Extreme Weather: Can we use predictions to plan?

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 1:23 AM GMT on November 22, 2011

Share this Blog
13
+

Extreme Weather: Can we use predictions to plan?

Been on an unexpected hiatus and coming back slowly. Thanks to Angela and Jeff for a bit of cover. First I want to regain my blogging legs a little and return to my previous entry on Politics, Events, and the Weather. In that entry I mentioned that Representative Ralph Hall announced that the Science, Space, and Technology Committee will start an investigation into NOAA and whether or not NOAA is forming an “unauthorized” climate service. Many federal agencies have been operating without a current year budget for a long time. I say that so that I can include the whole name of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act that extends the Fiscal Year 2012 Continuing Resolution. If you want a good summary of budget information that includes climate and weather research then you might try this site. In the final negotiations for this Act, Congress prohibited NOAA from organizing existing resources to form a climate service.

Organizations such as the Reinsurance Association of American recognize the need to address climate change, and in fact they are taking action. Better collection, provision, and interpretation of climate information seem warranted, and that is the main purpose of the climate service reorganization.

At least implicitly, another call for better information comes from Congress - Representative Lynn Jenkins calls hearing on Missouri River Flooding. In 2011 there was an enormous flood of the Missouri River and many of its tributaries. This was one of several Billion Dollar Events during the summer of 2011 (see, Chris Burt, Weather.com, Earth and Sky).

In ClimateWatch Magazine there is a long article on the Missouri River Flood. As with many extreme events, several factors came together to cause this flood. There was large snowpack in both the Rocky Mountains and on the Plains in the Upper Missouri Basin. This was followed by heavy spring rains, that melted the snow yielding flows in May and June that equaled what is normally seen in the entire year. In this article there is also the description of the role of La Nina in the flood. La Nina is often described as the “negative” of El Nino. In the sense that El Nino is a warmer than average eastern Equatorial Pacific Ocean, La Nina is a cooler than average eastern Equatorial Pacific. It is well known that there are changes of weather patterns over the U.S. associated with El Nino and La Nina, but it is not so well known exactly what the impact of those changes might be.

This year we once again have a La Nina forming, and we have the prediction that it is highly likely that the event will persist and, perhaps, intensify. A question that arises is how can we better anticipate and plan for the consequences of the La Nina? Will we face another year of floods in the upper Missouri Valley? Will the drought continue in Texas? (Where I am collecting some El Nino – La Nina references.)





Figure 1. Characteristic position of wintertime jet streams during La Nina. From ClimateWatch Magazine: “The jet streams are high-altitude, racing rivers of air that can influence the path of storms as they track over North America from the Pacific Ocean. The jet streams meander and shift from day to day, but during La Niña events, they tend to follow paths that bring cold air and storms into the Upper Missouri River Basin. Map based on original graphics from NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center. Adapted by Richard Rivera & Hunter Allen.”


As a climate change blogger, I have some responsibility for bringing this blog a bit to climate change. Currently, I think a lot about how to use information from climate models. I argue that thinking about how we can use a 2011 La Nina prediction to assess the risk of 2012 Missouri River flood is a pretty good exercise. Compared to a 100 year projection, this is strong prediction. We need to understand how global models inform regional scales. We have a problem with complex interactions between different features of the Earth’s weather and climate. We learn how to work with people who have to assess risk and make decisions.

OK: Here is the link to the Montana Conservation District's website. And here is a quote from Montana farmer Buzz Mattelin’s testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Mattelin’s testimony is a remarkable summary and evaluation of the 2011 flood. Here’s one of Mattelin’s suggestions on how to improve the situation. He refers to the Corps, which is the Army Corps of Engineers who have the mission of managing the Missouri River.

“The Corps’ Annual Operating Plan (AOP) begins each new runoff year at a normal or average starting point when we rarely if ever have an average year. The Corps does a good job of incorporating mountain snowpack, plains snowpack, and short term precipitation into the AOP but falls short in using variables like soil moisture and climatic trends. Soil moisture data is readily available in weekly crop reports that rank soil moisture as short, adequate, or surplus. We should also look at El Nino and La Nina events. When you overlay past La Nina events with high runoff years in the Basin, there are definite correlations during the high runoff years in the 70’, 90’s and this year. Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO is another ocean temperature phenomenon that show promise as a predictor of precipitation on the Northern Plains. Incorporation of these types of variables into the AOP could significantly improve flood control.”

I will confess sitting in my office today talking about this problem, and we came pretty much to the same conclusion as Mattelin. Mattelin, many academic papers, and common sense say that if there are better forecasts, or perhaps more appropriately, longer lead times, then risk, damage, and cost can be reduced. We, the collective we, have much of the information that is required, but it is not all in one place. It is not all provided by a single agency. It is not integrated together towards a specific application like flooding in of the Missouri River. That service is not provided.

I am, let’s say, a minor participant in a project where over the next few months we will try to pull together this information and see if we can use this data better (initial link. If we can do it for a seasonal climate prediction, then we will learn to do it better for decadal climate projections. Stay tuned.

r


Here is a link to a new series on Green.TV on extreme weather. Let me know what you think.

And since people mentioned it ... Shearer and Rood on the media and extreme weather.

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 159 - 109

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6Blog Index

How can warmists say global temps are on the increase when are data for the 1900s are extremely lacking?

Link
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
It's all falling apart. Climate sensitivity cannot be determined with present data:

Link
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
And "climategate" 2.0 elicits a HUGE "ho-hum". Perhaps the average Joe really does know when he's been pranked as he was with the first release of stolen emails. Look at this current Google Trends graph of the word "climategate". Note the huge spike in 2009 when the first of the batch were released. Then notice the absolute lack of a search spike this time, and just a minor blip on the news side of things.

Uh-oh

Whoopsie. Looks like the denialists will need to do a whole lot more than just release a bunch of stolen and out of context emails to WUWT.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13611
Quoting BullShoalsAR:

You mean they are putting their agenda and political interests before science and the truth??

NO, it couldn't be!!!!!


An aspect of denialist psychology (yes, people study this stuff) is that they are very quick to project on others the tactics they would use themselves were they in a position to.
Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 429
Quoting JBastardi:
Steve McIntyre has borne the brunt of warmists jokes for years. Turns out he was entirely correct as admitted by the head warmist "scientists." The hockey schtick is a fraud and they know it:

Link


Yep, McIntyre's error is easily replicatable if one follows his methods. Of course, he's a mining stock speculator, not a scientist of any sort, so that's to be expected.

I'd tell you to look up the truth regarding this, but you don't care in the slightest what the truth is, do you?
Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 429
Re #148: Even inbreeding couldn't have made you that stupid. So... you're lying! Imagine that.

For those who don't know this trick, the Canadian archipelago is a small part of the Arctic that's far enough north that it reliably freezes over by this time of year. That has remained true as summer sea ice levels get lower and lower, and will remain true long after the Arctic Ocean starts to experience ice-free periods.
Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 429
Steve McIntyre has borne the brunt of warmists jokes for years. Turns out he was entirely correct as admitted by the head warmist "scientists." The hockey schtick is a fraud and they know it:

Link
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
Quoting BullShoalsAR:

You mean they are putting their agenda and political interests before science and the truth??

NO, it couldn't be!!!!!
Those Guys,Now I don't know what to believe!
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1479
150. JBastardi
3:39 PM GMT on November 28, 2011
The point of these "climategate" emails is that they prove the lead scientists in this field of "global warming science" have no idea what is causing the fluctuations in temperature. They are bending over backwards to push ideology rather than science.

Link
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
149. overwash12
3:15 PM GMT on November 28, 2011
We always have the weather to observe,rather than the mislead science circle! LOL
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1479
147. greentortuloni
6:42 AM GMT on November 28, 2011
Quoting Ossqss:


Ok, I can see clearly now. If the above is true, it makes all the other stuff just go away, right? It just doesn't matter eh?

Sometimes it is hard to tell if there is a lip-sync in process, no? :)


You have yet to answer any of the thousands of claims of the scientists who propose the earth is warming. I've never seen you respond with anything like facts or reasoned arguments. Mostly zingers and meaningless rhetoric, or a video. Why should anyone bother to respond to you with content?
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
146. spbloom
3:51 AM GMT on November 28, 2011
Quoting petewxwatcher:
The end result is that Willis Eschenbach was caught flat out lying.


And still does, constantly. That's why he's become the go-to guest author at the Watts blog.

The wingnut response to science they don't like is to attack the science and the scientists without doing their own.

