Climate Change?

[Trakar]

Its not a rejection of technology per se, it is more a rejection of technology that requires either: A) direct government subsidies or B) government legislation to replace the existing technology.

Ah, you mean like coal, oil and gas which despite being the most profittable businesses in the history of civilization, have, over the last century or so, received US taxpayer subsidies in the neighborhood of half a trillion dollars (currently running around $8B dollars a year in federal subsidies and an approximately equal amount from state and local subsidies).

As I have stated in other posts, "green" technology is unique in that its implementation over existing technology requires something outside of the standard course of technological replacement. Horses were replaced by cars as they needed less work to maintain, cost less to operate, and required less skill to use sucessfully.

But required federal, state and local subsidies to produce roadways suitable for cars to drive upon, legislation and ordinances to zone and establish control of and parking for. Not to mention the operator/owner oversight and managment issues (speeding, reckless driving, double parking, etc.,).

Light bulbs replaced candles and refigerators replaced ice boxes for the same reason.

Ah, people produced their own electricity? What about the subsidies, tax breaks, incentives and regulations created by federal, state and local governments to facilitate and encourage consumer demand for these products?

Today "green" replacements for current technology often have greater apparent drawbacks than the tech they are trying to replace, with only the abstract concept of "fighting climate change" to make them theoretically superior to the product they are replacing.

In what specific and non-abstract manners?

Give me an electric car that costs less to operate than an ICE car, has the same range and abilities, and requires the same level of operator skill, then I'm sold.

even if you have to pay the unsubsidized, true cost accounting price for your gasoline and oil?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Even on a worldwide scale, the climatic events of the last twelve months are within scope of a cluster of stronger than normal events caused by the strong La Nina. Barely.

By 2025, if we continue to see more of these types of events, we may be able to look back and say this was the beginning of the change. For sure, we know that the Arctic is already undergoing major changes. As are the alpine areas of the world. We are creating a very interesting future for our descendents. I doubt they will appreciate it.

"Normal" being defined by a very narrow range of years where records of weather events have been kept.

"Normal" being climate and weather that will support the agriculture that is neccessary for the maintance of our present population worldwide. When the climate and weather get far enough from that "Normal", that population will diminish.

For all you know we may have been in a period of low tornado activity for the past 200 years and "normal" may be more than we are used to.

There is no geologic record of tornadoes from which to extrapolate.

 

[Old Rocks]

The problem with your post is that you've created a Straw Man. Who are these "rejectionist luddites" you're talking about? No one on this board that I know of!!!

I see a board filled with people who have seemingly rejected science and the technological solutions science is offering as well as the sound economic benefits that further development of, and the switching over to, of more efficient and sustainable energies will bring. I'm not sure why they reject it, but I suspect that it is some misguided political bias given their rampant use of the terms "librul" and "commie." Which have little or nothing to do with the science or realities of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

I won't try to speak for others here, but even the most hardcore of warmists must question the shady scientific methodology that was exposed. Why would scientists feel it necessary to falsify data? Because it doesn't fit the desired conclusion? Why is a certain conclusion desired? Grant $?
What you consider "scientific reality" still has far too much contrary evidence to be "settled".

Contrary evidence such as what? Look, fellow, the reason for warming was established by Tyndall in 1858. If you want real science on the subject, quit quoting from obese, junkie radio jocks and read some real science, such as this;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do you know why the Wamers never produce a lab experiment showing how a 60PPM increase does ANY of the things they say it does (raises temps, melts glaciers, spawns killer tornadoes and Cat 5 Hurricanes)?

Because it doesn't!

It's that simple.

 

[Old Rocks]

You don't know, but we're all supposed to play along, at gunpoint if necessary, because of your entirely speculative and physical evidence-free suspicions.

The very flower of authoritarian nanny mindset.

