WunderBlog Archive » Category 6™

Category 6 has moved! See the latest from Dr. Jeff Masters and Bob Henson here.

Record snows hit New England; Brazilian floods kill 350; Brisbane underwater

By: Dr. Jeff Masters, 4:16 PM GMT on January 13, 2011

The Northeast U.S. is digging out today from the winter's third major snowstorm, and the nation's South continues to deal with travel disruptions caused by the nasty coasting of ice, snow and sleet the storm left behind early this week. Yesterday's Nor'easter has exited into Canada, and the storm is over for the U.S. It was a pretty average Nor'easter as far as intensity goes--the storm's central pressure bottomed out at 982 mb, and just the Massachusetts coast was subject to high winds that merited blizzard warnings. The storm did generate one hurricane-force wind gust--Provincetown airport on the tip of Cape Cod had sustained winds at 43 mph, gusting to 79 mph, at 6:35am EST yesterday, and a personal weather station at Humarock Beach in Scituate, southeast of Boston, recorded a wind gust of 64 mph at 5:51am EST yesterday.


Figure 1. A bit of work today needed before one can step out of the door in Southborough, Massachusetts! Image credit: wunderphotographer Megmdp.

But what was remarkable about the January Nor'easter of 2011 were its snow amounts. This rather ordinary-strength Nor'easter managed to assemble the perfect mix of conditions needed to transport moisture to a region of the storm highly favorable for heavy snow formation. Many heavy snow bands with snowfall rates up to 3 inches per hour formed over New England, with some of these bands intense enough to generate lightning and thunder. Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont all came within an inch of setting all-time state 24-hour snowfall records yesterday. North Haven, Connecticut received 29.5", falling just short of the 30.2" 24-hour snowfall record for the state, set at Fairfield in February 2006. Savoy, Massachusetts received 34.5", falling just short of that state's all-time 24-hour snowfall record, the 36" recorded at Milton in February 1997. Wilmington, Vermont got 36" in yesterday's storm, just missing the state record of 37", set at Peru in March 1984. The capital of Connecticut, Hartford, had its greatest snowstorm in history yesterday, with 24". The old record was 23.5", set in a February 1899 storm.

Some selected storm total snowfall amounts, taken from the latest NOAA storm summary:

New York City, NY 9.1"
Albany, NY 13.2"
Worcester, MA 21.1"
Boston, MA 14.6"
Augusta, ME 14.5"
Portland, ME 9.2"
Concord, NH 22"
Somerset, PA 15"
Philadelphia, PA 5.2"
Providence, RI 9.5"
Brattleboro, VT 19"
Elkin, WV 10"
Danbury, CT 17.9"
Wilmington, DE 4.3"

According to our weather historian, Christopher C. Burt, in his latest blog post titled, "Snowstorms in the South: A Historical Perspective", the 8.9" that fell on Huntsville, Alabama from this week's storm was that city's third heaviest snow on record. The post has a nice summary of the remarkable heavy snow storms that have hit the South in the past.


Figure 2. Flooding at São José do Vale do Rio Preto in Brazil photographed on Thursday, January 13, 2011.

Brazilian floods, landslides kill at least 350
The globe's parade of massive flooding disasters in recent months continued yesterday in Brazil, where heavy rains of up to 10 inches in 24 hours inundated the region about 60 miles north of Rio de Janeiro. At least 350 are dead and 50 people missing, and the death toll is expected to go much higher once rescuers reach remote villages that have been cut off from communications. Brazil suffers hundreds of deaths each year due to flooding and mudslides, but the past 12 months have been particularly devastating. Flooding and landslides near Rio in April last year killed 246 people and did about $13 billion in damage, and at least 85 people perished last January during a similar event.


Figure 3. A woman trapped on the roof of her car awaits rescue during the Toowoomba flash flood on Monday. Image credit: Wikipedia.

New floods ravage Australia's 3rd largest city
Flood waters swept today into Brisbane, Australia's 3rd largest city, inundating 14,400 homes and businesses, partially submerging another 17,200, and cutting power to 118,000, as the Brisbane River peaked at its highest level since 1974. Queensland Premier Anna Bligh, who has called the recent floods in Queensland the greatest natural disaster in their history, said, "What I'm seeing looks more like a war zone in some places. All I could see was their rooftops...underneath every single one of those rooftops is a horror story. We are facing a reconstruction effort of post-war proportions." Much of Brisbane's infrastructure has been damaged or destroyed, including 55,000 miles of roads. The Port of Brisbane, one of Australia's busiest, has been closed because of debris, and the city's largest sports stadium is under several feet of water.

The search for bodies continues in Toowoomba, about 60 miles west of Brisbane, where freak rains of 6 inches in just 30 minutes triggered a flash flood that killed 12 and left 61 missing on Monday. The flood waters from the Toowoomba disaster poured into the Brisbane River, contributing to its rampage through Brisbane yesterday. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) reported that only scattered light rains less than 1/3" fell in the Brisbane area over the past 24 hours, and no further significant rains are forecast in the Brisbane area until Tuesday next week, so the worst of the flooding is now over for Queensland. According to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, the December - January floods in Queenland are the most significant flooding event in Australia since at least 1974. In 2010, Australia had its wettest spring (September - November) since records began 111 years ago, with some sections of coastal Queensland receiving over 4 feet (1200 mm) of rain. Rainfall in Queensland and all of eastern Australia in December was the greatest on record, and the year 2010 was the rainiest year on record for Queensland. Queensland typically has its rainiest years when La Niña events occur, due to the much warmer than average ocean temperatures that occur along the coast. The BOM notes, "Previous strong La Niña events, such as those of 1974 and 1955, have also been associated with widespread and severe flooding in eastern Australia. Sea surface temperatures off the Queensland coast in recent months have also been at or near record levels." The BOM's annual summary also reported, "Sea surface temperatures in the Australian region during 2010 were the warmest value on record for the Australian region. Individual high monthly sea surface temperature records were also set during 2010 in March, April, June, September, October, November and December. Along with favourable hemispheric circulation associated with the 2010 La Niña, very warm sea surface temperatures contributed to the record rainfall and very high humidity across eastern Australia during winter and spring." Beginning in December, the Queensland floods have killed at least 22, and damage estimates are now as high as $20 billion. Queensland has an area the size of Germany and France combined.

2010 tied for warmest year in Earth's history
Earth's warmest year in history occurred in 2010, NASA reported yesterday. The globe's temperature beat the previous record set in 2005 by just .01°C, so we should consider 2010 and 2005 tied for the warmest year on record. Reliable global temperature records go back to 1880. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) also announced yesterday that 2010 was tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record, with temperatures during 2010 1.12°F (0.62°C) above the 20th century average. I'll have a full blog post on the subject Friday morning.