Amusingly, the letter theshepherd posted was free of anything like a factual claim. What comes across is that Willis (joined by theshepherd and ossqss) really, really hates climate science and scientists because they so dislike what the science says. I don't love it myself (who would?), but responding to it by retreating into pathological denial and hatred rather than figuring out a rational response does indeed seem like a sign of mental illness. Well, that sort of thing is popular this year, I suppose. :(
Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 429
145. petewxwatcher
2:20 AM GMT on November 28, 2011
The end result is that Willis Eschenbach was caught flat out lying.
Member Since: March 24, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 392
144. Ossqss
2:06 AM GMT on November 28, 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:

It doesn't necessarily make it go away, but it certainly gives it much less credence. Dishonorably discharged, schizophrenic, kleptomaniac, suicidal college dropouts may be as credible an "expert" as denialists are able to get these days, but you guys will have to forgive everyone else for not paying much (any?) attention to their mad ramblings.


So how does it change the end result and actions of those actually involved? Did they not say what they said, and subsequently do what they did? It goes away, eh ?

Do the facts change by virtue of your comment?

Ya think?




Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
143. petewxwatcher
1:57 AM GMT on November 28, 2011
Not to mention that Willis Eschenbach has no credentials or record of college coursework in meteorology, climatology, physics or statistics. And as I showed earlier, Willis Eschenbach has been caught flat out lying before.
Member Since: March 24, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 392
142. Neapolitan
1:51 AM GMT on November 28, 2011
Quoting Ossqss:
Ok, I can see clearly now. If the above is true, it makes all the other stuff just go away, right? It just doesn't matter eh?

It doesn't necessarily make it go away, but it certainly gives it much less credence. Dishonorably discharged, schizophrenic, kleptomaniac, suicidal college dropouts may be as credible an "expert" as denialists are able to get these days, but you guys will have to forgive everyone else for not paying much (any?) attention to their mad ramblings.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13611
141. Ossqss
1:12 AM GMT on November 28, 2011
Quoting petewxwatcher:
Willis Eschenbach caught flat out lying about temperature records.

And another report on Willis Eschenbach lying from The Economist. Not a left-wing publication.


Willis Eschenbach does not appear to have a college degree. And in fact he did not. He washed out of college after one year.He is a construction manager at Taunavo Bay Resort in Fiji and a sports fishing guide in Alaska.

No science publications to his name.

Nice try theshepherd, or theshepherdx, or however many handles you have.



Oh. Willis Eschenbach tried to commit suicide after being caught with a stolen army pass by chowing down sleeping pills and was diagnosed with schizophrenia and hospitalized for 7 months. This is by Willis Eschenbach himself.


I can't imagine anyone less credible than someone who is a college dropout, a thief, an attempted suicide, and diagnosed with schizophrenia. Not to mention dishonorably discharged from the military.

Can't imagine being dumb enough to take someone like that seriously either.


Ok, I can see clearly now. If the above is true, it makes all the other stuff just go away, right? It just doesn't matter eh?

Sometimes it is hard to tell if there is a lip-sync in process, no? :)






Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
140. petewxwatcher
12:04 AM GMT on November 28, 2011
Willis Eschenbach caught flat out lying about temperature records.

And another report on Willis Eschenbach lying from The Economist. Not a left-wing publication.


Willis Eschenbach does not appear to have a college degree. And in fact he did not. He washed out of college after one year.He is a construction manager at Taunavo Bay Resort in Fiji and a sports fishing guide in Alaska.

No science publications to his name.

Nice try theshepherd, or theshepherdx, or however many handles you have.



Oh. Willis Eschenbach tried to commit suicide after being caught with a stolen army pass by chowing down sleeping pills and was diagnosed with schizophrenia and hospitalized for 7 months. This is by Willis Eschenbach himself.


I can't imagine anyone less credible than someone who is a college dropout, a thief, an attempted suicide, and diagnosed with schizophrenia. Not to mention dishonorably discharged from the military.

Can't imagine being dumb enough to take someone like that seriously either.
Member Since: March 24, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 392
139. AlwaysThinkin
11:00 PM GMT on November 27, 2011
Quoting Aquaimage13:



HAHA...And yet in the end the joke is on you. The fact that all you took out of everything I just said was that, and then you use the the most common image on google for the word conspiracy. WOW.

Lets see what Conspiracy means.
Dictionary.com
. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
.any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
Webster
1: the act of conspiring together
2a : an agreement among conspirators b : a group of conspirators

So you mean to tell me that with the amount of money at hand in the AGW world, that there is no conspiracy.

You have been so programmed that the very word conspiracy automatically makes you think of that image. That in itself by definition is a conspiracy. You didn't touch on any of the other points I just said but that. When all I am trying to do is point out that most of you are missing the bigger picture here. That yes, there is tons and tons and tons of pollution that is hurting us and the earth. Then there are tons and tons of people out there that are using your little heartstings to fullfill their what? Their conspiracy for control and money. But keep throwing up those stupid ass images while labeling anyone who thinks outside of your little box. But, in the image, is that joke on the guy that is sitting there with tinfoil on his head without a care in the world about what people say about him. Or is the joke on the overwieght, diet coke drinking, NFL worshipping, Grandma or the mullet wearing, XBox worshipping, mommy's boy who soley basis his thoughts on what the herd does and says here on the W.U.

You have a lot to learn. By definition you and all else on this website bashing anyone with a different view is a conspiracy. So you, the conspirator is poking fun at the conspiracy theorist. How nobel.

Just don't know what it will take for you people to dig deeper. But go ahead, grab one or two of my sentences and bash me. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
Mahatma Gandhi

Ready to fight?


Lighten up Francis.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 394
138. theshepherd
10:34 PM GMT on November 27, 2011
One day "Mr" Phil Jones and many others may well have there chance to either answer questions truthfully under oath or seek the protection of the 5th Amendment.

After all, if you believe something to be true, wouldn't you be more than willing to be an open book?

Are the hacked climategate emails illegal, just as those hacked by Anonymous? In my opinion, yes.

Are they revealing? Yes.

They reveal that Phil Jones is a manipulator and a liar.

************************************************* ************************************************** *********



An Open Letter to Dr. Phil Jones of the UEA CRU

by Willis Eschenbach

...I’m writing because in response to the new Climategate 2.0 email release, over at the UEA website, you have a new post in which you are up to your old tricks, trying to peanut-butter up the cracks in your stories. Inter alia, you are attempting to explain the following two quotes. First, the new release of emails revealed that you had written:

Email 2440: “I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process”

Your explanation of your statement is this:

At the end of the IPCC process, chapters, formal comments and responses are all published and that is the appropriate place for this information. It is important that scientists should be allowed free and frank discussion during the writing process. I might also point out that I decided not to take part in AR5 because of the time commitment it requires.

That sounds perfectly logical … if we were dealing with honest men. But if the Climategate emails have shown anything, they have shown that we are not dealing with honest men. Far too many of the leading AGW supporting climate scientists have been shown by their own words to be serial liars like yourself.

But in any case, only scientists with something to hide need privacy to have a “free and frank discussion” about science. Honest scientists have no reason to hide their views. Honest scientists discuss these scientific issues on the web in the full light of day. Why on earth would someone need privacy to discuss the intricacies of the climate models? Do you really have to go into a closet with your best friend to speak your true mind about atmospheric physics? Is it true that you guys actually need some kind of ‘private space’ to expose your secret inner ideas about the factors affecting the formation of clouds? From my perspective, these kinds of private discussions are not only not what is needed. This two-faced nature of you guys’ statements on the science are a large part of the problem itself.

This is quite visible in the Climategate emails. In your communications, you and many of the scientists are putting out your true views of other scientists and their work. You are expressing all kinds of honest doubts. You are discussing uncertainties in your and other scientists understandings. You are all letting your friends know which papers you think are good and which you think are junk, and that’s valuable information in the climate science discussions.

But you never say any of this in public. Not one word. For example, in public it’s all about how great Michael Mann’s science is, not a word of criticism, while in private some of you guys justifiably tear both him and his work to shreds.

I find this double-speak deceptive and underhanded. It has nothing to do with “free and frank discussion” as you claim. I think that if AGW supporting scientists actually broke down and told the truth to the public, you would fare much better. I think that if you disavowed your beloved Saint Stephen (Schneider) and his advice, and you expressed all of your doubts and revealed all of your uncertainties about the climate and told the plain unvarnished truth about your opinion of other scientists’ work, we’d be infinitely better off. Nobody likes two-faced people. You would be miles ahead if you said the same things in public you say in private, and so would the field of climate science.

For example, the emails clearly show that you privately knew it wasn’t true when you told me that the data for which I had filed an FOI was available on the web. You knew the reason you couldn’t release the data was, as Dave Palmer belatedly found out, that “we don’t know which data belongs to which station, correct?”

You could have told me the truth. But no, you decided to lie to me. And as with Nixon and Watergate, and with Clinton’s impeachment, it’s the cover-up that always brings the real trouble, not the original misdeed. If you had said something like ‘my office is in a mess, I can’t find some of the data, here’s almost all of it, let me get back to you when I can track down the rest’, you could have then put your house in order and sent me the data. And you would have been telling the truth.

