108 on 24th).  In terms of 100-degree days:


1. 1936    65
2. 1934    59
3. 1980    58
4. 1925    47
5. 1954    46
6. 2011    44
7. 1918    40
8. 1913    39
9. 2012    38
10 1956    38

http://www.weather.gov/tsa/climo_tulcli07
http://www.weather.gov/tsa/climo_tulcli08
https://www.weather.gov/tsa/climo_tul100stats

In terms of heat waves 2011 had one of 14 days in length (tied for 10th place) and a second one of 11 days (tied for 17th place).

In terms of average summer temperature 2011 is #2 behind summer of 1980, with #3 1936 and #4 1934, all of which are a total span of 0.7 degrees.

1.    1980    88.0
2.    2011    87.7
3.    1936    87.4
4.    1934    87.3    

https://www.weather.gov/tsa/climo_tul100stats#Consecutive_Days

From what I see the summer of 2011 was unusual but not abnormal in the recent history of Tulsa.

I tried to find more information regarding blizzards and couldn't seem to find much historical information for this area.  The Tulsa NWS office issued blizzard warnings in January 2011, December 2009 and November 2006.  IMHO I do think we had things like that earlier because when I was living in the country north of Tulsa in the mid 1980s we had some bad snow storms and the worst lightning during a snowstorm that I've seen (much worse than 2011).

I did find Oklahoma had the state's worst blizzard in 1971, which was also bad for Wichita.

http://www.mikesmithenterprisesblog.com/2009/12/blizzard-of-71.html
http://www.koco.com/article/anniversary-of-1971-oklahoma-blizzard/4308434

ETA:

I forgot the part about the past 5 winters.  As they rank for the past 112 years for warm winters:

2016-17: 6
2015-16: 3
2014-15: 68
2013-14: 101
2012-13: 27

Again, doesn't seem anything unheard of as the list shows several years close by in the early 1900s (1. 1931-32, 4. 1930-31, 9. 1933-34, 16 1934-35, 18. 1937-38) and (5. 1920-21, 7. 1922-23, 26. 1918-19), as well as the 1950s (13. 1953-54, 15. 1951-52, 25. 1952-53, 35. 1954-55)

https://www.weather.gov/tsa/climo_tulwinstemp


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: TheArtist on September 13, 2017, 07:45:09 am
See, Tulsa, ocean front property. I will be able to have tropical plants in the yard year round!  http://gregladen.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/potential_sea_level_rise.png


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: erfalf on September 13, 2017, 08:22:47 am
bluelake

You din't plug your data into the correct model buddy...

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2200/2291127824_087a497bea.jpg)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on September 13, 2017, 11:30:04 am
See, Tulsa, ocean front property. I will be able to have tropical plants in the yard year round!  http://gregladen.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/potential_sea_level_rise.png


And Baja Oklahoma would STILL be less than half the size of Alaska!  Bonus!


You could have tropicals year round now if you were willing to spend enough to build a pretty big greenhouse!!

Here is some stuff that I am planning to put on greenhouse this winter.  Pricey, but looking at past performance for last 25 years or so, it's a "set it and forget it" type thing.

https://www.solawrapfilms.com/




Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on September 13, 2017, 12:38:05 pm
bluelake

You din't plug your data into the correct model buddy...

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2200/2291127824_087a497bea.jpg)


You mean the model programed by The Heritage Foundation and paid for by Exxon and Koch?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: bluelake on September 13, 2017, 07:48:21 pm
bluelake

You din't plug your data into the correct model buddy...

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2200/2291127824_087a497bea.jpg)


Al Gore wouldn't take my phone call so win some lose some.   8)



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: TheArtist on September 14, 2017, 07:59:39 am

And Baja Oklahoma would STILL be less than half the size of Alaska!  Bonus!


You could have tropicals year round now if you were willing to spend enough to build a pretty big greenhouse!!

Here is some stuff that I am planning to put on greenhouse this winter.  Pricey, but looking at past performance for last 25 years or so, it's a "set it and forget it" type thing.

https://www.solawrapfilms.com/





Oh I do have some tropicals I keep year round, store the bulbs in one place and then some other plants I keep in my Tiki/Pirate Hut named "The Scurvy Parrot Hideaway", or just the "Hideaway" for short, over the winter!   We are building a large pond called the "Jolly Piranha Lagoon" complete with a waterfall "Oooga Mooga Falls".  Oh and the bar area inside The Hideaway is called the "Anchorbottom Tavern".  And the whole back yard we call the "Ohana Oasis".  ;D   