Jeff Masters
storm car burried
storm car burried
on a lowell mass street 1/12/11 taken off hampshire street lowell mass our streets are buried in snow we have 24-36" of snow we had unsafe intersecting roads every where un safe driving also large buildings with flat roofs are unsafe many colapsed buildings
Brilliance..2
Brilliance..2
a brilliant mid-Winter's day..blue skies and sunshine on the clear ice of the brooks creating wonderful images..
How Many Cars?
How Many Cars?
Can you tell how many cars are under all that? We had a whopping 2 plus FEET of snow today and the snow drifts were upwards of 3 and 4 feet. Gotta love winter.

Flood Winter Weather

The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Reader Comments

Quoting MichaelSTL:
As we can see, the bite in the spectrum is not getting any deeper, but it is getting considerably wider. This is very important for the greenhouse effect, since you will essentially never become “saturated” and thus you will keep getting warming with more and more CO2.
The measurements in 1970 and 2006 do not agree with your copy and paste model results...

No, I don't know why. I'd have to read the model code to know that and seems that there is something with the spectra that isn't understood.


Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW)



WMO Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW) Strategic Plan: 2008 - 2015

! GAW programme assisting detection of volcanic ash !

Observations of fires in July-August 2010

The Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW) programme of WMO is a partnership involving 80 countries, which provides reliable scientific data and information on the chemical composition of the atmosphere, its natural and anthropogenic change, and helps to improve the understanding of interactions between the atmosphere, the oceans and the biosphere.

The rationale for the Global Atmosphere Watch is the need to understand and control the increasing influence of human activity on the global atmosphere. Among the grand challenges are

*


Stratospheric ozone depletion and the increase of ultraviolet (UV) radiation;

*


Changes in the weather and climate related to human influence on atmospheric composition, particularly, greenhouse gases, ozone and aerosols;

*


Risk reduction of air pollution on human health and issues involving long-range transport and deposition of air pollution

GAW focuses on global networks for GHGs, ozone, UV, aerosols, selected reactive gases, and precipitation chemistry.
GAW-CH Conference 2011 (the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ETH, Auditorium Maximum, Zurich, 18-19 January 2011.

Click here for more information

To see the webcast from the Conference you can go to one of these two web sites:


www.multimedia.ethz.ch/live

http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/gaw/webcastzurich.html

First announcement
Quoting MichaelSTL:


Those colored lines are all different proxies from all over the globe; the thick black line is the average.

Ok what is the light blue line?
And #493 shows a contradiction in its pattern.
I am just asking not arguing.
I do come here to learn as well.

Cause I see the temp warming after the little ice age and then the co2 rising.
Then I see ...
WELL before the industrial age the co2 rising while the temp is falling and now, more recently (with more accurate measurements the co2 and temp are pacing each-other.
Seriously.
Where am I going wrong?
Can you paste some vertical lines on that graph?
Quoting MichaelSTL:
Here is a more recent view; temperatures are MUCH warmer than BEFORE the Little Ice Age - which was actually just the coolest part of a 8,000 year long cooling trend (see previous post):

About that historical ice core temperature and CO2...

"It is well known that diffusion processes within the firn layer and the gradual enclosure of the air in the lock-in-zone of the ice lead to a reduced signal of the original atmospheric variability and may obscure high-frequency variations"

In this paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2005.00154.x/full

This is saying that compaction in the ice core can hide CO2 variations on the order of what we have measured in the last 50 years and only exhibit a long-term mean. (By long term, that can mean 100 year average, for example. What is the resulting value valid for? Indeterminable as the compaction will be different for different levels of every core.)
A drummer always remains a drummer, even a GREAT drummer...


Link
Quoting Neapolitan:

So: ignorance is bliss? ;-)

Seriously, I hope that those concerned about finding a job are on Monster.com tweaking their resumes. And those worried about the Superbowl can visit NFL.com or ESPN.com for in depth analyses of teams and players. After all, I wouldn't visit any of those sites for climate information. Who would?
Did you know Atlanta is only a 2 1/2 point favorite over Green Bay now?
And in Great Britain AGW theory now is up to 20 to 1 odds of being proven convincingly by 2020.
Quoting KrippleCreekFerry:
While you guys sit around and so pleasantly debate the merits of AGW what you seem to forget is that the vast majority of people don't know what you are talking about and don't care what will determine this debate. Right now they worry about jobs and who will win the superbowl. So while you turn blue in the face posting the same charts and graphs over and over remember this simple fact. No one is listening to you


That's the funny thing; there shouldn't even be a debate here.

Quoting
There is no uncertainty that our planet is warming.

There is no uncertainty that humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere along with other greenhouse gases.

There is no uncertainty that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and does absorb specific infrared wavelengths.

There is no uncertainty that the greater amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the greater the warming will be.

There is no uncertainty that humans are therefore contributing to the warming.


This is what any, and every, scientist knows.

The only reason a debate remains is because deniers will deny things when given the opportunity. So all the people who understand common sense and logic have to come out and reassert the deniers.
Quoting atmoaggie:
The measurements in 1970 and 2006 do not agree with your copy and paste model results...

No, I don't know why. I'd have to read the model code to know that and seems that there is something with the spectra that isn't understood.

See
Thats why us laymen get confused.
All of us have questions.
And all of posteriorusly have conclusions.
I am willing to change my conclusions.
BUT only after a good scratch, of my head, that is!
Climate change carbon dioxide including the ice core record of atmospheric CO2. Also the distant past climate. Taken from the excellent National Environmental Education modules.



Quoting atmoaggie:
About that historical ice core temperature and CO2...

"It is well known that diffusion processes within the firn layer and the gradual enclosure of the air in the lock-in-zone of the ice lead to a reduced signal of the original atmospheric variability and may obscure high-frequency variations"

In this paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2005.00154.x/full

This is saying that compaction in the ice core can hide CO2 variations on the order of what we have measured in the last 50 years and only exhibit a long-term mean. (By long term, that can mean 100 year average, for example. What is the resulting value valid for? Indeterminable as the compaction will be different for different levels of every core.)

Help me out Atmo.
Is that saying that the gas trapped in the ice may not be accurate because intermittent melting may have released the gas only to have started freezing again after an increase/decrease in co2?
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/HurricaneKatrina/show.html Does anyone know any good schools to become a climatologist? I still cant figure out how that darn ideal gas law works.
Quoting spathy:


Help me out Atmo.
Is that saying that the gas trapped in the ice may not be accurate because intermittent melting may have released the gas only to have started freezing again after an increase/decrease in co2?


In other-words would you not get a more accurate reading during continual cooling periods than you would if temps were fluctuating?
(gas content)
spathy and Atmo have entered a scripted dialog?
NEXRAD Radar
Houston-Galveston, Base Reflectivity 0.50 Degree Elevation Range 124 NMI

Port of Houston, Houston, Texas (PWS)
Updated: 3 sec ago
Overcast
38.8 F
Overcast


Quoting
There is no uncertainty that our planet is warming.

