Climate Change?

[Two Thumbs]

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.

I'm reading what you wrote. I also recall most warmers here dancing on the still warm bodies after the mass of tornadoes a few weeks ago.

so I will ask differently

Why are you happy people died screaming?

 

[Trakar]

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.
​

This is a good example of what happens when natural forcings (in this case the Milankovich cycles) take a frozen world and begin thawing it out. In such situations CO2 acts as a positive feed back amplifying the forcings of planetary orbital shifts and creates an accelerating warming. Of course, this is in the case of natural warmings do to known and well understood principles.

This is also a good example of why one should not try to rely upon internet blogs for scientific information. While they do get a few facts correct they also include a lot of inaccurate opinion and ilconsidered fallacies producing something more akin to pseudoscience than supported science.

According to the same Milankovich cycles our planet should be in a slowly cooling cycle ending the current interglacial episode of the Pleistocene ice-age. But due to the manner of the various Milankovitch cycles, this would have been a slow retreat into the ice (30--50Kyears from now). Regardless, the vast and overwhelming volume of rising levels of CO2 in our current atmosphere are not coming from frozen stores on a frozen planet slowly warming because our planet's orbit and axial tilt have shifted. We know where the CO2 in our atmosphere has come from. We have the economic records of mining and burning the coal, oil and gas which produced it, and we can directly identify and measure its presence because of the isotopic ratio differences between carbon that has been buried for tens/hundreds of millions of years and active cycle environmental carbon. So, at least for now, we are in control of the additional carbon, once the environment heats up a bit more however, we will lose control over that as the oceans, soils, permafrosts, and calthrates begin dumping their reserves of stored carbon into the atmosphere. That is the true beginning of the end and there are signs that some of these stores are already beginning to be released.​

 

[Trakar]

Why are you happy people died screaming?

I can't imagine that anyone would rejoice over any death, particularly those that are preventable. Don't you agree?

 

[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]?

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

I'm reading what you wrote. I also recall most warmers here dancing on the still warm bodies after the mass of tornadoes a few weeks ago.

so I will ask differently

Why are you happy people died screaming?

You are one sick puppy! No one expressed any joy over the deaths of our fellow citizens. In fact, in the OPs about the tornados, I don't remember anyone stating anything about climate, just sympathy for the people involved, and horror at the scope of the damage.

It is sad that you have to resort to sick accusations like this to bolster your denial of the obvious connection between a changing climate and the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere.

 

[martybegan]

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.,).



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?

If one had to pay what you call the "unsubsidized" cost of just about any product, you wouldn't be happy. What you call subsidies accountants call business expesnses, its just that subsidies sound like you are giving away something, and thus match your "evil corporation" talking points far better. All buisness have 99% commonality in deductions based on thier industry. Also when it comes to commodities such as gas, one has little choice but to pay what is charged, or do something else, like walking. Any cost increase the government imposes would trickle down to the price at the pump.

You also ignore that back when these technological changes happened we had no where near the level of invasive taxation we do now, so these deductions would not have existed, as the taxes they are based on did not exist.

In the case of electric lights you have to remember the initial use was for replacing gas street lamps. People noted them, and since you had to run the electric anyway for the street lights, the grid increased to private connections. Its similar to what we see with FIOS today, some areas get it, then the provider branches out service.

People could keep thier candles if they wanted to, it just became more cost effective to use electricity. Today we are banning incandescent lights to get people to switch, but they didnt have to ban candles to get people to use light bulbs.

 

[Old Rocks]

There is no ban on incandescent light bulbs.

That's right. And it is not true that you will not be able to buy incandescent light bulbs starting in 2012.

Don't believe me? Take a look at the federal Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. It's the bill, signed by President Bush, that supposedly bans incandescent light bulbs:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h6enr.txt.pdf

The word "ban" isn't there. What is there, is a set of standards for making light bulbs more efficient phased in from 2012 to 2014.

Look carefully and you'll also see a whole list of exceptions including: 3-way light light bulbs, 40-watt appliance bulbs and other specialty bulbs, 22 exceptions in all.

O.k., so the bill doesn't say "ban," but many claim that the standards effectively bans incandescent, because light bulbs today can't meet them. So we're being forced to buy compact fluorescent lights (CFLs).

That's not exactly right, either.

Incandescent bulbs, as they have been made for generations, were very wasteful. Who cared? We had lots of energy and it was cheap. Not anymore. The incandescent bulbs of old won't meet the standards. But it doesn't mean you will be forced to use CFLs to light your house. You can buy incandescent light bulbs now, ones that meet the standard.