Haven't came up with names for the trails that meander around the perimeter of the yard (yes its a large backyard). Plus we have a lot of tropical looking plants that survive the winter outdoors like our cannas, hibiscus, and fig trees.  Yea the whole back yard is slowly beginning to look like the Pirates of the Caribbean and Tiki Hut area of Disney Worlds Adventure Land lol.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on September 14, 2017, 09:19:49 am

Oh I do have some tropicals I keep year round, store the bulbs in one place and then some other plants I keep in my Tiki/Pirate Hut named "The Scurvy Parrot Hideaway", or just the "Hideaway" for short, over the winter!   We are building a large pond called the "Jolly Piranha Lagoon" complete with a waterfall "Oooga Mooga Falls".  Oh and the bar area inside The Hideaway is called the "Anchorbottom Tavern".  And the whole back yard we call the "Ohana Oasis".  ;D  

Haven't came up with names for the trails that meander around the perimeter of the yard (yes its a large backyard). Plus we have a lot of tropical looking plants that survive the winter outdoors like our cannas, hibiscus, and fig trees.  Yea the whole back yard is slowly beginning to look like the Pirates of the Caribbean and Tiki Hut area of Disney Worlds Adventure Land lol.



We have a sign on a post that say's it's my wife's jungle.  Very definitely.  Small backyard, but only enough yard so that it takes less than 10 minutes to mow the back, including putting gas in the mower.

Sounds like a perfect place to put a greenhouse cover over - kind of a Sander's Nursery approach.  4 season gardening...

Ooga Mooga Falls - are you collecting mugs?


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on September 20, 2017, 03:33:08 pm
Welp...

Quote
Computer modelling used a decade ago to predict how quickly global average temperatures would rise may have forecast too much warming, a study has found.

The Earth warmed more slowly than the models forecast, meaning the planet has a slightly better chance of meeting the goals set out in the Paris climate agreement, including limiting global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

Scientists said previous models may have been “on the hot side”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-global-warming-paris-climate-agreement-nature-geoscience-myles-allen-michael-grubb-a7954496.html


Oh....and

(https://media.tenor.com/images/a9c091aaeecf2d4b3790452c3e87a143/tenor.gif)


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: cannon_fodder on September 21, 2017, 08:48:35 am
Stupid science, all allowing alternative views and publishing changing conclusions when data supports it!  But if you actually read the article (let alone the study), you probably wouldn't be posting a laughing meme. Lets see if I can't bring this to focus...

The study:  Hey, we found the computer models done 10 years ago might over predict the global warming trend.  The newest data suggests that the planet has warmed .9C in the last 50 years and warming trend has not accelerated, so we don't think we will hit catastrophic levels for another 20 years.  We aren't warming 50 times faster than the end of the last ice age, only like 30 times faster.  If we can manage the historically unprecedented task of limiting emissions and bring them back down after 2030, we might limit peak rise to 2C.

The Journal Nature: Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5◦C (https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo3031.epdf?)


I think you may have misinterpreted the headline, but I'm glad to see you are finally on board with the scientific consensus and getting into the real debate of how much and what we can do about it.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on September 21, 2017, 09:01:01 am
Stupid science, all allowing alternative views and publishing changing conclusions when data supports it!  But if you actually read the article (let alone the study), you probably wouldn't be posting a laughing meme. Lets see if I can't bring this to focus...

The study:  Hey, we found the computer models done 10 years ago might over predict the global warming trend.  The newest data suggests that the planet has warmed .9C in the last 50 years and warming trend has not accelerated, so we don't think we will hit catastrophic levels for another 20 years.  We aren't warming 50 times faster than the end of the last ice age, only like 30 times faster.  If we can manage the historically unprecedented task of limiting emissions and bring them back down after 2030, we might limit peak rise to 2C.

The Journal Nature: Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5◦C (https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo3031.epdf?)


I think you may have misinterpreted the headline, but I'm glad to see you are finally on board with the scientific consensus and getting into the real debate of how much and what we can do about it.

It won't help, his only education is from alt-right facebook memes, mostly ones created in Moscow basements.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on September 21, 2017, 03:45:40 pm
Stupid science, all allowing alternative views and publishing changing conclusions when data supports it!  But if you actually read the article (let alone the study), you probably wouldn't be posting a laughing meme. Lets see if I can't bring this to focus...

The study:  Hey, we found the computer models done 10 years ago might over predict the global warming trend.  The newest data suggests that the planet has warmed .9C in the last 50 years and warming trend has not accelerated, so we don't think we will hit catastrophic levels for another 20 years.  We aren't warming 50 times faster than the end of the last ice age, only like 30 times faster.  If we can manage the historically unprecedented task of limiting emissions and bring them back down after 2030, we might limit peak rise to 2C.