Instead, you lied to cover it up. And when it was shown to be untrue, you lied again. And again. Here’s my point—the only reason I know that you lied, the only way you were caught in your lies, was the release of your emails.

And now, you come forth to advocate that everyone destroy their emails once the upcoming IPCC AR5 crime against science has finally been committed? Can’t say I’m impressed by that advice, it seems more than a touch self-serving.

Here’s the thing, Dr. Jones. I don’t trust you. I don’t trust your friends. And I don’t trust your “free and frank discussions” out of sight of the public. This final distrust, of your secret discussions, arises from the same logic the cops use. They don’t give a couple of criminals any private time together for free and frank discussions about how to present believable lies to the police about their crime....
Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10139
137. Aquaimage13
8:03 PM GMT on November 27, 2011
Quoting petewxwatcher:
Extracting a sentence from Aquaimage13.




HAHA...And yet in the end the joke is on you. The fact that all you took out of everything I just said was that, and then you use the the most common image on google for the word conspiracy. WOW.

Lets see what Conspiracy means.
Dictionary.com
. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
.any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
Webster
1: the act of conspiring together
2a : an agreement among conspirators b : a group of conspirators

So you mean to tell me that with the amount of money at hand in the AGW world, that there is no conspiracy.

You have been so programmed that the very word conspiracy automatically makes you think of that image. That in itself by definition is a conspiracy. You didn't touch on any of the other points I just said but that. When all I am trying to do is point out that most of you are missing the bigger picture here. That yes, there is tons and tons and tons of pollution that is hurting us and the earth. Then there are tons and tons of people out there that are using your little heartstings to fullfill their what? Their conspiracy for control and money. But keep throwing up those stupid ass images while labeling anyone who thinks outside of your little box. But, in the image, is that joke on the guy that is sitting there with tinfoil on his head without a care in the world about what people say about him. Or is the joke on the overwieght, diet coke drinking, NFL worshipping, Grandma or the mullet wearing, XBox worshipping, mommy's boy who soley basis his thoughts on what the herd does and says here on the W.U.

You have a lot to learn. By definition you and all else on this website bashing anyone with a different view is a conspiracy. So you, the conspirator is poking fun at the conspiracy theorist. How nobel.

Just don't know what it will take for you people to dig deeper. But go ahead, grab one or two of my sentences and bash me. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
Mahatma Gandhi

Ready to fight?
Member Since: October 7, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 21
136. cyclonebuster
7:19 PM GMT on November 27, 2011
Quoting Aquaimage13:
Warming temperatures lead to the melting of glaciers and ice sheets. The total volume of glaciers on Earth is declining sharply.




While I highly respect the vast amount of information and it was a very interesting read and very informative so thank you. But I still do not think my message is getting across here. First of all I do not trust Government numbers and niether should you. Our gov. has been hi-jacked by a scientific dictatorship and are now owned and operated by banks and corporations. If you still don't believe that from everything you have seen in the past ten years then well I am sorry for your family.
Goldman Sachs is our Government

Therefore, that being said and shown, I DO NOT trust a damn thing that comes from these people, not one word, number, or fear tactic. So one must form their own opinion from the research they have done themselves. Like I said, I see that what you have researched has lead you to what you just posted and I respect that, it was a very good read. BUT>>>>>>>>>>>> ;>>>>>>>>>>>> If just one number or word is wronge in the vast research data you researched (given the gov's past, there will be many MANY MANY things wronge) and because of that you can almost bet your house that whatever ends they are trying to meet, they are going to lie, cheat and steal their way to get there. So whatever the agenda may be I bet everything I have (which is NOT much but meaningful) that if you go with the opposite of their data you will almost 90% of the time be correct.
Is it bad that the opposite will reflect a less staggering outcome in the AGW world? Sadly Yes. Because too many people trust the government and has to have the gov tell them what to do all the time (ie wash their hands, or do not kick the turkey Fryer over cause it may cause a fire) BUT BUT BUT. If we can get people off of the Gov.'s nipple and think for themselves then they will be able to see. Why YES we are polluting WAYYYYY too much and the oceans are filled with radiation and Corexit, and do something about it.
But unlike you (whom again I do respect) the research I have done on this subject has lead me to believe that YES, there is Climate Change and always will be until the end of time. But NO, man does not play enough of a role to change it. Now by man I mean those of us that are not trying to control the weather and the Ionosphere. Are there things being done by Major Co.'s and Gov? Well of course!
Weather as a Force Multiplier:
Owning the Weather in 2025



So what I am trying to get across here, which is merely my opinion that I strongly feel must be heard before ANY laws are passed and taxes are bestowed. Is that there are two sides to EVERY story no matter if the Gov tells you one thing. So from my research I have found that there are way too many holes in the AGW argument and wayYYYY too many puppets being made to dance in front of our eyes.

So again I highly respect the information you presented ( and have read that many times before) I still feel that YES, there is a HUGE conspiracy behind the AGW argument. If I am wronge..... Will the results be devastating? Well I do not think so because I still think we MUST reduce pollution of ALL kinds and FIGHT for renewable energy (which is being controlled through the patent system by the elite, just look at Tesla's life) But I just do not feel that the world is overpopulated and that c02 is the main driver, and cars and coal are evil. Sorry I just dont. I just feel that there is a hidden side to this agenda thats all, and wish others would see what i see, without saying I smoke dust and other silly, DUMBASS petty BS. Please just follow the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ CHEDDER!


I trust NOAA because they told me my Tunnel idea works but then again I knew it did long before I asked. So I know they don't lie.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20417
135. petewxwatcher
6:24 PM GMT on November 27, 2011
Extracting a sentence from Aquaimage13.

I still feel that YES, there is a HUGE conspiracy behind the AGW argument.


But without any evidence.




Seriously. If you believe that thousands of scientists and government agencies across the globe are conspiring to falsify global warming science then you are insane.

Among the deniers here we have


Ossqss, who quotes from non-scientist cranks who are long dead. Also slanders climate scientists frequently.

JBastardi, who stole Joe Bastardi's identity.

PurpleDrank, who uses his handle to push drugs.

Aquaimage13, who says that thousands of scientists are conspiring to falsify global warming. Without providing motivation or one shred of evidence.

BullShoalsAR and Nekeopbarren who the deniers use to mass-minus people. Probably created by a loser with no life except to minus comments.

That's the denier camp right there. No science backing them. All they have are slanderous remarks and pathetic multiple handles to minus people. Sad.
Member Since: March 24, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 392
134. Neapolitan
4:00 PM GMT on November 27, 2011
Quoting Aquaimage13:
Warming temperatures lead to the melting of glaciers and ice sheets. The total volume of glaciers on Earth is declining sharply.




While I highly respect the vast amount of information and it was a very interesting read and very informative so thank you. But I still do not think my message is getting across here. First of all I do not trust Government numbers and niether should you. Our gov. has been hi-jacked by a scientific dictatorship and are now owned and operated by banks and corporations. If you still don't believe that from everything you have seen in the past ten years then well I am sorry for your family.
Goldman Sachs is our Government

Therefore, that being said and shown, I DO NOT trust a damn thing that comes from these people, not one word, number, or fear tactic. So one must form their own opinion from the research they have done themselves. Like I said, I see that what you have researched has lead you to what you just posted and I respect that, it was a very good read. BUT>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If just one number or word is wronge in the vast research data you researched (given the gov's past, there will be many MANY MANY things wronge) and because of that you can almost bet your house that whatever ends they are trying to meet, they are going to lie, cheat and steal their way to get there. So whatever the agenda may be I bet everything I have (which is NOT much but meaningful) that if you go with the opposite of their data you will almost 90% of the time be correct.
Is it bad that the opposite will reflect a less staggering outcome in the AGW world? Sadly Yes. Because too many people trust the government and has to have the gov tell them what to do all the time (ie wash their hands, or do not kick the turkey Fryer over cause it may cause a fire) BUT BUT BUT. If we can get people off of the Gov.'s nipple and think for themselves then they will be able to see. Why YES we are polluting WAYYYYY too much and the oceans are filled with radiation and Corexit, and do something about it.
But unlike you (whom again I do respect) the research I have done on this subject has lead me to believe that YES, there is Climate Change and always will be until the end of time. But NO, man does not play enough of a role to change it. Now by man I mean those of us that are not trying to control the weather and the Ionosphere. Are there things being done by Major Co.'s and Gov? Well of course!
Weather as a Force Multiplier:
Owning the Weather in 2025



So what I am trying to get across here, which is merely my opinion that I strongly feel must be heard before ANY laws are passed and taxes are bestowed. Is that there are two sides to EVERY story no matter if the Gov tells you one thing. So from my research I have found that there are way too many holes in the AGW argument and wayYYYY too many puppets being made to dance in front of our eyes.