No ban on incandescent light bulbs | StarTribune.com

 

[Oddball]

Right....No ban, but "standards" by which certain bulbs may not, under penalty of legal sanction, be manufactured or imported.

Thank you, George Orwell.

 

[editec]

I don't know. I suspect the residents of Joplin, MO; Tuscaloosa, AL and the states which border the Mississippi River and its tributaries might be beginning to question the conventional wisdom (i.e. propaganda) of the right wing spin machine.

Trying to connect any single weather event to climate change is silly.

Statistically, can we see evidence of changes in tornadic activity?

If yes, then we can intuite that global changes are happening.

If not, then the evidence doesn't support your theory.

 

[martybegan]

There is no ban on incandescent light bulbs.

That's right. And it is not true that you will not be able to buy incandescent light bulbs starting in 2012.

Don't believe me? Take a look at the federal Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. It's the bill, signed by President Bush, that supposedly bans incandescent light bulbs:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h6enr.txt.pdf

The word "ban" isn't there. What is there, is a set of standards for making light bulbs more efficient phased in from 2012 to 2014.

Look carefully and you'll also see a whole list of exceptions including: 3-way light light bulbs, 40-watt appliance bulbs and other specialty bulbs, 22 exceptions in all.

O.k., so the bill doesn't say "ban," but many claim that the standards effectively bans incandescent, because light bulbs today can't meet them. So we're being forced to buy compact fluorescent lights (CFLs).

That's not exactly right, either.

Incandescent bulbs, as they have been made for generations, were very wasteful. Who cared? We had lots of energy and it was cheap. Not anymore. The incandescent bulbs of old won't meet the standards. But it doesn't mean you will be forced to use CFLs to light your house. You can buy incandescent light bulbs now, ones that meet the standard.

No ban on incandescent light bulbs | StarTribune.com

If we are going to discuss this we have to at least be honest. yes it is not a "de jure" ban, but it is a "de facto" ban. Making standards a technology cannot meet is a ban for all intents and purposes. Yes, one can get halogen incandescents, but the light quality is again different, same as with LED's and flourescents.

This still leaves the question of why the government needs to get into the business of, past basic safety, telling people how to light thier houses. Again, candles werent banned to make people use electric bulbs, or even gas lamps. If a person wants to pay X more money a year in power costs to get the type of light they like, why is it governments business to get involved?

 

[daveman]

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

I'm reading what you wrote. I also recall most warmers here dancing on the still warm bodies after the mass of tornadoes a few weeks ago.

so I will ask differently

Why are you happy people died screaming?

You are one sick puppy! No one expressed any joy over the deaths of our fellow citizens. In fact, in the OPs about the tornados, I don't remember anyone stating anything about climate, just sympathy for the people involved, and horror at the scope of the damage.

It is sad that you have to resort to sick accusations like this to bolster your denial of the obvious connection between a changing climate and the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere.

Selective perception? Yes. Leftists see what they want to see.

Here is the OP, where Wry is using deaths to score political points:

I don't know. I suspect the residents of Joplin, MO; Tuscaloosa, AL and the states which border the Mississippi River and its tributaries might be beginning to question the conventional wisdom (i.e. propaganda) of the right wing spin machine.

No sympathy. No horror. Just enlightened leftist nuance that's not above dancing on graves.

If you had any decency, you'd condemn the bastard. But you'll just say "That's not what he meant!"...and you'll believe it, because you're so gullible you can fool yourself.

 

[daveman]

Right....No ban, but "standards" by which certain bulbs may not, under penalty of legal sanction, be manufactured or imported.

Thank you, George Orwell.

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

 

[Old Rocks]

I don't know. I suspect the residents of Joplin, MO; Tuscaloosa, AL and the states which border the Mississippi River and its tributaries might be beginning to question the conventional wisdom (i.e. propaganda) of the right wing spin machine.

Trying to connect any single weather event to climate change is silly.

Statistically, can we see evidence of changes in tornadic activity?

If yes, then we can intuite that global changes are happening.

If not, then the evidence doesn't support your theory.

This presents, at present, and interesting subject. There are great natural variations year to year in the strengths and number of extreme weather events. So the question is, are the events of the last decade within the range of natural variation? Right now, the answer is yes, barely.

The next question, is the increase in the number and strength great enough to suspect that this is more than just natural variation? Again, the answer is yes. But only barely.

OK, now we have established doubt on all sides, the third question is, is the increase in GHGs having any affect on climate and weather? The answer to that is an unequivocal 'YES'. From the Arctic and Alpine ice, we see the effects. From the timing of the movements of migrating animals and birds, to the upward movement of plants in alpine regions, we see the evidence of the effects of the warming of the globe.