There is no uncertainty that humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere along with other greenhouse gases.

There is no uncertainty that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and does absorb specific infrared wavelengths.

There is no uncertainty that the greater amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the greater the warming will be.

There is no uncertainty that humans are therefore contributing to the warming.

Nope cant deny that!
BUT!

What you can discus is the question....
Is the amount of co2 humans adding to the atmosphere the main factor in the slight warming that has only recently been accurately measured?
Or are there other factors involved ?
Or is drastic taxation via cap and trade going to only serve as a method of reducing capitol needed to help communities recover from natural variations in climate?
I think those are important questions that need to be resolved.
Meanwhile truly toxic and harmful practices we humans are involved in are being(somewhat) ignored.!
I have a big problem with that!
Quoting bappit:
spathy and Atmo have entered a scripted dialog?

Most likely
Atmo is scratching her head and saying how The heck did Spathy read that from my post :O)
Phunny,,last time I went to Alabama with atmo,he was Driving and a Guy.
Quoting spathy:

Most likely
Atmo is scratching her head and saying how The heck did Spathy read that from my post :O)


Answer....
Ignorance is bliss and tends to write its own script!
Have fun guys and gals.
Its getting late.
NIGHTALL
Night all...
Quoting Patrap:
Phunny,,last time I went to Alabama with atmo,he was Driving and a Guy.

Pat you know I am gender challenged!
Sorry Mr Atmo!
I think its the aggie thing.
I had a great aunt aggie.

Quoting RipplinH2O:
Night all...take'n me home
Quoting Patrap:
GAW-CH Conference 2011 (the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ETH, Auditorium Maximum, Zurich, 18-19 January 2011.

Click here for more information

To see the webcast from the Conference you can go to one of these two web sites:


www.multimedia.ethz.ch/live

http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/gaw/webcastzurich.html

First announcement


Now you know what I sound like. LOL
No biggee..

atmo went to Texas A& M and that's their Motto,Aggies

Didnt keep LSU from whooping dem in da Cotton Bowl though.
Quoting Grothar:


Now you know what I sound like. LOL


That thought did pass thru my BHG.



BHG,,

USMC DI acronym for "Brain Housing Group"

or yer Head.
Quoting Patrap:


That thought did pass thru my BHG.



BHG,,

USMC DI acronym for "Brain Housing Group"

or yer Head.


Probably, the only one on here who understood what he was saying.
Quoting MichaelSTL:




Also, here is the ice volume by month:



Note that the recent increase in anomaly is NOT an actual increase in ice volume (beyond the seasonal increase); rather, it is because there is less in the summer, thus the decline rate is larger (as is also the case with ice extent and area).


Once again, people forget that "a picture (or a chart) is worth a thousand words".

As long as the thousand words have been put through a spell checker, and had a thorough fack checking.

The first chart APPEARS to have the sea ice volume disappear (go through zero) and then mass went below zero (negative mass).

Then, you see the word "anomaly", which means it was compared to another period.

Which is also interesting - the chart's horizontal axis runs from just before 1980 (probably around 78/79) through 2011. And the averaging period they used (as shown on the side), goes from 1979 through 2009. That means they compared the data to itself?

Something doesn't look right...


I guess this was talked about earlier,but I found it strange that it was dismissed earlier when I posted it.
Sorry folks.
I cant sleep just yet.
I still need more distraction downtime.
Too busy at work.
Cant shut down just yet.
Horticulture and freezes in Florida and all have me all keyed up etc..
Quoting spathy:


I guess this was talked about earlier,but I found it strange that it was dismissed earlier when I posted it.
Sorry folks.
I cant sleep just yet.
I still need more distraction downtime.
Too busy at work.
Cant shut down just yet.
Horticulture and freezes in Florida and all have me all keyed up etc..
It's sad that people on the blog are talking more about climate change/global warming when this is going on.
Psssssssssstttttt!!!!!! Don't tell anybody...but....Patrap is gonna be 51 Saturday....which, while not in Grothar's league...is still pretty danged old...
Quoting spathy:


Is the amount of co2 humans adding to the atmosphere the main factor in the slight warming that has only recently been accurately measured?
Or are there other factors involved ?
Or is drastic taxation via cap and trade going to only serve as a method of reducing capitol needed to help communities recover from natural variations in climate?
I think those are important questions that need to be resolved.
Meanwhile truly toxic and harmful practices we humans are involved in are being(somewhat) ignored.!
I have a big problem with that!


That's the only problem, we don't know exactly how much humans are contributing, and yes, there certainly are other factors involved in maintaining, increasing, and decreasing our planets temperature.
Hundreds of people have been killed in landslides and floods in Brazil -- the latest casualty of global weather patterns that are creating huge destructive storms. The number of dead is expected to continue to rise -- with whole villages wiped off the map, lost under metres of water and mud. Sky's Lisa Holland reports.

Quoting presslord:
Psssssssssstttttt!!!!!! Don't tell anybody...but....Patrap is gonna be 51 Saturday....which, while not in Grothar's league...is still pretty danged old...


Yo, press! When he hits 151 than we can talk. We already got him the other night. He's still a kid in my opinion.
Quoting washingtonian115:
It's sad that people on the blog are talking more about climate change/global warming when this is going on.

I think the problem was not only the mmgw thing but...
Spathy can be quite irritating and I assume many have me on ignore.
Can I put myself on ignore?
I might be able to get some rest!
Snicker!

True Dat...



51? Sorry, said I was going, but I have shoes that are 51...
Quoting Grothar:


Yo, press! When he hits 151 than we can talk. We already got him the other night. He's still a kid in my opinion.

Grother
Can you give me a bedtime story of when you had to walk miles through the treacherous weather to get to school/grocery store etc....
I miss my grandparents and you at this moment may be the closest thing,,,,, ummmm?
Or my great great grandparents?
Quoting Patrap:
Hundreds of people have been killed in landslides and floods in Brazil -- the latest casualty of global weather patterns that are creating huge destructive storms. The number of dead is expected to continue to rise -- with whole villages wiped off the map, lost under metres of water and mud. Sky's Lisa Holland reports.



times up
message from
MOTHER EARTH
... --- ...
Non climate science.

You guys have trashed this blog with garbage and innuendo.

So reviewing unreferenced "skepticism" leaves you with unexplained warming, ocean acidification, uncertain and unreasonable arguments.

You are worse off and no more understanding of natural phenomena.

Ill think ill stick with the peer reviewed professional community.

Quoting Patrap:
..Bueller?











Climate Model Indications and the Observed Climate




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.




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.




Please provide a reference for that chart...

Never mind, I'll do it for you.

human and natural influences

We'll discuss it later...
This is why I dont care for weather.com or met sites that are not rigorous in climate science.