You're not supposeed to "play along" Odd-dude. You're one of the true believers, aren't you? Limited anarchy and vigilante justice where every man is judge, jury and executioner. All men are islands, and each man (and woman and child of course) must take personal responsibiltiy on all matters great and small, armed at all times with no prohibition on the use lethal force.

If the air they breath or the water they drink kills them, so what? They weren't dilligent, serves them right. Same goes for the ingestion of e-coli in meat or veggies, if they're not smart enough or rich enough to have their food tested, **** 'em.

The fact is Odd-dude I'm no more an authoritrarian than you are an anarchist. I'm simply honest and you're full of shit.

I used to believe AGW pseudo science, until I let a few independent thoughts creep into my head and recognized that it fails several of the traditionally accepted acid tests of science...Namely:

1) It has no physical static control.

Whatever do you mean by that?

2) The phenomenon cannot be physically reproduced on demand and bench tested.

OK, silly asshat, produce me a glacier or an icecap on a bench. How about a planetary atmosphere? Again, almost the whole of geology was done without either of the above. The scope of the science was simply too large.

3) It's not falsifiable (i.e. all other possible explanations cannot be disproven and no matter what happens with the weather, it can all be blamed on gullible warming by the cultists).

Really? OK, were we too have 20 years of flat temperatures while the CO2 is increasing, and all other factors remain the same, then you could say that AGW has been falsified. Lindzen's Iris Effect was falsified by just such in situ observation.

The spurious and specious reducto-ad-anarchist strawman ad hom in non sequitur and irrelevant, you dishonest authoritarian thug shitheel.

Bottom line still is that you don't know, yet are perfectly willing to force others to live the way you'd have them live, based upon your entirely evidence-free suspicions....You must've been one shitty cop.

Fellow, you are about just as dumb of a **** as they come. Yap-yap talking points, not a single scientific siting to back your idiocy. People like you are not worth talking to.

 

[RollingThunder]

Do you know why the Wamers never produce a lab experiment showing how a 60PPM increase does ANY of the things they say it does (raises temps, melts glaciers, spawns killer tornadoes and Cat 5 Hurricanes)?

Such evidence has been shown to you many times but you're apparently too brainwashed, ignorant and retarded to understand or accept it.

Perhaps this article from Dr. Roy Spenser, one of the few actual working climate scientists who considers himself a skeptic about AGW, will better inform you of the facts.

Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still
July 23rd, 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

It's that simple.

No, it's just too complex for a closed-minded simpleton like you.

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem with your post is that you've created a Straw Man. Who are these "rejectionist luddites" you're talking about? No one on this board that I know of!!!

I see a board filled with people who have seemingly rejected science and the technological solutions science is offering as well as the sound economic benefits that further development of, and the switching over to, of more efficient and sustainable energies will bring. I'm not sure why they reject it, but I suspect that it is some misguided political bias given their rampant use of the terms "librul" and "commie." Which have little or nothing to do with the science or realities of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

I won't try to speak for others here, but even the most hardcore of warmists must question the shady scientific methodology that was exposed. Why would scientists feel it necessary to falsify data? Because it doesn't fit the desired conclusion? Why is a certain conclusion desired? Grant $?
What you consider "scientific reality" still has far too much contrary evidence to be "settled".

Yep. Follow the money and it is usually an eye opener, or at least raises eyebrows, of all but the most committed AGW religionists.

I don't know a single AGW skeptic who is opposed to development of new energy sources, technologies, opportunities, products, etc. I don't know of a one who thinks R&D to be a bad thing regardless of where it is done.

And I would suspect that the day they can produce an electric or other 'green' vehicle that is affordable, has the same cargo capacity, range, usefulness, and towing capability of our favorite internal combustion engine vehicles, we will all be scrambling to buy one. If there is a market, we will come up with one.

It won't be that much different than the first automobiles that went into production. Most people did like, didn't want these wierd, noisy, smelly inefficient contraptions, but as they got better, more efficient, and more useful, more and more people gave up their horses, buggies, and wagons and got one. Pretty soon almost everybody was using gasoline powered vehicles instead of four-footed horse power for everything. And it happened through the simple process of supply and demand. Not one coercive government mandate was necessary to bring it about nor one dime of taxpayer dollars.