So again I highly respect the information you presented ( and have read that many times before) I still feel that YES, there is a HUGE conspiracy behind the AGW argument. If I am wronge..... Will the results be devastating? Well I do not think so because I still think we MUST reduce pollution of ALL kinds and FIGHT for renewable energy (which is being controlled through the patent system by the elite, just look at Tesla's life) But I just do not feel that the world is overpopulated and that c02 is the main driver, and cars and coal are evil. Sorry I just dont. I just feel that there is a hidden side to this agenda thats all, and wish others would see what i see, without saying I smoke dust and other silly, DUMBASS petty BS. Please just follow the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ CHEDDER!

The world is getting warmer by the second, and the only currently viable theory that can possibly explain what's going on is AGW. We humans are pumping about 40 trillion liters a day of fossil fuel-derived CO2 into the environment; that's creating a growing imbalance that's leading to warming. So if you hope to be listened to in scientific fora such as this, you'll have to do better than rant and rave about a corrupt government or more taxes; you need to present an alternate and equally viable theory as to what's causing the warming. If you have such a theory, please share it with us. If you don't, I'd be happy to direct you to a number of different websites that may be more to your liking.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13611
133. Aquaimage13
3:26 PM GMT on November 27, 2011
Please take the time to watch this very informative documentary. I do not believe everything on here but it breaks down the "Green" movement and free energy.

And how we are are controlled!

THRIVE!
Member Since: October 7, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 21
132. Aquaimage13
3:03 PM GMT on November 27, 2011
One last and very very important thing!

The suppression of renewable and "free" energy should be enough proof in itself that there is an agenda going on here. I mean damn! Come one, the same people that are claiming AGW are all the same people who would lose the most if energy was free. Just like what happened between Tesla and JPMorgan.
They know we know, so they are going to blame themselves (ie Exxon and Shell, Elec Co's for Powerlines ) and say, yes we are causing that from burning fossil fuels and yadda yadda....Well lets reduce our pollution and clean it it to fight AGW, while us others are saying....UmmDuh, you have clean renewable "free" energy" patents and technology sitting right here. Be gone oil be gone! But no, lets clean it up but use oil as long as they can get away with it. Then when you riot over co2 they say,"here, here is a 41 mpg car" and yeeeyy ...till next year and on and on.. 41 mpg, 51 mpg...61, 71, ..............
I want it NOW!
Member Since: October 7, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 21
131. Aquaimage13
2:45 PM GMT on November 27, 2011
Warming temperatures lead to the melting of glaciers and ice sheets. The total volume of glaciers on Earth is declining sharply.




While I highly respect the vast amount of information and it was a very interesting read and very informative so thank you. But I still do not think my message is getting across here. First of all I do not trust Government numbers and niether should you. Our gov. has been hi-jacked by a scientific dictatorship and are now owned and operated by banks and corporations. If you still don't believe that from everything you have seen in the past ten years then well I am sorry for your family.
Goldman Sachs is our Government

Therefore, that being said and shown, I DO NOT trust a damn thing that comes from these people, not one word, number, or fear tactic. So one must form their own opinion from the research they have done themselves. Like I said, I see that what you have researched has lead you to what you just posted and I respect that, it was a very good read. BUT>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If just one number or word is wronge in the vast research data you researched (given the gov's past, there will be many MANY MANY things wronge) and because of that you can almost bet your house that whatever ends they are trying to meet, they are going to lie, cheat and steal their way to get there. So whatever the agenda may be I bet everything I have (which is NOT much but meaningful) that if you go with the opposite of their data you will almost 90% of the time be correct.
Is it bad that the opposite will reflect a less staggering outcome in the AGW world? Sadly Yes. Because too many people trust the government and has to have the gov tell them what to do all the time (ie wash their hands, or do not kick the turkey Fryer over cause it may cause a fire) BUT BUT BUT. If we can get people off of the Gov.'s nipple and think for themselves then they will be able to see. Why YES we are polluting WAYYYYY too much and the oceans are filled with radiation and Corexit, and do something about it.
But unlike you (whom again I do respect) the research I have done on this subject has lead me to believe that YES, there is Climate Change and always will be until the end of time. But NO, man does not play enough of a role to change it. Now by man I mean those of us that are not trying to control the weather and the Ionosphere. Are there things being done by Major Co.'s and Gov? Well of course!
Weather as a Force Multiplier:
Owning the Weather in 2025



So what I am trying to get across here, which is merely my opinion that I strongly feel must be heard before ANY laws are passed and taxes are bestowed. Is that there are two sides to EVERY story no matter if the Gov tells you one thing. So from my research I have found that there are way too many holes in the AGW argument and wayYYYY too many puppets being made to dance in front of our eyes.

So again I highly respect the information you presented ( and have read that many times before) I still feel that YES, there is a HUGE conspiracy behind the AGW argument. If I am wronge..... Will the results be devastating? Well I do not think so because I still think we MUST reduce pollution of ALL kinds and FIGHT for renewable energy (which is being controlled through the patent system by the elite, just look at Tesla's life) But I just do not feel that the world is overpopulated and that c02 is the main driver, and cars and coal are evil. Sorry I just dont. I just feel that there is a hidden side to this agenda thats all, and wish others would see what i see, without saying I smoke dust and other silly, DUMBASS petty BS. Please just follow the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ CHEDDER!
Member Since: October 7, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 21
130. greentortuloni
1:34 PM GMT on November 27, 2011
Quoting spbloom:


Please to stop feeding. With this sort of thing there's really nothing to correct. Thanks.


Fair enough, it is becoming inane.

For the record, I read 'dumpublican' instead of 'dempublican'. I blame cellphone screens and train vibrations.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
129. cyclonebuster
1:06 PM GMT on November 27, 2011
Quoting Aquaimage13:


FACT: Dempublican means the party system is a form of control used against the weak minded (read below about Carrol Quigley Quote from 1935) Not Dumb Republican. They are different sides to same coin!


For you to say that there is no conspiracy says it all for me. For you to think that there is not a group of people that know how much money is involved with this "green agenda" and that they are not trying to plan a system that benefits them then you are the most naive person I have met in well hours(too many naive people in this nation today). This agenda has been planned for a century at least, they knew that pulling on your heart strings with dead polar bears and mass destruction from sea level would force you to open your wallet and have less children. Please brush up on the word conspiracy before you embarass yourself again. You mean to tell me that you think all of this economic and pollution chaos is because our leaders are ignorant. HAHA, give me a damn break, these are the smartest (yet greediest) people running this world and they know how to CONTROL you and obviously to the point where you don't even know it.
All I am saying is to follow the money trail and you will see that it is NOT going to save the Whales or reduce c02. Is there great people and movements out there that are doing these things? Of course, but you need to study our fractional reserve banking system and the absolute CONTROL the elitist have over every aspect of your life.
And wow! Your quote about living without the EPA is a huge shabby JOKE! EPA policy in a nutshell: save the planet, impoverish the humans. Live in another country? Really. This is the last Republic (what's left of it)left on earth and ignorance is what is killing it, along with greed and Couch quarterbacks. The GEOengineering sure isn't helping, and I'm sure that is polluting more than us people combined!



EPA !

Geoengineering


From your government.Read it and comprehend it! Then let's hear your blather.

Global Climate Change Indicators
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center

Many lines of scientific evidence show the Earth's climate is changing. This page presents the latest information from several independent measures of observed climate change that illustrate an overwhelmingly compelling story of a planet that is undergoing global warming. It is worth noting that increasing global temperature is only one element of observed global climate change. Precipitation patterns are also changing; storms and other extremes are changing as well.
How do we know the Earth's climate is warming?

Thousands of land and ocean temperature measurements are recorded each day around the globe. This includes measurements from climate reference stations, weather stations, ships, buoys and autonomous gliders in the oceans. These surface measurements are also supplemented with satellite measurements. These measurements are processed, examined for random and systematic errors, and then finally combined to produce a time series of global average temperature change. A number of agencies around the world have produced datasets of global-scale changes in surface temperature using different techniques to process the data and remove measurement errors that could lead to false interpretations of temperature trends. The warming trend that is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change is also confirmed by other independent observations, such as the melting of mountain glaciers on every continent, reductions in the extent of snow cover, earlier blooming of plants in spring, a shorter ice season on lakes and rivers, ocean heat content, reduced arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels.
The Global Surface Temperature is Rising
Global Surface Temperature
Global annual average temperature measured over land and oceans. Red bars indicate temperatures above and blue bars indicate temperatures below the 1901-2000 average temperature. The black line shows atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration in parts per million.

