"Extraordinary" weather as a symptom of "climate change"

[westwall]

the science on this is pretty clear. i don't think it requires hysteria, but it does require intelligent response.

That's the problem Jillian, the science does NOT back them up one iota. Everytime they try to blame AGW for a particular event I can go back into the historical record and quite easily find an analog. There currently is no empirical data to support their theory. Instead of using actual records they use computer models that are so poor they can't recreate the weather of 5 days ago with perfect data recording. That is a huge problem. And as stated previously the records they do use have been corrupted. Hansen has been caught repeatedly going back into the historical record and altering the temperature data from over 50 years ago to try and get the US's temp record to conform to the false record he is building.

I agree that there are terrible environmental issues out there, but AGW is not one of them.

Ummm.... No. The science is solid and has been around for decades. They didn't wait for the symptom then assign the cause. They predicted this decades ago. Pretty much everything they've predicted would happen, is happening.

The sad thing is that deniers have even been elevated to the point of being considered worthy of addressing, when they should be acknowledged as the intellectual equivalent of a moon-landing denier.

Provide us with empirical data to support your POV. Not a computer model study, but hard empirical data. How else do you explain the extreme weather that has occured in the past? According to your paradigm that is a product of only AGW. If it happened in the past devoid of mans influence then you must first eliminate all natural causes. That is science and that is the scientific method. Science is based on observation, not coming up wih a theory and then only paying attention to those facts that support your theory.

Also science is not based on computer models. I can generate a computer model that will say anything I want it to. Hard data on the other hand is far more compelling, which is why Hansen and his ilk have been going back and altering the historical data record to try and make the American temp record (one of the most accurate and widespread in the world) conform to the worldwide temp record they are manufacturing.

 

[westwall]

Well, lets see, have we had other interesting 'extroidinery weather' this year, other than this snowstorm? A bit of rain in Tennensse as I remember. Then there was the near total wipe out of the agriculter in Pakistan from the flooding there. And losses of crops from several flooding events in China. A minor matter of a 10% loss of grain crops in Europe, and 40% in Russia from heat and drougth. Argentina and Uraguay, major agriculteral losses from drougth. Big loss of wheat in Queensland, Australia from a major flood there, and the loss of 1/3 of the world's coking coal until they
get the water out of the mines and the railroad beds rebuilt. Of course Yasi was just a minor Cyclone, affecting only a few crops such as sugar and bananas. All in less than a years time.

Nothing out of the ordinery folks, just keep going, nothing to see here.

Any six meter chunks of ice fall out of the sky lately? According to you guys there should be all kinds of weird ice drop going on. After all there's more water vapour right?

 

[westwall]

YOU keep claiming it is ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC FACT. Provide the evidence. It is not my job to prove a negative it is YOUR job to prove YOUR statement that Human caused global warming is occurring. YOU, not I keep claiming it is proven scientific fact. Trot out the science that proves it. Provide us "deniers" the scientific tests that prove man is causing global warming.

How hard can it be? You keep claiming post after post it is so. Provide us this crucial testing information.

OK, dummy.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

There is the address. Physicists explaining the physics of global warming. Far better than a millwright could explain it to you. But you will not read it. Nor will you read anything that might disturb you comfortable alternative universe view of reality.

AGW deniers are some of the most malleable, easily duped jackasses on the planet. It's so sad, so very sad. And since now they have a national voice in the GOP, there's a lot of them.

Damn, my threshold for stupidity is lower than usual tonight.

And yet we're not the ones going back and altering the climate record are we? No that's you folks. Easily duped? Look in the mirror.

 

[Peace7408]

Weather tends to be cyclical, note that pollution is rising alot faster than ever before, still what is cyclical will always be cyclical until we learn to control the climate, the last few yrs if they continue for app another 4 to 5 yrs will alleviate the global warming theory

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Lots of alarmists are falling all over themselves claiming that this most recent snowmageddon is proof positive that climate change is occuring. They consistently ignore the weather extremes of the past and call them "irrelevent" because now we have GHG's in higher abundance etc. etc. etc.

the science on this is pretty clear. i don't think it requires hysteria, but it does require intelligent response.

the only intelligent response to hysteria is a slap to the face.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

the science on this is pretty clear. i don't think it requires hysteria, but it does require intelligent response.