For the life of me I don't understand how the AGW religionists are so eager to give up their freedoms, choices, options, and opportunities in favor of unsettled science that is questionable at best and downright criminal at worst. And they not only are willing to do that, but they're willing to hand control over to government entities, many of whom don't like us very much and don't have our best interests at heart.

 

[Oddball]

You're not supposeed to "play along" Odd-dude. You're one of the true believers, aren't you? Limited anarchy and vigilante justice where every man is judge, jury and executioner. All men are islands, and each man (and woman and child of course) must take personal responsibiltiy on all matters great and small, armed at all times with no prohibition on the use lethal force.

If the air they breath or the water they drink kills them, so what? They weren't dilligent, serves them right. Same goes for the ingestion of e-coli in meat or veggies, if they're not smart enough or rich enough to have their food tested, **** 'em.

The fact is Odd-dude I'm no more an authoritrarian than you are an anarchist. I'm simply honest and you're full of shit.

I used to believe AGW pseudo science, until I let a few independent thoughts creep into my head and recognized that it fails several of the traditionally accepted acid tests of science...Namely:

1) It has no physical static control.

Whatever do you mean by that?

2) The phenomenon cannot be physically reproduced on demand and bench tested.

OK, silly asshat, produce me a glacier or an icecap on a bench. How about a planetary atmosphere? Again, almost the whole of geology was done without either of the above. The scope of the science was simply too large.

3) It's not falsifiable (i.e. all other possible explanations cannot be disproven and no matter what happens with the weather, it can all be blamed on gullible warming by the cultists).

Really? OK, were we too have 20 years of flat temperatures while the CO2 is increasing, and all other factors remain the same, then you could say that AGW has been falsified. Lindzen's Iris Effect was falsified by just such in situ observation.

The spurious and specious reducto-ad-anarchist strawman ad hom in non sequitur and irrelevant, you dishonest authoritarian thug shitheel.

Bottom line still is that you don't know, yet are perfectly willing to force others to live the way you'd have them live, based upon your entirely evidence-free suspicions....You must've been one shitty cop.

Fellow, you are about just as dumb of a **** as they come. Yap-yap talking points, not a single scientific siting to back your idiocy. People like you are not worth talking to.

There you have it folx...Even one of the cultists admits that the three mentioned scientific criteria haven't been met.

Just more deflections, evasions, irrelevancies, non sequiturs and ad hominems.

Oh, and I also forgot that the AGW hoax cannot be positively quantified...That is to say that the haoxers cannot possibly put a number on the equation of: X amount of CO2 = Y amount of warming....Can't forget that one.

Besides tall that, Oldrocksinthehead as already admitted that nothing short of the hoaxers coming out and admitting their pseudo-scientific fraud would be enough to change his mind , as it were, on the matter (and I seriously doubt that even that would be enough), so if anyone isn't worth talking to to here, it's you....Schmuck.

 

[RollingThunder]

I used to believe AGW pseudo science, until I let a few independent thoughts creep into my head and recognized that it fails several of the traditionally accepted acid tests of science...Namely:

1) It has no physical static control.

Whatever do you mean by that?

2) The phenomenon cannot be physically reproduced on demand and bench tested.

OK, silly asshat, produce me a glacier or an icecap on a bench. How about a planetary atmosphere? Again, almost the whole of geology was done without either of the above. The scope of the science was simply too large.

3) It's not falsifiable (i.e. all other possible explanations cannot be disproven and no matter what happens with the weather, it can all be blamed on gullible warming by the cultists).

Really? OK, were we too have 20 years of flat temperatures while the CO2 is increasing, and all other factors remain the same, then you could say that AGW has been falsified. Lindzen's Iris Effect was falsified by just such in situ observation.