Statistically, there is not unequivocal support for those that state what we are seeing is normal, nor for those that state that this is an effect of global warming. Given the other effects that we can definitely ascribe to the warming, I believe that by 2025, there will be enough extreme events to state unequivocally that warming is the cause of the increase.

 

[Old Rocks]

Right....No ban, but "standards" by which certain bulbs may not, under penalty of legal sanction, be manufactured or imported.

Thank you, George Orwell.

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

You have always been extremely stupid

 

[martybegan]

I don't know. I suspect the residents of Joplin, MO; Tuscaloosa, AL and the states which border the Mississippi River and its tributaries might be beginning to question the conventional wisdom (i.e. propaganda) of the right wing spin machine.

Trying to connect any single weather event to climate change is silly.

Statistically, can we see evidence of changes in tornadic activity?

If yes, then we can intuite that global changes are happening.

If not, then the evidence doesn't support your theory.

This presents, at present, and interesting subject. There are great natural variations year to year in the strengths and number of extreme weather events. So the question is, are the events of the last decade within the range of natural variation? Right now, the answer is yes, barely.

The next question, is the increase in the number and strength great enough to suspect that this is more than just natural variation? Again, the answer is yes. But only barely.

OK, now we have established doubt on all sides, the third question is, is the increase in GHGs having any affect on climate and weather? The answer to that is an unequivocal 'YES'. From the Arctic and Alpine ice, we see the effects. From the timing of the movements of migrating animals and birds, to the upward movement of plants in alpine regions, we see the evidence of the effects of the warming of the globe.

Statistically, there is not unequivocal support for those that state what we are seeing is normal, nor for those that state that this is an effect of global warming. Given the other effects that we can definitely ascribe to the warming, I believe that by 2025, there will be enough extreme events to state unequivocally that warming is the cause of the increase.

How can it be an unequivocal yes? Your link is still dubious, as you cannot rule out other natural causes such as solar energy with certainty. These events are evidence of WARMING, but not of a certain cause to the exception of any other.

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm reading what you wrote. I also recall most warmers here dancing on the still warm bodies after the mass of tornadoes a few weeks ago.

so I will ask differently

Why are you happy people died screaming?

You are one sick puppy! No one expressed any joy over the deaths of our fellow citizens. In fact, in the OPs about the tornados, I don't remember anyone stating anything about climate, just sympathy for the people involved, and horror at the scope of the damage.

It is sad that you have to resort to sick accusations like this to bolster your denial of the obvious connection between a changing climate and the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere.

Selective perception? Yes. Leftists see what they want to see.

Here is the OP, where Wry is using deaths to score political points:

I don't know. I suspect the residents of Joplin, MO; Tuscaloosa, AL and the states which border the Mississippi River and its tributaries might be beginning to question the conventional wisdom (i.e. propaganda) of the right wing spin machine.

No sympathy. No horror. Just enlightened leftist nuance that's not above dancing on graves.

If you had any decency, you'd condemn the bastard. But you'll just say "That's not what he meant!"...and you'll believe it, because you're so gullible you can fool yourself.

So, that is you ploy. Try to create the perception that all the people that have stated in the past that GHGs put more energy in the atmosphere, creating a more energetic atmosphere, i.e., bigger and badder storms, are joyous about the results of those storms. What you are saying is that when a parent warns son or daughter about the dangers of wreckless driving, that when they are hurt or killed as a result of that driving, the parent enjoys the fact that the prediction came to pass. What a total dickhead you are!

Yes, one can certainly see where someone that has lost everything to these horrible storms might well consider the fact that such was predicted by the scientists that study climate, and might well conclude that we had better start paying attention to said scientists. And that is what you are resenting. And taking that resentment out in a very sick manner. I really don't think I would care for you as a neighbor.

 

[Old Rocks]

Trying to connect any single weather event to climate change is silly.

Statistically, can we see evidence of changes in tornadic activity?

If yes, then we can intuite that global changes are happening.

If not, then the evidence doesn't support your theory.

This presents, at present, and interesting subject. There are great natural variations year to year in the strengths and number of extreme weather events. So the question is, are the events of the last decade within the range of natural variation? Right now, the answer is yes, barely.

The next question, is the increase in the number and strength great enough to suspect that this is more than just natural variation? Again, the answer is yes. But only barely.

OK, now we have established doubt on all sides, the third question is, is the increase in GHGs having any affect on climate and weather? The answer to that is an unequivocal 'YES'. From the Arctic and Alpine ice, we see the effects. From the timing of the movements of migrating animals and birds, to the upward movement of plants in alpine regions, we see the evidence of the effects of the warming of the globe.