Quoting spathy:

I think the problem was not only the mmgw thing but...
Spathy can be quite irritating and I assume many have me on ignore.
Can I put myself on ignore?
I might be able to get some rest!
Snicker!
I don't think people really have you on ignore.And yes their have been some cases where bloggers have put themselfs on ignore.It can happen.
Quoting JFLORIDA:


Who coincidently is not a climate scientist. Another wasted post of something covered long ago.


Yet "An Inconvenient Truth" is believable. Also created by someone who, coincidentally, is not a climate scientist...

Quoting spathy:

Grother
Can you give me a bedtime story of when you had to walk miles through the treacherous weather to get to school/grocery store etc....
I miss my grandparents and you at this moment may be the closest thing,,,,, ummmm?
Or my great great grandparents?


Yes, once upon a time, the earth was much colder than it is today. When I lived in Norway, our mother used to put our little horned helmets on and send us into the bitter cold to walk miles in 10 feet snow to the nearest school which was 23 miles away. Then when we moved to Greenland, which was much warmer, or so I have been told.

Here is a picture of my old high school.

Quoting washingtonian115:
I don't think people really have you on ignore.And yes their have been some cases where bloggers have put themselfs on ignore.It can happen.


Would you mind telling Mrs. Grothar where that button is?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/




for the clickable impaired

Quoting Grothar:


Would you mind telling Mrs. Grothar where that button is?
Why yes.It's next to the quote button,to the right sir.J/K lol.
Quoting TomTaylor:


That's the funny thing; there shouldn't even be a debate here.



This is what any, and every, scientist knows.

The only reason a debate remains is because deniers will deny things when given the opportunity. So all the people who understand common sense and logic have to come out and reassert the deniers.

Yep, it is like reinventing the wheel over and over. All it takes is a couple of corporate schills to spin out scientific sounding falsities and enough confusion will be caused amongst those who either don't understand the scientific method, latch onto ideology instead of reason, or are prone to conspiratorial irrationality, and a problem that should have been addressed in the 70's is still being debated.

I don't foresee any action being taken until we have to start building seawalls to prevent our cities from going under. I understand that much of the denialism is fueled by anti-tax sentiments. For myself, low taxes and small government are a good thing, but to cling to these ideas dogmatically at the expense of reason is insane. It is going to cost many times more to deal with this problem in the future then it is to deal with it now. AGW denialism is not only bad science, but bad economics.
I asked not too long to numerous AGWers, to show us a peer reviewed research article explaining about the sun's affects on climate and so far no peer review literature found. You would think that the AGW community would show us many peer reviewed reports about the sun's affects on climate(since it is a WELL known fact that w/o the sun there would be NO life on earth!) and so far no report.

Also, any peer reviewed literature showing how cold climates adversely affect people? It's plain bias to see the "Warm" studies w/o cold studies as well. In other words, a fair, well balanced view point on both cold and warm climate. So far I have found ZERO peer reviewed literature on the sun and cold climates in arguing for AGW.

551. gatorojo




100


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


Energy from the Sun Has Not Increased

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.
Death toll mounting in Brazil.
Now at 500 people and who knows how many pets.
Tragic. I see where all the rain we're not getting is going.
Your high school looks like my elementary school Grothar. A very nice WPA project they tore down a couple decades ago to install track houses.
We'll be back in the 50s here in Central Florida by tomorrow and then 60s for the weekend. Goodnight!
Quoting Grothar:


Yes, once upon a time, the earth was much colder than it is today. When I lived in Norway, our mother used to put our little horned helmets on and send us into the bitter cold to walk miles in 10 feet snow to the nearest school which was 23 miles away. Then when we moved to Greenland, which was much warmer, or so I have been told.

Here is a picture of my old high school.



Don't you mean KILOMETERS? ;)



faster and faster
561. JRRP
Quoting Chicklit:
Death toll mounting in Brazil.
Now at 500 people and who knows how many pets.
Tragic. I see where all the rain we're not getting is going.

I saw that about Brazil a moment ago. The worst thing I read said the "death toll is expected to rise sharply".

Oh, man...
Quoting Neapolitan:

I saw that about Brazil a moment ago. The worst thing I read said the "death toll is expected to rise sharply".

Oh, man...
the real bad thing is all this is only the birth pangs of whats yet to come
This is what any, and every, scientist knows.

The only reason a debate remains is because deniers will deny things when given the opportunity. So all the people who understand common sense and logic have to come out and reassert the deniers.

Yes...
And>>>
An object in motion will tend to stay in motion until an equal and opposite force is acted upon it!@
565. JRRP
Quoting gatorojo:

Yep, it is like reinventing the wheel over and over. All it takes is a couple of corporate schills to spin out scientific sounding falsities and enough confusion will be caused amongst those who either don't understand the scientific method, latch onto ideology instead of reason, or are prone to conspiratorial irrationality, and a problem that should have been addressed in the 70's is still being debated.

I don't foresee any action being taken until we have to start building seawalls to prevent our cities from going under. I understand that much of the denialism is fueled by anti-tax sentiments. For myself, low taxes and small government are a good thing, but to cling to these ideas dogmatically at the expense of reason is insane. It is going to cost many times more to deal with this problem in the future then it is to deal with it now. AGW denialism is not only bad science, but bad economics.


It is incompetence on a global level.
Quoting gatorojo:

Yep, it is like reinventing the wheel over and over. All it takes is a couple of corporate schills to spin out scientific sounding falsities and enough confusion will be caused amongst those who either don't understand the scientific method, latch onto ideology instead of reason, or are prone to conspiratorial irrationality, and a problem that should have been addressed in the 70's is still being debated.

I don't foresee any action being taken until we have to start building seawalls to prevent our cities from going under. I understand that much of the denialism is fueled by anti-tax sentiments. For myself, low taxes and small government are a good thing, but to cling to these ideas dogmatically at the expense of reason is insane. It is going to cost many times more to deal with this problem in the future then it is to deal with it now. AGW denialism is not only bad science, but bad economics.


I actually agree with you indepedent of AGW.

Go green... save money. My energy efficiency improvements (which slashed home energy use by 67%) will pay out in 11 years.

Even energy companies want you to start using less of their product.

Chevron

I don't work for Chevron but I think they are the best in communicating the message....

Hey guys and gals, every major except Exxon talks about peak oil... and even Exxon is buying lots of natural gas properties.

Hint hint... if energy companies are saying please buy less of our product what is that telling you? (companies have a duty for full and honest reporting to the public... not only that, folks tend to get really upset with high oil prices so this is the way of warning folks that it is their responsibility to take matters into their own hands).

Save energy now.

The US hybrid SUV is $5.50 gas payout but the US sedan ROCKS and is going to payout at $2.50 gas in this warm climate (cold weather hurts hybrid performance... as does warm if you use AC, which I do not).

My solar panels are break even (I contacted the tax office and discovered that they will not tax me, following the law).