Global average temperature is one of the most-cited indicators of global climate change, and shows an increase of approximately 1.4°F since the early 20th Century. The global surface temperature is based on air temperature data over land and sea-surface temperatures observed from ships, buoys and satellites. There is a clear long-term global warming trend, while each individual year does not always show a temperature increase relative to the previous year, and some years show greater changes than others. These year-to-year fluctuations in temperature are due to natural processes, such as the effects of El Ninos, La Ninas, and the eruption of large volcanoes. Notably, the 20 warmest years have all occurred since 1981, and the 10 warmest have all occurred in the past 12 years.
U.S. Surface Temperature is also Rising
US Temperature
Annual surface temperatures for the contiguous U.S. compared to the 20th Century (1901-2000) average. Calculated from the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN version 2). More information: U.S. Surface Temperature Data, USHCN v2.

Surface temperatures averaged across the U.S. have also risen. While the U.S. temperature makes up only part of the global temperature, the rise over a large area is not inconsistent with expectations in a warming planet. Because the U.S. is just a fraction of the planet, it is subject to more year-to-year variability than the planet as a whole. This is evident in the U.S. temperature trace.
Sea Level is Rising
Sea Level Rise
Annual averages of global sea level. Red: sea-level since 1870; Blue: tide gauge data; Black: based on satellite observations. The inset shows global mean sea level rise since 1993 - a period over which sea level rise has accelerated. More information: Coastal Sensitivity to Sea Level Rise (USGCRP) and Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.

Global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of approximately 1.7 mm/year over the past 100 years (measured from tide gauge observations), which is significantly larger than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years. Since 1993, global sea level has risen at an accelerating rate of around 3.5 mm/year. Much of the sea level rise to date is a result of increasing heat of the ocean causing it to expand. It is expected that melting land ice (e.g. from Greenland and mountain glaciers) will play a more significant role in contributing to future sea level rise.
Global Upper Ocean Heat Content is Rising
Ocean Heat Content
Time series of seasonal (red dots) and annual average (black line) of global upper ocean heat content for the 0-700m layer since 1955. More information: BAMS State of the Climate in 2009.

While ocean heat content varies significantly from place to place and from year-to-year (as a result of changing ocean currents and natural variability), there is a strong trend during the period of reliable measurements. Increasing heat content in the ocean is also consistent with sea level rise, which is occurring mostly as a result of thermal expansion of the ocean water as it warms.
Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover is Retreating
Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Extent
Average of monthly snow cover extent anomalies over Northern Hemisphere lands (including Greenland) since Nov 1966. Right: Seasonal snow cover extent over Northern Hemisphere lands since winter 1966-67. Calculated from NOAA snow maps. From BAMS State of the Climate in 2009 report.

Northern Hemisphere average annual snow cover has declined in recent decades. This pattern is consistent with warmer global temperatures. Some of the largest declines have been observed in the spring and summer months.
Glacier Volume is Shrinking
Glacial Decrease
Cumulative decline (in cubic miles) in glacier ice worldwide. More information: Global Climate Change Impacts in the U.S.

Warming temperatures lead to the melting of glaciers and ice sheets. The total volume of glaciers on Earth is declining sharply. Glaciers have been retreating worldwide for at least the last century; the rate of retreat has increased in the past decade. Only a few glaciers are actually advancing (in locations that were well below freezing, and where increased precipitation has outpaced melting). The progressive disappearance of glaciers has implications not only for a rising global sea level, but also for water supplies in certain regions of Asia and South America.
U.S. Climate Extremes are Increasing
enlargeEnlarge above graph. Annual Climate Extremes Index (CEI) value for the contiguous United States. Larger numbers indicate more acive climate extremes for a year. More information: CEI.

One way climate changes can be assessed is by measuring the frequency of events considered "extreme" (among the most rare of temperature, precipitation and storm intensity values). The Climate Extremes Index (CEI) value for the contiguous United States is an objective way to determine whether extreme events are on the rise. The figure to the left shows the the number of extreme climate events (those which place among the most unusual of the historical record) has been rising over the last four decades.
How do we know humans are the primary cause of the warming?

A large body of evidence supports the conclusion that human activity is the primary driver of recent warming. This evidence has accumulated over several decades, and from hundreds of studies. The first line of evidence is our basic physical understanding of how greenhouse gases trap heat, how the climate system responds to increases in greenhouse gases, and how other human and natural factors influence climate. The second line of evidence is from indirect estimates of climate changes over the last 1,000 to 2,000 years. These estimates are often obtained from living things and their remains (like tree rings and corals) which provide a natural archive of climate variations. These indicators show that the recent temperature rise is clearly unusual in at least the last 1,000 years. The third line of evidence is based on comparisons of actual climate with computer models of how we expect climate to behave under certain human influences. For example, when climate models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases, they show gradual warming of the Earth and ocean surface, increases in ocean heat content, a rise in global sea level, and general retreat of sea ice and snow cover. These and other aspects of modeled climate change are in agreement with observations.
Climate Model Indications and the Observed Climate
Observations vs. Model
Simulated global temperature in experiments that include human influences (pink line), and model experiments that included only natural factors (blue line). The black line is observed temperature change.

Global climate models clearly show the effect of human-induced changes on global temperatures. The blue band shows how global temperatures would have changed due to natural forces only (without human influence). The pink band shows model projections of the effects of human and natural forces combined. The black line shows actual observed global average temperatures. The close match between the black line and the pink band indicates that observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors alone, and is instead caused primarily by human factors.
800,000 Year Record of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Concentrations
CO2 Changes
Carbon dioxide concentration (parts per million) for the last 800,000 years, measured from trapped bubbles of air in an Antarctic ice core. The 2008 observed value is from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii and projections are based upon future emission scenarios. More information on the data can be found in the Climate Change Impacts on the U.S. report.

Over the last 800,000 years, natural factors have caused the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration to vary within a range of about 170 to 300 parts per million (ppm). The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by roughly 35 percent since the start of the industrial revolution. Globally, over the past several decades, about 80 percent of human-induced CO2 emissions came from the burning of fossil fuels, while about 20 percent resulted from deforestation and associated agricultural practices. In the absence of strong control measures, emissions projected for this century would result in the CO2 concentration increasing to a level that is roughly 2 to 3 times the highest level occurring over the glacial-interglacial era that spans the last 800,000 or more years.
Energy from the Sun Has Not Increased
Solar Variability
Global surface temperature (top, blue) and the Sun's energy received at the top of Earth's atmosphere (red, bottom). Solar energy has been measured by satellites since 1978.

The amount of solar energy received at the top of our atmosphere has followed its natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, but with no net increase. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. This indicates that it is extremely unlikely that solar influence has been a significant driver of global temperature change over several decades.

Link

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20417
128. spbloom
6:07 AM GMT on November 27, 2011
Quoting Ossqss:
108, the Montreal protocol was successfully implemented in 1989. The only thing it failed to do was anything at all aside from push expensive alternatives into just about every industry on the planet. So you are indeed correct, it failed to help the Ozone layer to date in any observable manner.

Yep, some of us actually learned from past unverified science and failed experiments. That was just a test run for the CO2 train that will now stay at the station.

For supplimental reading see the below.

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/44938 2a.html

And a more abrupt version

The "Ozone Layer" - what's going on?



Reminds me of a Grand Illusion :)

Wait, I feel a song coming on, LOL



A physiology paper that came out a while back found that the pleasure center of this sort of person is triggered when they lie. It explained rather a lot.
Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 429
127. spbloom
3:56 AM GMT on November 27, 2011
Quoting greentortuloni:


Were you the one smoking dust? I forget, but lay off it for a while. "Dumb Publican"? I assume that you mean that Republicans are dumb? It goes downhill from there.

There is no conspiracy. There are a lot of people who care about the environment and who care about the earth. The majority of those people go to work, worry about their kids and family and about once a month go to baseball games or to dinner with friends. that is the average profile of people who care about the planet.

As far as an organized conspiracy directing these people or organizing GW, the facts simply don't fit. As far as the EPA being anti-capitolist, others answered it better than me. If you want to live without the EPA, try a third world country like Nigeria or Honduras and see how long you last.


Please to stop feeding. With this sort of thing there's really nothing to correct. Thanks.
Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 429
126. Aquaimage13
10:55 PM GMT on November 26, 2011
Quoting greentortuloni:


Were you the one smoking dust? I forget, but lay off it for a while. "Dumb Publican"? I assume that you mean that Republicans are dumb? It goes downhill from there.

There is no conspiracy. There are a lot of people who care about the environment and who care about the earth. The majority of those people go to work, worry about their kids and family and about once a month go to baseball games or to dinner with friends. that is the average profile of people who care about the planet.

As far as an organized conspiracy directing these people or organizing GW, the facts simply don't fit. As far as the EPA being anti-capitolist, others answered it better than me. If you want to live without the EPA, try a third world country like Nigeria or Honduras and see how long you last.


FACT: Dempublican means the party system is a form of control used against the weak minded (read below about Carrol Quigley Quote from 1935) Not Dumb Republican. They are different sides to same coin!