That's the problem Jillian, the science does NOT back them up one iota. Everytime they try to blame AGW for a particular event I can go back into the historical record and quite easily find an analog. There currently is no empirical data to support their theory. Instead of using actual records they use computer models that are so poor they can't recreate the weather of 5 days ago with perfect data recording. That is a huge problem. And as stated previously the records they do use have been corrupted. Hansen has been caught repeatedly going back into the historical record and altering the temperature data from over 50 years ago to try and get the US's temp record to conform to the false record he is building.

I agree that there are terrible environmental issues out there, but AGW is not one of them.

Ummm.... No. The science is solid and has been around for decades. They didn't wait for the symptom then assign the cause. They predicted this decades ago. Pretty much everything they've predicted would happen, is happening.

The sad thing is that deniers have even been elevated to the point of being considered worthy of addressing, when they should be acknowledged as the intellectual equivalent of a moon-landing denier.

You are correct, they did predict an ice age decades ago.

I don't have a problem with the science, I have a problem with the people like Al Gore and Old Rocks who do not know the science, and like to through out the more alarming predictions like they know what they are talking about.

Even if Al Gore is right and the seal level will rise by 20 feet we will have centuries to deal with it, and Tokyo has already dealt with the equivalent of that much sea level rise and not sunk into the ocean. Should I be worried about the sea level going up? I don't think so.

Then we get this thing about the arctic ice sheet melting in 30 or so years. You will not find a single scientist that makes that type of prediction because no one knows how long it will take for that ice to melt, or even if it all will.

If you look closely at the models you will see that, overall, more places benefit from climate change than suffer from it. The Shara could turn fertile, and most of the Middle East could turn into farmland. Why would I want to prevent that? Should I care more about the climate in Europe and the US than I do about the climate in Africa?

Climate change is real. Man does contribute to it. But even the worst case scenarios give us plenty of time to deal with it, and sooner or later the next ice age is going to hit us no matter what we do.

 

[Peace7408]

If you look at the changes in the ocean currents, they changed course unusually fast, if you look at the historical data through sediment levels, they become cyclical, if you look at the rings in old growth trees they become cyclical, if you look at the pollution we in Our global society, its unusual, still it doesn't show actual global warming as some tend to believe, i heard the U.S. had one of the wettest yrs in recent history, could the earth be cleansing itself ? not a normal componant in the conversation, yet think about it

 

[Cuyo]

That's the problem Jillian, the science does NOT back them up one iota. Everytime they try to blame AGW for a particular event I can go back into the historical record and quite easily find an analog. There currently is no empirical data to support their theory. Instead of using actual records they use computer models that are so poor they can't recreate the weather of 5 days ago with perfect data recording. That is a huge problem. And as stated previously the records they do use have been corrupted. Hansen has been caught repeatedly going back into the historical record and altering the temperature data from over 50 years ago to try and get the US's temp record to conform to the false record he is building.

I agree that there are terrible environmental issues out there, but AGW is not one of them.

Ummm.... No. The science is solid and has been around for decades. They didn't wait for the symptom then assign the cause. They predicted this decades ago. Pretty much everything they've predicted would happen, is happening.

The sad thing is that deniers have even been elevated to the point of being considered worthy of addressing, when they should be acknowledged as the intellectual equivalent of a moon-landing denier.

You are correct, they did predict an ice age decades ago.

I don't have a problem with the science, I have a problem with the people like Al Gore and Old Rocks who do not know the science, and like to through out the more alarming predictions like they know what they are talking about.

Even if Al Gore is right and the seal level will rise by 20 feet we will have centuries to deal with it, and Tokyo has already dealt with the equivalent of that much sea level rise and not sunk into the ocean. Should I be worried about the sea level going up? I don't think so.

Then we get this thing about the arctic ice sheet melting in 30 or so years. You will not find a single scientist that makes that type of prediction because no one knows how long it will take for that ice to melt, or even if it all will.

If you look closely at the models you will see that, overall, more places benefit from climate change than suffer from it. The Shara could turn fertile, and most of the Middle East could turn into farmland. Why would I want to prevent that? Should I care more about the climate in Europe and the US than I do about the climate in Africa?

Climate change is real. Man does contribute to it. But even the worst case scenarios give us plenty of time to deal with it, and sooner or later the next ice age is going to hit us no matter what we do.

There is a minority hypothesis that a few degrees of warming would benefit mankind, but I never heard it the way you've just described it. On the contrary, look at what happened in Darfur. Already arid, lousy soil difficult to cultivate, turned into bare desert.