The spurious and specious reducto-ad-anarchist strawman ad hom in non sequitur and irrelevant, you dishonest authoritarian thug shitheel.

Bottom line still is that you don't know, yet are perfectly willing to force others to live the way you'd have them live, based upon your entirely evidence-free suspicions....You must've been one shitty cop.

Fellow, you are about just as dumb of a **** as they come. Yap-yap talking points, not a single scientific siting to back your idiocy. People like you are not worth talking to.

There you have it folx...Even one of the cultists admits that the three mentioned scientific criteria haven't been met.

Just more deflections, evasions, irrelevancies, non sequiturs and ad hominems.

Oh, and I also forgot that the AGW hoax cannot be positively quantified...That is to say that the haoxers cannot possibly put a number on the equation of: X amount of CO2 = Y amount of warming....Can't forget that one.

Besides tall that, Oldrocksinthehead as already admitted that nothing short of the hoaxers coming out and admitting their pseudo-scientific fraud would be enough to change his mind , as it were, on the matter (and I seriously doubt that even that would be enough), so if anyone isn't worth talking to to here, it's you....Schmuck.

And another worthless post by the oddestball that amounts to nothing but retarded nonsense based on his own ignorance and stupidity.

 

[Oddball]

So, Trolling Blunder, are you saying that you can provide any or all of the aforementioned scientific points of data?

C'mon....Dazzle us, asshelmet.

 

[RollingThunder]

So, Trolling Blunder, are you saying that you can provide any or all of the aforementioned scientific points of data?

C'mon....Dazzle us, asshelmet.

Your "points" are all retarded nonsense.

Your knowledge of science is nil.

As far as the validity of the science goes, I'm going to trust the world scientific community a lot more than I'm going to believe the unsupported and half-witted claims of some anonymous and obviously very ignorant denier cult troll on an internet political forum.

 

[Oddball]

OK....I'll score that a big "NO".

Oh, and appeals to authority aren't amongst the traditional criteria for scientific evidence....Especially so when said "authorities" have been caught red-handed, faking data, destroying data, citing op-ed pieces as scientific data, threatening scientific journals and blacklisting those who question their conclusions.

 

[daveman]

Ignorance, stupdiity and cowardice need to be confronted.

Then stop bitching when people confront yours, mmmkay?

 

[daveman]

Just wondering;

For 10 years the warmers said weather was going to get worse, and hurricane seasons were going to be horrendous.

For all of those years it's been mild. One was a record mild.

Why didn't any of the warmers stop and wonder if they were being fooled?

Why do warmers think it's a great idea to spike the ball on dead people and scream see we were right [finally]?

More hyperbole and dishonesty? Read the second iteration of the OP written slowly for crusaderfrank, posted above.

Iteration? More like spin.

Your feelings were made quite clear. Backpedaling now is dishonest but completely expected.

 

[daveman]

Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.
That goes without saying, but it's hardly the point. We know CO2 traps energy. We know that its been going up. How can we expect anything but warming, if the trend continues?

How many different factors are involved in climate?

And you want to make predictions based on just one?

Really?

That's remarkably bad science.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Climate change? No,” said Howard Bluestein, professor of meteorology at University of Oklahoma. "This is something that happens every 10 or 20 years when everything comes together like this. This is just natural variability.”

"Most meteorologists agree with Bluestein"...from the Huffpost.

Seems like we gauge weather severity based on our own life experience, conveniently forgetting the first 4.5 billion years of weather events.

Seems to me the issue is cause and effect. I'm not informed enough to know what went on 4.5 billion years ago though I'm sure a billion or more people weren't driving cars with ICE's, factories weren't burning coal and fuel oil for heat or even wood.

I hope professor Bluestein is underground if he's at work. Oklahoma City is now having a severe storm with "deadly" tornados.

 

[daveman]

Seems to me the issue is cause and effect.

It is indeed.