Solar hot water forget it. Gobble gobble.
State of the Climate in 2009
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center


As appearing in the July 2010 issue (Vol. 91) of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS).

Questions?

For all climate questions, please contact the National Climatic Data Center's Climate Services and Monitoring Division:
Climate Services and Monitoring Division
NOAA/National Climatic Data center
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801-5001
fax: 1-828-271-4876
phone: 1-828-271-4800
email: ncdc.info@noaa.gov
To request climate data, please E-mail:ncdc.orders@noaa.gov
Quoting JFLORIDA:
The Dunning-Kruger effect and the climate debate

Unskilled people lack the skill to rate their own level of competence. This leads to the unfortunate result that unskilled people rate themselves higher than more competent people. The phenomenon is known as the Dunning-Kruger effect, named after the paper's authors, and is often seen in the climate debate. There are many with a cursory understanding who believe they're discovered fundamental flaws in climate science that have somehow been overlooked or ignored by climate scientists. Some take this a step further and believe they're being deceived.


JF/and others
You have a point there.
I could easily put myself in a part of that category.

However!
I still ask the question.
If all you say is correct?
And I say if!
When the super storms of tomorrow hit?
Your solutions will have so devastated the World economies(especially the US)(Major Rescuer)Who will have the funds and resources to help pick up the pieces?
Cap and trade has done nothing but make speculators wealthy and its funds are as stealthy as the Social Security Trust fund!
What monies are going to fund the research needed to get the world out of its supposed self demise?
Does your plan deplete co2 faster than it depletes the funds needed for tomorrows disasters?
Let alone your fantasmical predictions for 100 years from now?
There's no evidence whatsoever that Cap and Trade or other environmental legislation will "devastate the economy"
Quoting Grothar:


Now you know what I sound like. LOL


Hey Gro:

Guess nobody around here listened to Obama last night about civility.... I don't like him but I do like that point.

Sigh... actually did something useful tonight... went through an actual solar case study where I showed that the best thing for this person to do is to simply give her solar excess generated energy back to the grid for free and take the lowest price power.

This is what the smart meter did for her.

I guess all Repower America promised for the smart meter is that we can sell the power... doesn't say the price (turns out best deal for a certain size system is to simply give it away for nothing).

Really wants to make you get solar (I know the energy system so I didn't get caught by this with the size of my system).

Obviously I am gearing up for a real fight.

Wel te rustig, ik geloof.

Oh, geloof... ja in het Amerikanse taal mischien "ik voel []" (dropping the reflexive since there are those who might think something else).
Quoting spathy:


JF/and others
You have a point there.
I could easily put myself in a part of that category.

However!
I still ask the question.
If all you say is correct?
And I say if!
When the super storms of tomorrow hit?
Your solutions will have so devastated the World economies(especially the US)(Major Rescuer)Who will have the funds and resources to help pick up the pieces?
Cap and trade has done nothing but make speculators wealthy and its funds are as stealthy as the Social Security Trust fund!
What monies are going to fund the research needed to get the world out of its supposed self demise?
Does your plan deplete co2 faster than it depletes the funds needed for tomorrows disasters?
Let alone your fantasmical predictions for 100 years from now?


I not sure I have an idea what you are talking about.

I really dont follow the cap and trade program.

I dont feel many have a grasp of the economics, or have realistically and independently evaluated it, its not a simple problem.

When did denying the science become acceptable counter tax policy?

Thats just a mess.
Ditto!
Just replace corporate with Gov funded and you have the mirror image!
I think the underlying problem is you trust gov with the future and not your fellow citizen.
And we wonder why we get an out of control Gov and a complacent Citizen.

Yep, it is like reinventing the wheel over and over. All it takes is a couple of corporate schills to spin out scientific sounding falsities and enough confusion will be caused amongst those who either don't understand the scientific method, latch onto ideology instead of reason, or are prone to conspiratorial irrationality, and a problem that should have been addressed in the 70's is still being debated.
Quoting gatorojo:

Yep, it is like reinventing the wheel over and over. All it takes is a couple of corporate schills to spin out scientific sounding falsities and enough confusion will be caused amongst those who either don't understand the scientific method, latch onto ideology instead of reason, or are prone to conspiratorial irrationality, and a problem that should have been addressed in the 70's is still being debated.

I don't foresee any action being taken until we have to start building seawalls to prevent our cities from going under. I understand that much of the denialism is fueled by anti-tax sentiments. For myself, low taxes and small government are a good thing, but to cling to these ideas dogmatically at the expense of reason is insane. It is going to cost many times more to deal with this problem in the future then it is to deal with it now. AGW denialism is not only bad science, but bad economics.
Quoting EnergyMoron:


I actually agree with you indepedent of AGW.

Go green... save money. My energy efficiency improvements (which slashed home energy use by 67%) will pay out in 11 years.

Even energy companies want you to start using less of their product.

Chevron

I don't work for Chevron but I think they are the best in communicating the message....

Hey guys and gals, every major except Exxon talks about peak oil... and even Exxon is buying lots of natural gas properties.

Hint hint... if energy companies are saying please buy less of our product what is that telling you? (companies have a duty for full and honest reporting to the public... not only that, folks tend to get really upset with high oil prices so this is the way of warning folks that it is their responsibility to take matters into their own hands).

Save energy now.

The US hybrid SUV is $5.50 gas payout but the US sedan ROCKS and is going to payout at $2.50 gas in this warm climate (cold weather hurts hybrid performance... as does warm if you use AC, which I do not).

My solar panels are break even (I contacted the tax office and discovered that they will not tax me, following the law).

Solar hot water forget it. Gobble gobble.


What else does that tell you?

With all the regulations, the energy companies cant afford to expand!
And they pray to God to hold off the inevitable until they can afford it!
Not a free enterprise now is it?
So energy companies agree to a compromise with ethanol.
As a result there are now riots World wide because of food prices.
Gov interference has unintended consequences!
Wake up!
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
There's no evidence whatsoever that Cap and Trade or other environmental legislation will "devastate the economy"

Ok!
I call.
Show me your hand.
There is no evidence that cap and trade or similar legislation has done one darn thing to help the environment!
Show me your results from cap and trade taxation and I will show you the stagnation its creating!
Quoting spathy:


What else does that tell you?

With all the regulations, the energy companies cant afford to expand!
And they pray to God to hold off the inevitable until they can afford it!
Not a free enterprise now is it?
So energy companies agree to a compromise with ethanol.
As a result there are now riots World wide because of food prices.
Gov interference has unintended consequences!
Wake up!


Ethanol is evil, I agree.

Al Gore admitted his role in bringing it about.

Lesser known is the role of Ken Lay of Enron.

The way to a market system (following Hansen) is to tax end use carbon and not to choose winners and losers with cap and tax (also pushed by Enron at Kyoto).