Global warming = More fertile land? I believe it's out there, hell, anything you search for is out there. But I damn sure haven't seen that one.

As far as our time and the next ice age, CO2s effects in the high atmosphere last for 100 years or so. As far as rising ocean levels et al, you are probably correct - We're not going to wake up one morning and need a canoe to get to work. But there can be dire consequences. Imagine, for example, increased cloud coverage that begins to affect agriculture?

Consider this - Anaerobic organisms existed long before Aerobic organisms, like us. They metabolize the carbon and release O2, which is what we breathe and redeposit the carbon as a waste product. Plants don't need us, however. CO2 would be here even without animals. We need them. Environmental barriers to plant growth are scarcely, if ever, "Not enough CO2." Plants need sunlight to accomplish this goal which is necessary for our survival. What happens when we block just a little too much of it out? We're not "Destroying the earth" per se, we don't have the ability to do so. We can destroy our ability to live here, though.

Nobody knows for sure, of course, exactly how this plays out. There's many hypotheses and the one I described is only one of them. Obviously you're half way there because you don't believe morons who just ignorantly claim it's not happening (eg, your contemporaries Oddball, Westwall, Crusader Frank, et al). You acknowledge it's happening, but hypothesize that it won't be a net negative for mankind, at least not a terribly big one. What if you're wrong? Don't you think it's smart to hedge your bet?

 

[skookerasbil]

Well, lets see, have we had other interesting 'extroidinery weather' this year, other than this snowstorm? A bit of rain in Tennensse as I remember. Then there was the near total wipe out of the agriculter in Pakistan from the flooding there. And losses of crops from several flooding events in China. A minor matter of a 10% loss of grain crops in Europe, and 40% in Russia from heat and drougth. Argentina and Uraguay, major agriculteral losses from drougth. Big loss of wheat in Queensland, Australia from a major flood there, and the loss of 1/3 of the world's coking coal until they
get the water out of the mines and the railroad beds rebuilt. Of course Yasi was just a minor Cyclone, affecting only a few crops such as sugar and bananas. All in less than a years time.

Nothing out of the ordinery folks, just keep going, nothing to see here.

middle America 1930's s0n.............. Stop reading only your far left websites and publications.

The k00ks want the hoplessly duped to think "weather" anomolies started in the past 15 years!!

 

[westwall]

Ummm.... No. The science is solid and has been around for decades. They didn't wait for the symptom then assign the cause. They predicted this decades ago. Pretty much everything they've predicted would happen, is happening.

The sad thing is that deniers have even been elevated to the point of being considered worthy of addressing, when they should be acknowledged as the intellectual equivalent of a moon-landing denier.

You are correct, they did predict an ice age decades ago.

I don't have a problem with the science, I have a problem with the people like Al Gore and Old Rocks who do not know the science, and like to through out the more alarming predictions like they know what they are talking about.

Even if Al Gore is right and the seal level will rise by 20 feet we will have centuries to deal with it, and Tokyo has already dealt with the equivalent of that much sea level rise and not sunk into the ocean. Should I be worried about the sea level going up? I don't think so.

Then we get this thing about the arctic ice sheet melting in 30 or so years. You will not find a single scientist that makes that type of prediction because no one knows how long it will take for that ice to melt, or even if it all will.

If you look closely at the models you will see that, overall, more places benefit from climate change than suffer from it. The Shara could turn fertile, and most of the Middle East could turn into farmland. Why would I want to prevent that? Should I care more about the climate in Europe and the US than I do about the climate in Africa?

Climate change is real. Man does contribute to it. But even the worst case scenarios give us plenty of time to deal with it, and sooner or later the next ice age is going to hit us no matter what we do.

There is a minority hypothesis that a few degrees of warming would benefit mankind, but I never heard it the way you've just described it. On the contrary, look at what happened in Darfur. Already arid, lousy soil difficult to cultivate, turned into bare desert.

Global warming = More fertile land? I believe it's out there, hell, anything you search for is out there. But I damn sure haven't seen that one.

As far as our time and the next ice age, CO2s effects in the high atmosphere last for 100 years or so. As far as rising ocean levels et al, you are probably correct - We're not going to wake up one morning and need a canoe to get to work. But there can be dire consequences. Imagine, for example, increased cloud coverage that begins to affect agriculture?