Analysis of ice core data from Antarctica by Indermühle et al. (GRL, vol. 27, p. 735, 2000), who find that CO2 lags behind the temperature by 1200±700 years.

There are many examples of studies finding lags, a few examples include:
Indermühle et al. (GRL, vol. 27, p. 735, 2000), who find that CO2 lags behind the temperature by 1200±700 years, using Antarctic ice-cores between 60 and 20 kyr before present (see figure).
Fischer et al. (Science, vol 283, p. 1712, 1999) reported a time lag 600±400 yr during early de-glacial changes in the last 3 glacial–interglacial transitions.
Siegenthaler et al. (Science, vol. 310, p. 1313, 2005) find a best lag of 1900 years in the Antarctic data.
Monnin et al. (Science vol 291, 112, 2001) find that the start of the CO2 increase in the beginning of the last interglacial lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years.

Clearly, the correlation and lags unequivocally demonstrate that the temperature drives changes in the atmospheric CO2 content. The same correlations, however cannot be used to say anything about the temperature's sensitivity to variations in the CO2. I am sure there is some effect in that direction, but to empirically demonstrate it, one needs a correlation between the temperature and CO2 variations, which do not originate from temperature variations.​

You shouldn't listen to Al Gore. He's just in it for the money.

 

[Trakar]

"Climate change? No,” said Howard Bluestein, professor of meteorology at University of Oklahoma. "This is something that happens every 10 or 20 years when everything comes together like this. This is just natural variability.”

"Most meteorologists agree with Bluestein"...from the Huffpost.

Seems like we gauge weather severity based on our own life experience, conveniently forgetting the first 4.5 billion years of weather events.

Seems to me the issue is cause and effect. I'm not informed enough to know what went on 4.5 billion years ago though I'm sure a billion or more people weren't driving cars with ICE's, factories weren't burning coal and fuel oil for heat or even wood.

I hope professor Bluestein is underground if he's at work. Oklahoma City is now having a severe storm with "deadly" tornados.

Well, he is technically accurate. Climate is the backdrop of conditions and trends within which weather occurs. It would probably be more accurate to say that weather (which is all the little data points in time and space) shapes climate (which is the long term trends, considerations and big picture formed by all of those little dots) than to say that climate shapes weather. The blame for severe storms are large masses of warm moisture laden air that get overrun by dense cold air masses. The warm moist air tries to rise up through the cold dense overlying air and we get storms.

The Professors' words and as far as I can discern from the interview, his intentions, are accurate, but subject to distortion and misunderstanding. This is especially true when delivered in out-of-context bite size samples. I place the problem as much with the media as with those who intentionally or unintentionally misrepresent/misunderstand his statements.

 

[RollingThunder]

OK....I'll score that a big "NO".

You're talking about your ability to think, right? I'd score that a big 'no' too.

Oh, and appeals to authority aren't amongst the traditional criteria for scientific evidence...

Nobody said the world scientific consensus on AGW is scientific evidence, rather it is the result of the evidence. A point you're probably too moronic to comprehend. What I did say was that I am going to trust the testimony of the vast majority of climate scientists on Earth who all say that AGW is real and serious over the unsupported rantings of some ignorant, anti-science loon who posts bullshit on an internet forum.

Especially so when said "authorities" have been caught red-handed, faking data, destroying data, citing op-ed pieces as scientific data, threatening scientific journals and blacklisting those who question their conclusions.

That's all just more of your debunked and very idiotic denier cult myths and lies. No data was "faked" or "destroyed". It's is all still available in multiple locations, as it always has been. No one was "threatened" or "blacklisted" either. You swallow the lies and myths that you're fed by the denier cult blogs sponsored by Exxon but you have no real evidence to support your beliefs other than spun up and factually inaccurate newspaper articles by denier cult reporters.

 

[Old Rocks]

Just wondering;

For 10 years the warmers said weather was going to get worse, and hurricane seasons were going to be horrendous.