The Journal Nature: Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5◦C (https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo3031.epdf?)


I think you may have misinterpreted the headline, but I'm glad to see you are finally on board with the scientific consensus and getting into the real debate of how much and what we can do about it.


I get it now that it is in "focus" (and not spinning). Yes. The models that many in scientific community did over predicted the warming trend. BUT, that's okay because all that means is that we have an additional 20 until the earth is going to explode or whatever from climate change (or weather). This is certainly not goal post moving. The good news is Hollywood's rebooting The Day after Tomorrow. New working title, "Twenty Years after the Day After Tomorrow".

Let's just forget about using bad information to drive folks into hysterical behavior and guide billions of dollars in anti-climate change policy. Or how this certainly will not impact the settled science of climate change/global warming/impending ice age, or whatever.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Townsend on September 22, 2017, 11:22:25 am

Let's just forget about using bad information to drive folks into hysterical behavior


That's religion


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: guido911 on September 22, 2017, 03:40:04 pm
That's religion environmentalism.


Fixed a spelling error.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: swake on October 04, 2017, 02:56:41 pm
2005: Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Dennis, Emily
2006:
2007: Humberto, Dean
2008: Gustav, Dolly, Ike
2009:
2010: Igor
2011: Irene
2012: Sandy, Isaac
2013: Ingrid, Manuel
2014: Arthur
2015:
2016: Hermine, Matthew
2017: Harvey, Irma, Maria and now potentially Nate

Yes, we now have Nate pointed at the Gulf Coast.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: TeeDub on October 05, 2017, 10:28:11 am
Is your list of hurricanes just ones that you can pronounce and spell?   (This sounds in type much snarkier than I really mean it to be.)

I am trying to grasp the selective listing and understand the criteria you are using to weed out the ones you don't like.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: erfalf on October 05, 2017, 10:48:10 am
Is your list of hurricanes just ones that you can pronounce and spell?   (This sounds in type much snarkier than I really mean it to be.)

I am trying to grasp the selective listing and understand the criteria you are using to weed out the ones you don't like.

I suppose he is choosing those that effect the US. Because the presence of severe weather is an indication of climate change. And so is the absence. I can never tell what time frame to use when I am trying to cherry pick data points.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: TeeDub on October 05, 2017, 11:06:34 am

That makes sense.   Since the US is the center of the world, no other hurricanes would matter.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: RecycleMichael on October 05, 2017, 01:08:51 pm
I think the problem got worse when they started naming hurricanes after men. That happened in 1978.

In the 20 years prior to 1978, there were 15 hurricanes of category 4 or higher make landfall in America. Then they changed the naming process.
In 1978 alone, five hurricanes of Category 4 strength or more hit America. In the 39 years since, there have been 105.

Naming causes bigger hurricanes.






Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: TeeDub on October 05, 2017, 02:18:43 pm
I think the problem got worse when they started naming hurricanes after men. That happened in 1978.

I believe this could be considered sexist.  

Making the correlation that men are bigger than women could be offensive and trigger sensitive individuals (most likely those who are not actually bigger than women) to a nervous and tender state.


I would also like to point out that the hurricane rating scale was developed in the early 1970s...   That may also help to account for the lack of "category 4" hurricanes prior to that period. 


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: TheArtist on October 12, 2017, 10:42:42 am
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171012114839.htm  

n Bermuda and the Bahamas, the geology of the last interglacial (LIG; approximately 120,000 years ago) is exquisitely preserved in nearly pure carbonate sedimentary rocks. A record of superstorms and changing sea levels is exposed in subtidal, beach, storm, and dune deposits on multiple islands...


During the last interglacial, sea levels were about 3-9 meters higher than they are now. The geologic evidence indicates that the higher sea-levels were accompanied by intense "superstorms," which deposited giant wave-transported boulders at the top of cliffed coastlines, formed chevron-shaped, storm beach ridges in lowland areas, and left wave runup deposits on older dunes more than 30 meters above sea level.  (Thats about 98 feet above sea level)

 These events occurred at a time of only slightly warmer global climate and CO2 (about 275 ppm) was much lower than today.

The authors emphasize "the LIG record reveals that strong climate forcing is not required to yield major impacts on the ocean and ice caps." In our industrial world, rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 has surpassed 400 ppm, levels not achieved since the Pliocene era about 3 million years ago...