Consider this - Anaerobic organisms existed long before Aerobic organisms, like us. They metabolize the carbon and release O2, which is what we breathe and redeposit the carbon as a waste product. Plants don't need us, however. CO2 would be here even without animals. We need them. Environmental barriers to plant growth are scarcely, if ever, "Not enough CO2." Plants need sunlight to accomplish this goal which is necessary for our survival. What happens when we block just a little too much of it out? We're not "Destroying the earth" per se, we don't have the ability to do so. We can destroy our ability to live here, though.

Nobody knows for sure, of course, exactly how this plays out. There's many hypotheses and the one I described is only one of them. Obviously you're half way there because you don't believe morons who just ignorantly claim it's not happening (eg, your contemporaries Oddball, Westwall, Crusader Frank, et al). You acknowledge it's happening, but hypothesize that it won't be a net negative for mankind, at least not a terribly big one. What if you're wrong? Don't you think it's smart to hedge your bet?

If you would care to do some historical research of your own I suggest reviewing that part of mans history dealing with the Roman Warming Period. There are many contemporanious sources that describe in detail agriculture and wine making going on then that would be a dream today. The RWP witnessed temperatures on average 6 degrees warmer than today. No matter which source from the time they all describe a land that is prosperous and extremely productive. Roman culture blossomed during that time.

The same is true of the Medieval Warming Period. England was able to challenge France in wine production, something that has not happened in over 500 years. Once again there are plenty of period sources and they all describe the same thing, prosperity on a scale that was not attained until recently thanks to modern agriculteral methods.

The alarmists all make the claim that the RWP and the MWP were "local" events only but their impact has been found wherever in the world they are looked for. In yet another example of data manipulation, Michael Mann, when creating his hockey stick erased the MWP and the Little Ice Age, two event that are well known to any scientist or historian.

What was that about gullibility?

 

[Cuyo]

You are correct, they did predict an ice age decades ago.

I don't have a problem with the science, I have a problem with the people like Al Gore and Old Rocks who do not know the science, and like to through out the more alarming predictions like they know what they are talking about.

Even if Al Gore is right and the seal level will rise by 20 feet we will have centuries to deal with it, and Tokyo has already dealt with the equivalent of that much sea level rise and not sunk into the ocean. Should I be worried about the sea level going up? I don't think so.

Then we get this thing about the arctic ice sheet melting in 30 or so years. You will not find a single scientist that makes that type of prediction because no one knows how long it will take for that ice to melt, or even if it all will.

If you look closely at the models you will see that, overall, more places benefit from climate change than suffer from it. The Shara could turn fertile, and most of the Middle East could turn into farmland. Why would I want to prevent that? Should I care more about the climate in Europe and the US than I do about the climate in Africa?

Climate change is real. Man does contribute to it. But even the worst case scenarios give us plenty of time to deal with it, and sooner or later the next ice age is going to hit us no matter what we do.

There is a minority hypothesis that a few degrees of warming would benefit mankind, but I never heard it the way you've just described it. On the contrary, look at what happened in Darfur. Already arid, lousy soil difficult to cultivate, turned into bare desert.

Global warming = More fertile land? I believe it's out there, hell, anything you search for is out there. But I damn sure haven't seen that one.

As far as our time and the next ice age, CO2s effects in the high atmosphere last for 100 years or so. As far as rising ocean levels et al, you are probably correct - We're not going to wake up one morning and need a canoe to get to work. But there can be dire consequences. Imagine, for example, increased cloud coverage that begins to affect agriculture?

Consider this - Anaerobic organisms existed long before Aerobic organisms, like us. They metabolize the carbon and release O2, which is what we breathe and redeposit the carbon as a waste product. Plants don't need us, however. CO2 would be here even without animals. We need them. Environmental barriers to plant growth are scarcely, if ever, "Not enough CO2." Plants need sunlight to accomplish this goal which is necessary for our survival. What happens when we block just a little too much of it out? We're not "Destroying the earth" per se, we don't have the ability to do so. We can destroy our ability to live here, though.

Nobody knows for sure, of course, exactly how this plays out. There's many hypotheses and the one I described is only one of them. Obviously you're half way there because you don't believe morons who just ignorantly claim it's not happening (eg, your contemporaries Oddball, Westwall, Crusader Frank, et al). You acknowledge it's happening, but hypothesize that it won't be a net negative for mankind, at least not a terribly big one. What if you're wrong? Don't you think it's smart to hedge your bet?