For all of those years it's been mild. One was a record mild.

Why didn't any of the warmers stop and wonder if they were being fooled?

Why do warmers think it's a great idea to spike the ball on dead people and scream see we were right [finally]?

Hmmm...... So 2005 was mild? And 2011 is mild? How about 2010? And, worldwide, the hurricanes have been been increasing in intensity.

Are Category 4 and 5 hurricanes increasing in number? : Weather Underground

Who are Webster et al.?

Lets examine the credentials of the Science paper's authors. The primary author, Dr. Peter Webster of Georgia Tech, holds a Ph.D. from MIT and has received the most prestigious award issued by the American Meteorology Society--the Carl Gustav Rossby Research award. Webster's primary expertise is not hurricanes--he has mostly studied monsoons. However, the second author, Dr. Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, is a hurricane expert. He earned his Ph.D. in 1983 at Colorado State as a student of Dr. Bill Gray, and has authored over 100 hurricane-related journals articles or book chapters. One of the other co-authors, Dr. Judith Curry, is the Chair of the Georgia Tech School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences. So, the paper's authors have a track record of producing high-quality research that should be taken seriously.

The theoretical basis for connecting hurricane intensity and global warming

Hurricanes act as giant heat engines, so it is logical to assume that an increase in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) will make more intense hurricanes. Indeed, there is a general consensus among hurricane scientists that an increase in SSTs due to global warming, should, in theory, lead to more intense hurricanes. Theory predicts that hurricane wind speeds should increase about 5% for every 1 degree Centigrade increase in tropical ocean temperature (Emanuel, 1987). Computer models confirm this tendency, but assign a slightly smaller magnitude to the increase (Knutson and Tuleya, 2004). Given the expected 1.5° to 4.5° C warming of Earth's climate expected by 2100, theory predicts a gradually increasing frequency of Category 4 and 5 storms.

Global warming in the past century has increased ocean temperatures about 1°F (0.5°C) which should correspond at most to about a 2.5% increase in hurricane wind speeds. If this theory is correct, an upper-end Category 3 hurricane with wind speeds of 130 mph--like Hurricane Katrina at landfall--owes 2-3 mph of its sustained winds to global warming. Hurricane wind speeds are estimated to the nearest 5 knots (5.8 mph), and one can get a general idea of what percent increase we've seen in Category 4 and 5 hurricanes due to global warming by looking at the number of high end Category 3 hurricanes (winds of 130 mph) and low end Category 4 hurricanes (135 mph winds). If we assume a 2-3 mph increase in winds of these storms is due to global warming over the past 35 years, one would expect to see a 5% increase at most in Category 4 and 5 hurricanes. An increase this small is not detectable given the current accuracy of estimating hurricane winds, and the relatively few number of of these storms that occur each year. This expected maximum 5% increase is quite a disagreement with the 80% increase found by Webster et al.! So, either the measurements are wrong, or the theory is wrong--or a combination of the two. I believe it may well be a combination of the two. The fact that the originator of the intensity theory (Kerry Emanuel) is one of the scientists who is advocating that the theory may be in error, is reason enough to doubt the theory. The formation and intensification of hurricanes are not well understood, and it would be no surprise if major revisions to intensity theory are made in the future. However, such a wide difference between the theory and the reported trends should make us suspicious of the observed data, as well.

Sea Surface Temperatures have increased since 1970

Webster et al. show a plot (Figure 2) of the sea surface temperature (SST) in the six major ocean basins that support tropical cyclones. Since 1970, SSTs in all the oceans have risen by up to .5° C. The paper chooses to look only at the period from 1970 to the present, since 1970 is the approximate time when global satellite measurements of tropical cyclone intensity became available. Before 1970, there are reliable intensity measurements only in the Atlantic and Northwest Pacific, thanks to the Hurricane Hunters. These measurements began in 1944 in the Atlantic and 1945 in the Northwest Pacific (but stopped in 1987 in the Pacific).