That way lil ole you and me can decide how to best reduce our carbon footprints and not the government or big business.

As to afford to expand. At what price does the price of oil get high enough to favor alternatives? Oil is in general subsidized worldwide (but not in the west except LIHEAP).

Chevron et alia are not saying what they are saying owing to excessive regulation.

It's very expensive to produce reserves.
The reason that Cap and Trade hasn't helped control greenhouse gas emissions is because we haven't passed a cap and trade law yet spathy.

A little basic knowledge really helps in debates like this.

Spath - Where are you getting all these things "I say"?

What is a super storm?

Ive talked about stronger winter storms and hurricanes.
I'm embraced by how the IPCC's 24 models predicted a dry and average temperature year. After all, we pay for all these scientist's by taxes on our poultry lives.
Quoting greenyleany:
I'm embraced by how the IPCC's 24 models predicted a dry and average temperature year. After all, we pay for all these scientist's by taxes on our poultry lives.


I dodnt see that. Where did you get it?
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
The reason that Cap and Trade hasn't helped control greenhouse gas emissions is because we haven't passed a cap and trade law yet spathy.

A little basic knowledge really helps in debates like this.


Dr. James Hanson on "Cap and Fade"

Enron Kyoto Cap and Trade memo

I am a moron, I am a moron, I don't know, I don't know.
Quoting JFLORIDA:


I not sure I have an idea what you are talking about.

I really dont follow the cap and trade program.

I dont feel many have a grasp of the economics, or have realistically and independently evaluated it, its not a simple problem.

When did denying the science become acceptable counter tax policy?

Thats just a mess.


JF
I consider you to be pretty smart.
Your comment above tells me that the rush to pass cap and trade legislation was a bad idea.
I am glad it failed here.
But it has been implemented elsewhere.
And where has there been any benefits?
As opposed to the austerity programs now in place due to over spending/over taxation?
Has it produced any reduction in co2 output?
Or just moneys made while transferring credits?
Who made those moneys?
Are "they" going to give aid to the Loyalty Islands?
No!
Its as feel good shell game with a net loss to society!

I do prefer Cap and Dividend.

Quoting EnergyMoron:


Dr. James Hanson on "Cap and Fade"

Enron Kyoto Cap and Trade memo

I am a moron, I am a moron, I don't know, I don't know.
Quoting gatorojo:

Yep, it is like reinventing the wheel over and over. All it takes is a couple of corporate schills to spin out scientific sounding falsities and enough confusion will be caused amongst those who either don't understand the scientific method, latch onto ideology instead of reason, or are prone to conspiratorial irrationality, and a problem that should have been addressed in the 70's is still being debated.

I don't foresee any action being taken until we have to start building seawalls to prevent our cities from going under. I understand that much of the denialism is fueled by anti-tax sentiments. For myself, low taxes and small government are a good thing, but to cling to these ideas dogmatically at the expense of reason is insane. It is going to cost many times more to deal with this problem in the future then it is to deal with it now. AGW denialism is not only bad science, but bad economics.


Exactly, which is why what kills me most is watching all the pro GW folk going to every website ever made finding every graph ever composed and each word ever spoken to prove to these blind bats their wrong.

The anti GW folk put an average of 2 minutes making their argument, while someone like STL will spend all day proving them false. And its great what he does, I learn from him all the time. But at the same time he shouldn't have to waste so much time on people not giving him the time.

Which is why every time I see an agw argument I try to keep it as simple as possible basing my argument on the three things that REALLY matter:

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which means it absorbs a specific infrared wavelength.
2. The greater concentration of greenhouse gases, the greater the warming effect.
3. Humans are adding to the level of CO2 in the air.

From these most basic points, we can deduce humans are adding to the warming.

Agw folk have nothing against the above argument and its simple, so I use it every time.


POINT BEING: to all the pro GW folk, keep your argument simple.

When you make long and complex responses, GW folk learn, but for agw folk, it only gives them more room to try and deny the claims. And it is only harder for hem to understand, making them less likely to listen to you.
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
I do prefer Cap and Dividend.



That is st
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
I do prefer Cap and Dividend.



it is fee and dividend in Hansen's proposal. Basically Hanson is smart enough to have figured out that a straight carbon tax is regressive (as is cap and tax...) and is trying to deal with how to reward conservation without imposing a regressive tax... personally I would just be in favor of adjustments to the income tax since there would be less redistribution.

But I give Hanson credit for thinking about the regressive taxation issue.

Unlike those who push cap and tax.
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
The reason that Cap and Trade hasn't helped control greenhouse gas emissions is because we haven't passed a cap and trade law yet spathy.

A little basic knowledge really helps in debates like this.

Refer to post #583!
You know that, you are just nitpicking SSI!
spath I really dont comment on cap and trade - Im honestly more in favor of a flat tax on polluters going into a globally administered aid/redevelopment fund.

But regardless emissions need to be cut immediately and by the most expedient means possible before we are dealing with incredibly difficult and expensive problems and extinctions.

Just on the acidification front a real disaster is looming.

And regardless of your feelings on the causes of warming cutting CO2 is the best and most direct way of dealing with it.
Quoting TomTaylor:


Yah, I like short argumentation so here is one my 11 year old at the time daughter taught me:

"What is your carbon footprint and what are you doing to reduce it"?

I'm really into energy efficiency...
Quoting JFLORIDA:
spath I really dont comment on cap and trade - Im honestly more in favor of a flat tax on polluters going into a globally administered aid fund.

But regardless emissions need to be cut immediately and by the most expedient means possible before we are dealing with incredibly difficult and expensive problems and extinctions.

Just on the acidification front a real disaster is looming.

And regardless of your feelings on the causes of warming cutting CO2 is the best and most direct way of dealing with it.

Thats cool.
I can understand that approach way better than a carbon stock exchange.
See we can find opposing common ground :O)
Well spathy, we did it with sulfur emissions here at a lower cost than expected, and with health and environmental gains greater than the costs. As you would know if you bothered to look it up

What are these ssi outbursts from you anyway? Is that some sort of typed out lisp? Or what? If it's some new internet thing that's one expression or emoticon or whatever I'm skipping.
Quoting spathy:


JF
I consider you to be pretty smart.
Your comment above tells me that the rush to pass cap and trade legislation was a bad idea.
I am glad it failed here.
But it has been implemented elsewhere.
And where has there been any benefits?
As opposed to the austerity programs now in place due to over spending/over taxation?
Has it produced any reduction in co2 output?
Or just moneys made while transferring credits?
Who made those moneys?
Are "they" going to give aid to the Loyalty Islands?
No!
Its as feel good shell game with a net loss to society!



Spathy:

Short answer for cap and trade (I have the original evidence posted) is Ken Lay was the original beneficiary.

A family member of mine whom I am very proud fought Lay on ethanol and lost. The battle (hopefully not the war).