Statistically, there is not unequivocal support for those that state what we are seeing is normal, nor for those that state that this is an effect of global warming. Given the other effects that we can definitely ascribe to the warming, I believe that by 2025, there will be enough extreme events to state unequivocally that warming is the cause of the increase.

How can it be an unequivocal yes? Your link is still dubious, as you cannot rule out other natural causes such as solar energy with certainty. These events are evidence of WARMING, but not of a certain cause to the exception of any other.

Yes, we can rule out solar energy. For the TSI has had an insignificant decrease for the last 30 years. Nor has there been any other factor that can account for the increase in temperature, other than the manmade increase of 40% in atmospheric CO2, and over 150% in CH4, plus a whole zoo of industrial GHGs that have no analog in nature.

 

[Oddball]

Then, completely ignore the fact that none of the claims of the scaremongers can be even loosely quantified and you're on your way!

 

[daveman]

Right....No ban, but "standards" by which certain bulbs may not, under penalty of legal sanction, be manufactured or imported.

Thank you, George Orwell.

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

You have always been extremely stupid

Being able to see through leftist bullshit doesn't make me stupid. It makes me smarter than you, since you can't see through it.

But maybe you can answer this question -- you're old enough to have lived through it.

In the Sixties, the left had a deep distrust of government, and didn't believe a single thing coming out of Washington.

Now -- you want the government to have a say in every single aspect of your lives, right down to what kind of damn light bulbs you can have.

What the hell happened? Why did you turn out to be such helpless weenies?

 

[daveman]

You are one sick puppy! No one expressed any joy over the deaths of our fellow citizens. In fact, in the OPs about the tornados, I don't remember anyone stating anything about climate, just sympathy for the people involved, and horror at the scope of the damage.

It is sad that you have to resort to sick accusations like this to bolster your denial of the obvious connection between a changing climate and the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere.

Selective perception? Yes. Leftists see what they want to see.

Here is the OP, where Wry is using deaths to score political points:

I don't know. I suspect the residents of Joplin, MO; Tuscaloosa, AL and the states which border the Mississippi River and its tributaries might be beginning to question the conventional wisdom (i.e. propaganda) of the right wing spin machine.

No sympathy. No horror. Just enlightened leftist nuance that's not above dancing on graves.

If you had any decency, you'd condemn the bastard. But you'll just say "That's not what he meant!"...and you'll believe it, because you're so gullible you can fool yourself.

So, that is you ploy. Try to create the perception that all the people that have stated in the past that GHGs put more energy in the atmosphere, creating a more energetic atmosphere, i.e., bigger and badder storms, are joyous about the results of those storms. What you are saying is that when a parent warns son or daughter about the dangers of wreckless driving, that when they are hurt or killed as a result of that driving, the parent enjoys the fact that the prediction came to pass. What a total dickhead you are!

That's not what I'm saying, you stupid, stupid man. I'm saying Wry is callously using the deaths in Joplin to score political points.

And apparently, you agree with it, since you're defending it so passionately.

Yes, one can certainly see where someone that has lost everything to these horrible storms might well consider the fact that such was predicted by the scientists that study climate, and might well conclude that we had better start paying attention to said scientists. And that is what you are resenting. And taking that resentment out in a very sick manner. I really don't think I would care for you as a neighbor.

Yep, I was right. You agree with Wry, and are indeed dancing on graves.

Tell me, dumbfuck: Suppose the victims had indeed paid more attention to the AGW cult and decided something should be done.

How would that have prevented or mitigated what happened to them? Are you really saying that if we all bought carbon credits from the Goracle, drove Priuses, and used only CFL, the tornadoes wouldn't have happened?

Really?

I knew you didn't have any decency. No enemies on the Left. If Hitler showed up carrying a "Bush is Hitler!!" sign, you'd kiss his ass.

I'm glad I'm not your neighbor. If my house were destroyed by a tornado, you'd be standing on top of the rubble waiting for a television camera to come along so you could blame Republicans.

**** you, you piece of shit.

 

[Old Rocks]

My, my, Daveboy. Bit of a thin skin there, old chap?

Well now, since more and stronger storms are in the predictions, that does not mean that any one storm can be blamed on the warming. What it means is that there will be more storms, especially in the future.

Once again, by putting off doing anything about the GHGs we are putting into the atmosphere, we are creating a more dangerous world down the line. That is just a simple fact. And more people will die in that world because of natural disasters.

What you are doing is blaming the people that gave the warning for the event. Your idiocy in doing that is apparent to all.