For you to say that there is no conspiracy says it all for me. For you to think that there is not a group of people that know how much money is involved with this "green agenda" and that they are not trying to plan a system that benefits them then you are the most naive person I have met in well hours(too many naive people in this nation today). This agenda has been planned for a century at least, they knew that pulling on your heart strings with dead polar bears and mass destruction from sea level would force you to open your wallet and have less children. Please brush up on the word conspiracy before you embarass yourself again. You mean to tell me that you think all of this economic and pollution chaos is because our leaders are ignorant. HAHA, give me a damn break, these are the smartest (yet greediest) people running this world and they know how to CONTROL you and obviously to the point where you don't even know it.
All I am saying is to follow the money trail and you will see that it is NOT going to save the Whales or reduce c02. Is there great people and movements out there that are doing these things? Of course, but you need to study our fractional reserve banking system and the absolute CONTROL the elitist have over every aspect of your life.
And wow! Your quote about living without the EPA is a huge shabby JOKE! EPA policy in a nutshell: save the planet, impoverish the humans. Live in another country? Really. This is the last Republic (what's left of it)left on earth and ignorance is what is killing it, along with greed and Couch quarterbacks. The GEOengineering sure isn't helping, and I'm sure that is polluting more than us people combined!



EPA !

Geoengineering
Member Since: October 7, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 21
125. Ossqss
9:36 PM GMT on November 26, 2011
108, the Montreal protocol was successfully implemented in 1989. The only thing it failed to do was anything at all aside from push expensive alternatives into just about every industry on the planet. So you are indeed correct, it failed to help the Ozone layer to date in any observable manner.

Yep, some of us actually learned from past unverified science and failed experiments. That was just a test run for the CO2 train that will now stay at the station.

For supplimental reading see the below.

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/44938 2a.html

And a more abrupt version

The "Ozone Layer" - what's going on?



Reminds me of a Grand Illusion :)

Wait, I feel a song coming on, LOL

Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
124. greentortuloni
6:58 PM GMT on November 26, 2011
Quoting Aquaimage13:


Sorry to see that you are still stuck in the left/right dempublican paradigm, when they both work for the same banks and same corporations. Even Carroll Quigley knew this back in 1935
"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy."

"Once an individual can pose as the mouthpiece for the needs of the planet, there is no limit to their authority....in the name of tackling the climate emergency, it seems that anything can be justified".
Josie Appleton

I am sure most of you really do want to clean up the environment and there is nothing wrong with that and even people who dont believe in Man made GW like myself want to do that as well. My wife and I help save the Sea Turtles and even clean the beach every month. I am a Harbor Master who works at a "Clean Marina" and makes sure my local environment does stay clean. I believe we all have a part to do to help. Just please follow the money and you will see that your movement has been hi-jacked (just like the original tea-party was and the OWS is)for the elite. And a damn Carbon Tax sytem is not the answer! Blaming c02 is a damn joke when you have all of the nastier materials polluting our earth.

But for an UNelected Bureaucracy like the frekin EPA to impose ANTI-capitalistic rules and regulations that shut down our main energy sources and drive energy prices up and up is BS. The Cap-n-Trade system is a damn joke to impose TYRANNY(Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly) and take more and more liberties to save us from them!The green ( money green not plant green) movement has been nurtured from its very conception as a systematic eugenics operation by the deep pockets of the Rockefeller- and Ford Foundations. Look it up before your automatic forced comeback of "conspiracy"(An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act) such as hiding higher taxes and a green police to kill an economy and reduce population..

Again, of cource we need to protect our environment and stop pollution (NO BRAINER) but not at the hands of the elitist and mega corporations!

How it Started

The DARK Green Agenda

Green tyranny. Green chaos.




Were you the one smoking dust? I forget, but lay off it for a while. "Dumb Publican"? I assume that you mean that Republicans are dumb? It goes downhill from there.

There is no conspiracy. There are a lot of people who care about the environment and who care about the earth. The majority of those people go to work, worry about their kids and family and about once a month go to baseball games or to dinner with friends. that is the average profile of people who care about the planet.

As far as an organized conspiracy directing these people or organizing GW, the facts simply don't fit. As far as the EPA being anti-capitolist, others answered it better than me. If you want to live without the EPA, try a third world country like Nigeria or Honduras and see how long you last.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
123. cyclonebuster
6:41 PM GMT on November 26, 2011
Quoting Birthmark:

The only way we're going to see the glaciers advance again is if AGW interferes with oceanic currents in a large way. That's possible, but not very likely to occur any time soon based on the science.

You appear to be pulling for a Deus ex icicle. :-)


This does that if we want them to. We can regulate the amount of advancement also.

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20417
122. Some1Has2BtheRookie
4:51 PM GMT on November 26, 2011
Quoting Aquaimage13:


Sorry to see that you are still stuck in the left/right dempublican paradigm, when they both work for the same banks and same corporations. Even Carroll Quigley knew this back in 1935
"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy."

"Once an individual can pose as the mouthpiece for the needs of the planet, there is no limit to their authority....in the name of tackling the climate emergency, it seems that anything can be justified".
Josie Appleton

I am sure most of you really do want to clean up the environment and there is nothing wrong with that and even people who dont believe in Man made GW like myself want to do that as well. My wife and I help save the Sea Turtles and even clean the beach every month. I am a Harbor Master who works at a "Clean Marina" and makes sure my local environment does stay clean. I believe we all have a part to do to help. Just please follow the money and you will see that your movement has been hi-jacked (just like the original tea-party was and the OWS is)for the elite. And a damn Carbon Tax sytem is not the answer! Blaming c02 is a damn joke when you have all of the nastier materials polluting our earth.

But for an UNelected Bureaucracy like the frekin EPA to impose ANTI-capitalistic rules and regulations that shut down our main energy sources and drive energy prices up and up is BS. The Cap-n-Trade system is a damn joke to impose TYRANNY(Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly) and take more and more liberties to save us from them!The green ( money green not plant green) movement has been nurtured from its very conception as a systematic eugenics operation by the deep pockets of the Rockefeller- and Ford Foundations. Look it up before your automatic forced comeback of "conspiracy"(An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act) such as hiding higher taxes and a green police to kill an economy and reduce population..

Again, of cource we need to protect our environment and stop pollution (NO BRAINER) but not at the hands of the elitist and mega corporations!

How it Started

The DARK Green Agenda

Green tyranny. Green chaos.




I am pleased to hear that you believe that pollution is a serious enough problem that you take an active effort towards negating some of these problems. You can help even further by consuming less, preserve what you consume and recycle what you discard.

Politicians are a big problem when it comes to getting things done that best serves the people. You, however, think the problem is caused by the alphabet soup of agencies. You consider them to be unelected. While it is true that we do not directly hold elections for these agencies, these are set up, funded and given guidelines by our elected officials. The real problem and the real culprits are the professional lobbyist that we, the people, have absolutely no say in how they conduct business. Who do you think is the biggest financial backers of the professional lobbyists? Banks, pharmaceuticals, energy companies and construction. Do you really want to make a change that will benefit us all? Actively seek the outlawing of professional lobbyists. Until this done, the voice of the people will remain unheard.

You seem to be more focused on the EPA as a target for your disgust and accuse them of being anti-capitalistic. I find that a strange position to take when I consider that you are a harbormaster. How long do you believe that your harbor would remain viable if it were not for the EPA and some of the other agencies? Without an agency to enforce our environmental laws, even the ones you consider to restrain capitalism, your harbor would soon become too polluted to be used. I live near the Houston Ship Channel. This is a major port,as I am sure that you are aware of. The Houston Ship Channel has many chemical and oil based industries along its shores. During the 1960s the water was so contaminated with pollutants that the ship channel would catch on fire. There were days to where the ship channel had to be closed to shipping due to the fires. When the industries along the channel were losing business due to their own polluting and did nothing to stop this pollution, who do you think brought their pollution into check? The industry lobbyists?

Now, let us consider all of the other non chemical and oil based industries along the ship channel. Shrimping, fishing, oyster fishing, tourism and other industries were being destroyed due to the pollution of the chemical and oil based industries and some of their own pollution as well. The EPA helped save all of these industries, along the ship channel, and yet many of these industries bitterly complained that the EPA was too heavy handed and would cause their demise. The EPA saved them, through the enforcement of the regulations, and while many of them were kicking and screaming about coming into compliance. The EPA helped save capitalism from itself, in many regards.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
121. Aquaimage13
2:54 PM GMT on November 26, 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:

The Montreal and Kyoto agreements failed because there's simply too much political input from those who want to maintain the fossil fuel-only paradigm as long as possible.

At any rate, I see that you, too, are not willing to deal truthfully. "All of the IPCC 'projections' have been proven false." Wrong. "...This relatively minor warming"? Wrong. Tell you what: turn off Fox, stop listening to Limbaugh, read some actual science, then get back to me.

Anyway, for those enamored of posting the stolen emails completely free of context, here are a few that you may find interesting.