Carbon tax... Hansen recognizes the potentially regressive nature but here Publius on taxation (Federalist 36)... tax the rich, please.

And if you have money to burn through not being efficient sorry, you act like you are rich. Whatever your income level.

"As to the suggestion of double taxation, the answer is plain. The wants of the Union are to be supplied in one way or another; if to be done by the authority of the federal government, it will not be to be done by that of the State government. The quantity of taxes to be paid by the community must be the same in either case; with this advantage, if the provision is to be made by the Union that the capital resource of commercial imposts, which is the most convenient branch of revenue, can be prudently improved to a much greater extent under federal than under State regulation, and of course will render it less necessary to recur to more inconvenient methods; and with this further advantage, that as far as there may be any real difficulty in the exercise of the power of internal taxation, it will impose a disposition to greater care in the choice and arrangement of the means; and must naturally tend to make it a fixed point of policy in the national administration to go as far as may be practicable in making the luxury of the rich tributary to the public treasury, in order to diminish the necessity of those impositions which might create dissatisfaction in the poorer and most numerous classes of the society. Happy it is when the interest which the government has in the preservation of its own power, coincides with a proper distribution of the public burdens, and tends to guard the least wealthy part of the community from oppression!"

Quoting EnergyMoron:


Yah, I like short argumentation so here is one my 11 year old at the time daughter taught me:

"What is your carbon footprint and what are you doing to reduce it"?

I'm really into energy efficiency...


Here is my carbon footprint up the posterior of jetseting hypocrites!!!!!!!!
My water-heater is turned off for 20 hrs per day and you want me to pay more taxes you!!!@@@@???%%%%####
modify comment... foot in mouse disease
Quoting spathy:


Here is my carbon footprint up the posterior of jetseting hypocrites!!!!!!!!
My water-heater is turned off for 20 hrs per day and you want me to pay more taxes you!!!@@@@???%%%%####


I agree with you on jet travel. Very bad if abused.

Perhaps doubling the carbon tax on jet end use would be a good idea.
I must be miss reading this!
And if you have money to burn through not being efficient sorry, you act like you are rich. Whatever your income level.
Wow. Jet setting hypocrites. Sounds like spathy believes in marxist class warfare to me.
Quoting spathy:


Here is my carbon footprint up the posterior of jetseting hypocrites!!!!!!!!
My water-heater is turned off for 20 hrs per day and you want me to pay more taxes you!!!@@@@???%%%%####


Actually, if you are as energy efficient as you say you are you would love the proposal to offset the carbon tax treasury income with income tax reductions.

You would win big and the jet-setters would have to pay for having money to burn...

and this is consistent with the Federalist 36.

I like the Constitution.
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
Wow. Jet setting hypocrites. Sounds like spathy believes in marxist class warfare to me.


Probably more like blue collar, the backbone of what makes America great.
That's a good point energymoron. Why would anyone as energy efficient as spathy claims be against tax credits for energy efficiency--paying lower income taxes?
Perhaps I overinterpreted. But he sure seems to resent other classes.

It's not just blue collar that makes us great. So do professionals, scientists, teachers, soldiers. The whole shebang.

Quoting EnergyMoron:


Probably more like blue collar, the backbone of what makes America great.
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
That's a good point energymoron. Why would anyone as energy efficient as spathy claims be against tax credits for energy efficiency--paying lower income taxes?


Precisely.

There is a way to present carbon taxes rationally even in this political environment.

And Dr. Hansen thinks this is the way (so does the Tea Party outstead Rep. Ingles... my hero with a 94% conservative voting record who accepts science).
Quoting EnergyMoron:


I agree with you on jet travel. Very bad if abused.

Perhaps doubling the carbon tax on jet end use would be a good idea.

No!NO! NO!
FLAT TAX!
The more you use the more you pay!
Now that is fair!
Not Spathy working 7 days per week and lazy dysfunctional breeders getting 10,000 back in taxes when they earn 12,000! on Gov benefits!
And if you added up all their benefits its more like 45,000/year!
I would like that benefit while watching my non existent cable texting on my non affordable gadget!
MANILA, Philippines - The government's weather bureau chief said Friday that the Philippines will be battered by stronger and more frequent typhoons during the rainy season this year.

Graicano Yumul, chief of weather bureau PAGASA, said the La Niña phenomenon prevailing over the Pacific Ocean is expected to end by May but will continue to affect the Philippines until August this year.

"Starting June that is typhoon season. Stronger and more frequent typhoons in 2011," he said.
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
Perhaps I overinterpreted. But he sure seems to resent other classes.

It's not just blue collar that makes us great. So do professionals, scientists, teachers, soldiers. The whole shebang.



I'm white collar myself but often find disdain for the blue collar workers... you know how the Republicans like to rant against unions... heck Ronald Reagan was a card carrying union member!

Good night.

Agreement reached with somebody.

Right Gro? The goal?
"...1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which means it absorbs a specific infrared wavelength.
2. The greater concentration of greenhouse gases, the greater the warming effect.
3. Humans are adding to the level of CO2 in the air..."

Since you list this, I'll agree to #3.

But, for #1 and #2, consider this:

If CO2 absorbs IR, then wouldn't it stand to reason that even if there were no change in CO2, that changes in the IR levels would also cause warming?

Up until recently, it was assumed that the TSI didn't change much (the "solar constant"). Well, recent data from satellites (the SORCE satellite) shows INCREASED levels of IR, and DECREASED levels of UV.

SORCE

"...SIM suggests that ultraviolet irradiance fell far more than expected between 2004 and 2007 -- by ten times as much as the total irradiance did -- while irradiance in certain visible and infrared wavelengths surprisingly increased, even as solar activity wound down overall..."

"...If these SIM measurements indicate real solar variations, then it would mean you could expect a warmer surface during periods of low solar activity, the opposite of what climate models currently assume," said Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeling specialist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City..."
Quoting EnergyMoron:


Precisely.

There is a way to present carbon taxes rationally even in this political environment.

And Dr. Hansen thinks this is the way (so does the Tea Party outstead Rep. Ingles... my hero with a 94% conservative voting record who accepts science).


ARE you kidding me???!!!!!
I am against it because it costs me more money!
Are you freaking kidding me???????


Raging Waters In Australia and Brazil the Product of Global Warming, Say Scientists
Photo Courtesy - Getty Images(SAN
DIEGO) -- The pictures Thursday from around the world of dramatic
rooftop rescues from raging waters make it seem as though natural
disasters are becoming an everyday occurrence. But they're not all that
natural; climate scientists say man-made global warming is the sudden
force behind the forces of nature.

In the mountains of southeast
Brazil, more than 340 people have died after fierce mudslides swept away
homes. At least 50 are still missing and victims continue to search for
loved ones. On the other side of the globe, floods in Queensland,
Australia have ravaged an area the size of France and Germany combined.