Drs. Hearty and Tormey conclude that with the greatly increased anthropogenic CO2 forcing at rates unmatched in nature, except perhaps during global extinction events, dramatic change is certain. They caution that, "Our global society is producing a climate system that is racing forward out of humanity's control into an uncertain future.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: TeeDub on October 12, 2017, 06:47:52 pm

98 foot waves?    Wow.   We are screwed.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on October 13, 2017, 08:02:57 am
98 foot waves?    Wow.   We are screwed.


Glued, screwed, and tattooed.

Fried, dried, and laid to the side...



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on October 16, 2017, 08:38:39 am
For you tech nerds out there, here's an interesting concept in the war on carbon emissions, "negative emissions" power plants.  Looks like a pretty expensive proposition.  P

Quote
Unfortunately, it's no longer enough to cut CO2 emissions to avoid further global temperature increases. We need to remove some of the CO2 that's already there. Thankfully, that reversal is one step closer to becoming reality. Climeworks and Reykjavik Energy have started running the first power plant confirmed to produce "negative emissions" -- that is, it's removing more CO2 than it puts out. The geothermal station in Hellsheidi, Iceland is using a Climeworks module and the plant's own heat to snatch CO2 directly from the air via filters, bind it to water and send it underground where it will mineralize into harmless carbonates.

Just like naturally forming carbon deposits, the captured CO2 should remain locked away for many millions of years, if not billions. And because the basalt layers you need to house the CO2 are relatively common, it might be relatively easy to set up negative emissions plants in many places around the world.

As always, there are catches. The Hellsheidi plant capture system is still an experiment, and the 50 metric tonnes of CO2 it'll capture per year (49.2 imperial tons) isn't about to offset many decades of fossil fuel abuse. There's also the matter of reducing the cost of capturing CO2. Even if Climeworks improves the efficiency of its system to spend $100 for every metric ton of CO2 it removes, you're still looking at hundreds of billions of dollars (if not over a trillion) spent every year to achieve the scale needed to make a difference. That will require countries to not only respect climate science, but care about it enough to spend significant chunks of their budgets on capture technology.

It could be a long while before you see systems like this implemented on a global scale as a result. With that said, the very fact that CO2 capture prices are falling so sharply (they were estimated to cost several hundred dollars per ton in 2011) is important. It's now realistic enough to use capture technology that it's being used at a real-world power plant, and it's easy to see countries like China adopting this to tackle smog and the other immediate short-term effects of runaway CO2 emissions.

Climeworks

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/first-ever-apos-negative-emissions-222900756.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=1_11

This article originally appeared on Engadget.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on October 16, 2017, 12:02:30 pm
For you tech nerds out there, here's an interesting concept in the war on carbon emissions, "negative emissions" power plants.  Looks like a pretty expensive proposition.  P



Very expensive.  As compared to just NOT cutting the rainforests and other large tracks of trees.



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: TeeDub on October 19, 2017, 10:10:25 pm
I have a low cost way to help emissions carbon sequestration.....  

Plant trees.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Red Arrow on October 19, 2017, 10:31:23 pm
I have a low cost way to help emissions carbon sequestration.....  

Plant trees.

Be careful which ones:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-paradox-of-pollution-producing-trees/



Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on October 20, 2017, 08:18:54 am
Be careful which ones:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-paradox-of-pollution-producing-trees/




I wonder which Poplar they are talking about?   There are only a few dozen of them...





Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: patric on October 29, 2017, 09:36:15 am
Andrew Wheeler has recently been nominated to have the second-in-command slot at EPA, deputy administrator. He formerly worked for Senator James Inhofe and has been lobbying for coal companies.

EPA Cancels Scientist Discussion Of Climate Change

http://www.npr.org/2017/10/28/560554685/epa-cancels-scientist-discussion-of-climate-change


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Ed W on October 29, 2017, 04:31:38 pm


EPA Cancels Scientist Discussion Of Climate Change

http://www.npr.org/2017/10/28/560554685/epa-cancels-scientist-discussion-of-climate-change


...because if you don't talk about pesky ideas, they simply go away, like women's sufferage, civil rights, and that whole Protestantism thing.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: cannon_fodder on October 30, 2017, 08:26:45 am
A huge amount of data has disappeared from government websites.  From climate change to health data to civil rights policies.  It was so widespread several groups set out to backup all government websites to protect public data.


Title: Re: Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?
Post by: Conan71 on October 30, 2017, 05:45:00 pm
A huge amount of data has disappeared from government websites.  From climate change to health data to civil rights policies.  It was so widespread several groups set out to backup all government websites to protect public data.

See, unless the government says it does, it doesn't exist!