"Years ago I did send much paleo data to McIntyre but have also had nothing but criticism on his blog ever since. As I said, this criticism on blog sites is not the way to do science. If they want to engage, they have to converse in civil tones, and if people don’t want to work with them, they have to respect that and live with it." - Phil Jones

“The UK FOIA seems like a real pain. What McIntyre and his ilk are trying to do is to make doing science as unpleasant as possible for us. I suppose they think that discouraging the scientists is the best way to prevent the science from moving forward. Its really disgusting, and hopefully folks from higher up realise what is going on.” - Phil Jones

“A lot of people seem to think that because you’ve been accused of something, there must be something to warrant the accusation. Very few, including many climate scientists seem to understand the amount of mischief making out there — as we all know all too clearly.” - Phil Jones

”Finally, I would point out that the evidence for human-caused global warming is based on many independent lines of evidence, including the fundamental physics of radiative transfer, various different types of climate observations and sophisticated comparisons of model-predicted changes with what has been observed.” - Michael Mann

Some day the media will do their job, and crackpots like McIntyre, Watts, and Spencer will be made to answer for their transgressions.



Turn off FOX? HAHAHA. Just because I say something being Anti-Green you automatically say FOX. I learned a long time ago that when 5 mega corporations own all of the channels on TV and Radio who all meet in secret at Bildeberg meetings and prance around redwood forest( Bohemian Grove) together with boys that they all have the same agenda. It may seem different for the simple minded but all you have to do is know that all channels have the same agenda and thier end game justifies their means. They may look like they are fighting to keep the herd divided for conquer but just like the 2 party dictatorship they all work for the same purpose, to demonize the family, guns, population, love, freedom and knowledge. They all show staged events to arrouse us with thier PROBLEM, REACTION, SOLUTION. It is a total onslaught of information 24 hrs a day without substance or knowledge.

All I do is read! And for you to say this, when my research and reading made the Green movement look like a complete joke from the beginning. It has been co-opted, just read the books the elite write, it is all there.
Pollution and Animal Cruelty---BAD!
Carbon Tax -----> BAD
Seeing the lies and divide and conquer routine being used by green movement funders-PRICELESS!
Member Since: October 7, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 21
120. Aquaimage13
2:38 PM GMT on November 26, 2011
Quoting greentortuloni:


The 'tyranny' you write of was created by God/Natural Circumstance when the world was designed as a limited ecosystem. Continuing to pollute is like lighting a bonfire in a submarine: it works for a bit to cook your hotdogs and then it creates other problems. That limitation has nothing to do with tyranny of science, man, liberals, etc. It is a physical fact.

But as for callin it tyranny, you are really misguided. What is the end result of this tyranny? A cleaner, less polluting world and a more independent America (and Europe and any country that is not an oil exporter).

The tyranny, in fact, is in the form of people who continue to pollute and don't care about the fact that we all live togather. I would love to start polluting near the exectutives of an oil company, the Kock brothers, the Republican leadership, etc.: you can safely bet that the minute I did, I would be shut down. The right to pollute seems to be a right of the rich in poor areas.


Sorry to see that you are still stuck in the left/right dempublican paradigm, when they both work for the same banks and same corporations. Even Carroll Quigley knew this back in 1935
"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy."

"Once an individual can pose as the mouthpiece for the needs of the planet, there is no limit to their authority....in the name of tackling the climate emergency, it seems that anything can be justified".
Josie Appleton

I am sure most of you really do want to clean up the environment and there is nothing wrong with that and even people who dont believe in Man made GW like myself want to do that as well. My wife and I help save the Sea Turtles and even clean the beach every month. I am a Harbor Master who works at a "Clean Marina" and makes sure my local environment does stay clean. I believe we all have a part to do to help. Just please follow the money and you will see that your movement has been hi-jacked (just like the original tea-party was and the OWS is)for the elite. And a damn Carbon Tax sytem is not the answer! Blaming c02 is a damn joke when you have all of the nastier materials polluting our earth.

But for an UNelected Bureaucracy like the frekin EPA to impose ANTI-capitalistic rules and regulations that shut down our main energy sources and drive energy prices up and up is BS. The Cap-n-Trade system is a damn joke to impose TYRANNY(Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly) and take more and more liberties to save us from them!The green ( money green not plant green) movement has been nurtured from its very conception as a systematic eugenics operation by the deep pockets of the Rockefeller- and Ford Foundations. Look it up before your automatic forced comeback of "conspiracy"(An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act) such as hiding higher taxes and a green police to kill an economy and reduce population..

Again, of cource we need to protect our environment and stop pollution (NO BRAINER) but not at the hands of the elitist and mega corporations!

How it Started

The DARK Green Agenda

Green tyranny. Green chaos.


Member Since: October 7, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 21
119. greentortuloni
5:00 AM GMT on November 26, 2011
Quoting Seastep:


Did they cause that?

As for the time on earth, and for life in general, it is when the glaciers start advancing again that should cause worry. Not that we can stop it.

And we will still be here when it starts. No question in my mind. So, we disagree there, too, I suppose.


Fine. You chose to do nothing. Or not really fine because you could help but there is no point in wasting energy trying to convince you to help.

However, since the results of the green movement are not harmful, please do not stand in the way.

--- and by the way, the green movement is beneficial to the economy (unless you are an oil exporter).
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
118. greentortuloni
4:56 AM GMT on November 26, 2011
Quoting Seastep:


You can't save the planet.

We should all be good stewards of nature. Didn't know there was a debate about that, because I don't know of anyone that thinks differently. Do you?

Modified: Just realized that wasn't your language. Sorry about that.


I honestly don't know if we can save the planet. I think politics and greed of the polluters has tied up the political process to the extent to where I don't think we can right now.

However, to quote Aragorn in the book version of Lord of the Rings, great deeds are no less because no one is left to talk about them. I'd much rther go down fighting than sit on my butt philosophizing about how action is futile.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
117. greentortuloni
4:54 AM GMT on November 26, 2011
Quoting Aquaimage13:


I totally agree, but DO NOT see how passing these draconian global warming laws will help anything. And I do NOT believe we are the cause of it. Can we fix it?(Pollution that is) Yes I do think we can and should. But it has not a darn thing to do with Carbon offsets and taxes.

The Montreal Protocol and Kyoto Protocol have wholly failed to accomplish their "scientifically supported" political objectives.

EU and UK carbon-trading schemes have been disasters, creating wealth for the smart traders, and doing nothing to contain CO2.
Every business wants to increase its efficiency so that it uses LESS power, rather than more. American CO2 emissions have DECREASED over the last decade as industry increased efficiency.
All of the IPCC "projections" have been proven false.
The fact that this relatively minor warming is occurring while emissions are rising faster than expected adds more weight to the skeptical argument.

%u201CAny work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get %u2013 and has to be well hidden,%u201D Jones writes in another newly released email. %u201CI%u2019ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.%u201D

I will not bow down to tyranny no matter what mask it wears!


The 'tyranny' you write of was created by God/Natural Circumstance when the world was designed as a limited ecosystem. Continuing to pollute is like lighting a bonfire in a submarine: it works for a bit to cook your hotdogs and then it creates other problems. That limitation has nothing to do with tyranny of science, man, liberals, etc. It is a physical fact.

But as for callin it tyranny, you are really misguided. What is the end result of this tyranny? A cleaner, less polluting world and a more independent America (and Europe and any country that is not an oil exporter).

The tyranny, in fact, is in the form of people who continue to pollute and don't care about the fact that we all live togather. I would love to start polluting near the exectutives of an oil company, the Kock brothers, the Republican leadership, etc.: you can safely bet that the minute I did, I would be shut down. The right to pollute seems to be a right of the rich in poor areas.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
116. Some1Has2BtheRookie
4:28 AM GMT on November 26, 2011
94 - seastep

"We simply cannot logically dismiss what has been observed and the knowledge we have gained, to date, while we observe further."

- I agree.


This, I suppose, is some progress.


"You do realize that you are wanting to perform your experiments in the wild and not under controlled lab conditions, do you not?"

- Yes, I do. It is the only way, unfortunately. And, actually, the best effort to date of attempting it under lab conditions doesn't show what you think will happen. But, as I said, I don't put a lot of credence in it as a true simulation.
It is near impossible, if not impossible, to recreate the atmosphere in a lab setting.

We can create atmospheric conditions, in the lab. What we cannot create is all of the dynamics involved with the climate. This, however, does not negate the FACT that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels will reach a breaking point, for us. Regardless of any other experiments performed and without regard as to what past atmospheric conditions have been. Nearly every, if not all, mass extinctions of the past that have occurred can be directly attributed to a rapidly changing climate. This is without regard as to its cause. Something had to change and it had to do so in a fairly rapid timeframe, in geological terms.


"This "experiment" will go wrong and there will not be any way available for us to shut down this "experiment"."