If you would care to do some historical research of your own I suggest reviewing that part of mans history dealing with the Roman Warming Period. There are many contemporanious sources that describe in detail agriculture and wine making going on then that would be a dream today. The RWP witnessed temperatures on average 6 degrees warmer than today. No matter which source from the time they all describe a land that is prosperous and extremely productive. Roman culture blossomed during that time.

The same is true of the Medieval Warming Period. England was able to challenge France in wine production, something that has not happened in over 500 years. Once again there are plenty of period sources and they all describe the same thing, prosperity on a scale that was not attained until recently thanks to modern agriculteral methods.

The alarmists all make the claim that the RWP and the MWP were "local" events only but their impact has been found wherever in the world they are looked for. In yet another example of data manipulation, Michael Mann, when creating his hockey stick erased the MWP and the Little Ice Age, two event that are well known to any scientist or historian.

What was that about gullibility?

Needless to say I've heard things along those lines, but the truth is that we don't have global data from those time periods.

Three men can keep a secret, if two of them are dead. The entire world's scientific community has not conspired to lie about climate change just to piss you off.

 

[westwall]

There is a minority hypothesis that a few degrees of warming would benefit mankind, but I never heard it the way you've just described it. On the contrary, look at what happened in Darfur. Already arid, lousy soil difficult to cultivate, turned into bare desert.

Global warming = More fertile land? I believe it's out there, hell, anything you search for is out there. But I damn sure haven't seen that one.

As far as our time and the next ice age, CO2s effects in the high atmosphere last for 100 years or so. As far as rising ocean levels et al, you are probably correct - We're not going to wake up one morning and need a canoe to get to work. But there can be dire consequences. Imagine, for example, increased cloud coverage that begins to affect agriculture?

Consider this - Anaerobic organisms existed long before Aerobic organisms, like us. They metabolize the carbon and release O2, which is what we breathe and redeposit the carbon as a waste product. Plants don't need us, however. CO2 would be here even without animals. We need them. Environmental barriers to plant growth are scarcely, if ever, "Not enough CO2." Plants need sunlight to accomplish this goal which is necessary for our survival. What happens when we block just a little too much of it out? We're not "Destroying the earth" per se, we don't have the ability to do so. We can destroy our ability to live here, though.

Nobody knows for sure, of course, exactly how this plays out. There's many hypotheses and the one I described is only one of them. Obviously you're half way there because you don't believe morons who just ignorantly claim it's not happening (eg, your contemporaries Oddball, Westwall, Crusader Frank, et al). You acknowledge it's happening, but hypothesize that it won't be a net negative for mankind, at least not a terribly big one. What if you're wrong? Don't you think it's smart to hedge your bet?

If you would care to do some historical research of your own I suggest reviewing that part of mans history dealing with the Roman Warming Period. There are many contemporanious sources that describe in detail agriculture and wine making going on then that would be a dream today. The RWP witnessed temperatures on average 6 degrees warmer than today. No matter which source from the time they all describe a land that is prosperous and extremely productive. Roman culture blossomed during that time.

The same is true of the Medieval Warming Period. England was able to challenge France in wine production, something that has not happened in over 500 years. Once again there are plenty of period sources and they all describe the same thing, prosperity on a scale that was not attained until recently thanks to modern agriculteral methods.

The alarmists all make the claim that the RWP and the MWP were "local" events only but their impact has been found wherever in the world they are looked for. In yet another example of data manipulation, Michael Mann, when creating his hockey stick erased the MWP and the Little Ice Age, two event that are well known to any scientist or historian.

What was that about gullibility?

Needless to say I've heard things along those lines, but the truth is that we don't have global data from those time periods.

Three men can keep a secret, if two of them are dead. The entire world's scientific community has not conspired to lie about climate change just to piss you off.

In fact we do. Recently a survey was done of China's historical record and once again over a period of 2000 years when it was warm China did extremely well. When it was cold there was war, famine, and disease.

The same goes for the paleo record form the Yucatan. And the Sierra's, and what paleo record still remains from Australia all confirm the facts. It is only the alarmists who choose to ignore the historical record and in Manns case tried to erase it.

And no they havn't conspired to piss me off, they have conspired to make money, the oldest reason in the book. The climatologists hooked up with the likes of ENRON very early
and then continued the relationship with big business with the likes of Goldman Sachs who are poised to make trilions of dollars when the legislation is passed. This is fact and you can look it up anywhere you wish to....if you CHOOSE to.