- I disagree with your premise. No, I don't want to shut down the atmosphere. ;) Nor can we stop this experiment called climate. It will continue to change until the planet is gone. With or without man.


Either you are being facetious or your reading comprehension skills should be called into question. I never suggested that we shut down our atmosphere. What I said is that you could not shut down your experiment.

"As an analogy, let us say that your observations have shown a lake has become more acidic and that some of the aquatic life has shown signs of adverse effects. We can say that perhaps it is not the rising level of acidity in the lake that is causing this. Perhaps the lake's aquatic life is suffering the adverse effects because of something else. You want to test this theory and you conduct your tests while the lake's acidity level continues to climb. All the while you are aware that a rising acidity will eventually kill all of the aquatic life, in this lake. The only way to perform a proper test is to stop, or reverse, the rising acidic levels of the lake while you investigate other causes of the suffering of the aquatic life. This is how you want to perform your experiment. You desire to perform your tests on a global scale. ... What will you learn when you determine that the experiment cannot be stopped?"

- This analogy can be recreated in a lab.


This does not negate the fact that your desires to experiment with our climate will effect every man, woman and child alive. There is no credible, sane, self respecting scientist that would ever consider conducting experiments on our climate in the wild.


"At what level of atmospheric CO2 concentrations is our planet able to sustain without life on this planet suffering adverse effects?"

- Very high. Just check the data during other periods when the planet was teeming with life.


The issue is not about what Earth's climate has been in the past. Very few examples of life during these past times are alive on Earth now. Nearly every mass extinction has been the result of a sudden climate change. What caused the change is not as important as the change itself. There was a driving force that caused the change that lead to these mass extinctions.


"Do you not understand the logic in this?"

- I understand your logic perfectly.


LMAO! You, obviously, do not understand the logic at all. You say that you understand my logic but, I even question this. Let me see if I am able to better understand your line of reasoning better than you have "my" logic. I have seen you state, on Dr. Master's blog, that you consider it to be a good thing that atmospheric CO2 levels have risen 6% over previous years. You said that we now will see what the effects of this rise will be in 20 - 30 years. You have a reason for using the 20 - 30 year time frame. No, your reasoning has nothing to do with this being an acceptable time frame to establish a trend line. (We have already seen the trend line over the past 20 - 30 years and we know the trend. There is no logical reason to believe that this trend will not continue when we continue to add more CO2 into the atmosphere.) You have already reasoned that you have 20 - 30 good years left to life. As long as you think you can delay any actions for this time period then it does not matter to you what happens after that. You have reasoned that you have already gotten yours and it will be up to future generations to get theirs, as best as they can, with less available to them to make a start.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
115. spbloom
3:34 AM GMT on November 26, 2011
Quoting Birthmark:

Thanks for the info. It's tough to keep up with everything.

Admire your posts --here and on a couple of other blogs, as well.


Thanks so much!

Yeah, although the basic problem can be described very simply (too much CO2 => too warm for our liking) when it comes to science the devil really is in the details of the circulation and hydrological changes. Add to that an understanding of past climate states and the lags in the system (mainly involving the time required to warm up the deep oceans), and you've got yourself a bunch of scared-poopless climate scientists (which of course helps explain the tone of some of those emails). As a reward for my long study, I get to be scared poopless along with them. :)

Just to add, a lot of this is still poorly understood and the models frequently get the details wrong, especially at the regional level. A recent example:

The 2007 IPCC AR4 projected somewhat increased precipitation in East Africa, which was a great relief to many even though they were warned that such projections aren't very reliable. As you may have noticed, things have been rather different there lately.

It turns out that the models hadn't included or had included poorly (I'm not sure which) something called the Walker Circulation, an equatorially-propagating wind pattern controlled by the West Pacific Warm Pool (a huge climate player -- it's also responsible for ENSO). As the Warm Pool keeps getting warmer (yes, it's our friend AGW again), the Walker Circulation starts behaving differently, and among other things seems to want to shift one of the two East African rainy seasons a thousand miles or so east, where it makes that sector of the Indian Ocean even wetter. East Africa, not so much. Inconveniently for them, their other rainy season tends to want to go away (not sure to where) during La Ninas. La Ninas are occasional, and it's not clear how consistent the Walker Circulation shift will be, but at this point things are shaky indeed for East Africa and may get shakier.

Here in the U.S., the record Texas-centered drought was clearly enhanced by AGW. which according to the models is supposed to happen but nor for fifty years or so. Go figure. BTW, although models are needed to get some idea as to timing, knowing that Texas is likely to dry as things get warmer doesn't require knowing about anything tricky like the Walker Circulation, but rather just how basic atmospheric circulation pattern is going to respond as the planet warms: The tropics get warmer, the air there expands both up and out, then, um, the entire atmospheric circulation is compressed poleward in both direction. Kind of a big deal, yes? Denialists can't seem to even register on it.

So the descending branches of the Hadley cells (aka the subtropics), the jets and the storm tracks move too, which note in North America is actually very similar to what La Nina does (see Ricky's figure 1 above) except rather more permanent. So hurrah for Texas, it may well be happening early.

Other stuff like this is in progress all over the planet. Happy holidays!
Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 429
114. Birthmark
1:25 AM GMT on November 26, 2011
Quoting spbloom:


Seastep is just pullng stuff out of her/his nether regions that he could easily look up on the 'toobs, and I doubt anything I say will persuade her/him otherwise, but you should know that the possibility you refer to (a sharp North Atlantic cooling due to a shutdown of the thermohaline circulation from an Arctic meltwater injection) was precluded about ten years back.

First of all the Gulf Stream (contiguous with but by no means part of the thermohaline circulation) is wind-driven by planetary rotation, and secondly the observed excess North Atlantic warming will continue due to increased "leakage" of the Indian Ocean Agulhas Current (another rotation-driven warm current) into the Atlantic. The strength of the thermohaline circulation isn't going to be a big factor.

BTW, the Agulhas leakage is a direct consequence of AGW, as is the fact that the leaked water (originating off East Africa) is getting warmer with time.

Thanks for the info. It's tough to keep up with everything.

Admire your posts --here and on a couple of other blogs, as well.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
113. spbloom
12:35 AM GMT on November 26, 2011
Quoting Birthmark:

The only way we're going to see the glaciers advance again is if AGW interferes with oceanic currents in a large way. That's possible, but not very likely to occur any time soon based on the science.

You appear to be pulling for a Deus ex icicle. :-)


Seastep is just pullng stuff out of her/his nether regions that he could easily look up on the 'toobs, and I doubt anything I say will persuade her/him otherwise, but you should know that the possibility you refer to (a sharp North Atlantic cooling due to a shutdown of the thermohaline circulation from an Arctic meltwater injection) was precluded about ten years back.

First of all the Gulf Stream (contiguous with but by no means part of the thermohaline circulation) is wind-driven by planetary rotation, and secondly the observed excess North Atlantic warming will continue due to increased "leakage" of the Indian Ocean Agulhas Current (another rotation-driven warm current) into the Atlantic. The strength of the thermohaline circulation isn't going to be a big factor.

BTW, the Agulhas leakage is a direct consequence of AGW, as is the fact that the leaked water (originating off East Africa) is getting warmer with time.
Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 429
112. spbloom
12:17 AM GMT on November 26, 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:

The Montreal and Kyoto agreements failed (...)


I don't think anyone who knows what the Montreal Protocol is thinks it failed.

Kyoto is more debatable, but that depends on what one's expectations were. There's a huge global commitment to fossil fuel, and anyone who thought it was possible to side-step that without a knock-down drag-out fight was fooling themselves. The process begun at Kyoto will certainly continue, so hope for it remains alive (although I think a sufficent agreement will only be reached after some pretty bad damage is done and yet more made unavoidable -- people really, really like their fossil fuel-enabled lifestyles, and actually care quite a bit less about their descendants than they will admit to). So as Chou En-lai said when asked whether he thought the French revolution had been a success: "Too soon to tell."
Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 429
111. Seastep
11:28 PM GMT on November 25, 2011
Someday, the obs will do its job, and... ;)
Member Since: September 9, 2008 Posts: 6 Comments: 3414
110. Seastep
11:05 PM GMT on November 25, 2011
Removed. That can't be serious.
Member Since: September 9, 2008 Posts: 6 Comments: 3414
109. Birthmark
10:45 PM GMT on November 25, 2011
Quoting Seastep:


Did they cause that?

As for the time on earth, and for life in general, it is when the glaciers start advancing again that should cause worry. Not that we can stop it.

And we will still be here when it starts. No question in my mind. So, we disagree there, too, I suppose.

The only way we're going to see the glaciers advance again is if AGW interferes with oceanic currents in a large way. That's possible, but not very likely to occur any time soon based on the science.

You appear to be pulling for a Deus ex icicle. :-)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469

Viewing: 159 - 109

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.