And
in Sri Lanka, officials say flooding there has affected more than a
million people, and the death toll has risen to 23. Sewage lines and
holding tanks have overflowed in the floods, and a spokesperson for the
health ministry there said officials are concerned about waterborne
diseases like typhoid and diarrhea.

"If left unchecked, climate
warming will continue so the things that we're having hints of now,
foretastes of now, will come stronger," Richard Sommerville, a climate
scientist at the University of California at San Diego and author of The Forgiving Air: Understanding Environmental Change, said.

The
extreme weather the world has seen is part of a larger trend, he said.
"The world is warming up....It's warming for sure and science is very
confident that most of the warming is due to human causes."

Every
time we burn fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas, Sommerville
said, we emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Now, climate
scientists see "the changed odds, the loaded dice that favors more
extreme events and more high temperature records being broken," he said.

The
decade that just ended saw nine of the 10 warmest years on record, and
warmer temperatures mean more moisture in the air. That moisture can
fall as torrential, flooding rains in the summertime or blizzards in the
winter.

"Because the whole water cycle speeds up in a warming
world, there's more water in the atmosphere today than there was a few
years ago on average, and you're seeing a lot of that in the heavy rains
and floods for example in Australia," Sommervile said.

Copyright 2011 ABC News Radio



What benefits are these? I had no idea welfare amounted to $45,000 per year.

Odd that so many make less than that.

As for the remark you made, I call them parents myself.


Quoting spathy:

No!NO! NO!
FLAT TAX!
The more you use the more you pay!
Now that is fair!
Not Spathy working 7 days per week and lazy dysfunctional breeders getting 10,000 back in taxes when they earn 12,000! on Gov benefits!
And if you added up all their benefits its more like 45,000/year!
I would like that benefit while watching my non existent cable texting on my non affordable gadget!
Quoting spathy:


ARE you kidding me???!!!!!
I am against it because it costs me more money!
Are you freaking kidding me???????


If you are as energy efficient as you say you are, Cap and Trade would save you money.
Quoting EnergyMoron:


Actually, if you are as energy efficient as you say you are you would love the proposal to offset the carbon tax treasury income with income tax reductions.

You would win big and the jet-setters would have to pay for having money to burn...

and this is consistent with the Federalist 36.

I like the Constitution.


And if that jet setter is my boss I just gave up my raise!
Think about it!!!!!!
Where do you think this Gov money comes from?
I am a horticulturist!
And a darn good one!
I dont think I have the ability to create a money tree!
And neither does the Gov and all its Scientists on MY DOLL!
Quoting spathy:

No!NO! NO!
FLAT TAX!
The more you use the more you pay!
Now that is fair!
Not Spathy working 7 days per week and lazy dysfunctional breeders getting 10,000 back in taxes when they earn 12,000! on Gov benefits!
And if you added up all their benefits its more like 45,000/year!
I would like that benefit while watching my non existent cable texting on my non affordable gadget!


Flat tax/no income tax is probably why the depression was so miserable. There is a basic amount of monetary strength you can reasonable accrue. After that you really are taking away form others and exploiting the infrastructure to an excessive extent. You should pay progressively more for that pursuit.

Under a flat tax most of us - me and you - would see the largest tax increase in our lifetimes just to pay for basic services.

Run the numbers before you sign on to that.
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
That's a good point energymoron. Why would anyone as energy efficient as spathy claims be against tax credits for energy efficiency--paying lower income taxes?


Spathy is obviously against paying lower income taxes from subsequent comments.

Not a Republican probably from other comments.... Republicans tend to like "breeders"

Movie social analysis of breeders

Modification... identified as horticulturalist (therefore blue collar tending).

You have to convince them that an energy tax will be offset with lower taxes elsewhere.

Or be used to pay off the deficit before our credit rating goes bad...
I have no idea what this means. Rephrase?

Quoting spathy:


And if that jet setter is my boss I just gave up my raise!
Think about it!!!!!!
Where do you think this Gov money comes from?
I am a horticulturist!
And a darn good one!
I dont think I have the ability to create a money tree!
And neither does the Gov and all its Scientists on MY DOLL!
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:


If you are as energy efficient as you say you are, Cap and Trade would save you money.

Save me money my ars!
Let me keep my money and I will save it as I see fit!
River forecasters for the National Weather Service underestimated the flood level that a major river would reach during Nashville's fatal May floods because they relied on inaccurate data from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the service concluded in a report released Wednesday.
if you make say 25OOO a year you pay no taxes now. Under proposed flat taxes (Arlen Specter 20 percent) you would pay $4000. dollars in taxes.

4000 more than you pay now plus mark up on all taxed goods and services.

The flat tax is the biggest scam the greedy have ever tried pull in this country. The flat sales tax is even worse.

LoveStormsatNight~ That just keeps going up by the hour.

I'm surprised Australia is having it's most costly disaster & a tropical storm isn't even involved.
If you are as energy efficient as you claim to be, you would keep more of your money under cap and trade.

Obama cut your taxes too.
Quoting spathy:


And if that jet setter is my boss I just gave up my raise!
Think about it!!!!!!
Where do you think this Gov money comes from?
I am a horticulturist!
And a darn good one!
I dont think I have the ability to create a money tree!
And neither does the Gov and all its Scientists on MY DOLL!


Integrity is your greatest asset.

Over a decade ago I had to tell a VP "no" to a direct order that was unlawful and got my "just rewards"

His name is now posted on my door in the newspaper settlement of his, well, to be precise, civil violations (without admitting or not admitting guilt).

If you are afraid to tell your boss the truth there is a name for that.
Skyepony, what I read on wikipedia is that Brisbane is the most rapidly growing major city in Australia--which makes me wonder if a lot of building has taken place in flood plains, especially as memory of the 1974 floods faded.
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
If you are as energy efficient as you claim to be, you would keep more of your money under cap and trade.

Obama cut your taxes too.


Well, we agree on a lot but go back and study the Enron kyoto post. Cap and trade will only enrich wall street.

Obama is a disaster on AGW since he lacks the guts to tell America they are living beyond their means... oh... his own lifestyle....

what is his carbon footprint and what is he doing to reduce it?
Just in wildlife/crop management the near term liability for climate change, acidification, and pollution is colossal.

Storm damage; the extremes - flooding and drought - modification to coastal areas. Its going to be ridiculous.

Then we are going to run out of fossil fuels too eventually but not until after the price slowly creeps ridiculously high. Not to mention the geopolitical cost of fuel wars and diplomatic initiatives.

Thats the funny part of people resisting climate legislation and energy innovation.
Tropical Cyclone Warning Center Brisbane
Tropical Cyclone Bulletin
TROPICAL CYCLONE ZELIA (10U)
2:00 PM EST January 14 2011
==========================================

At 1:00 PM EST, Tropical Cyclone Zelia, Category One (992 hPa) located at 12.5S 151.3E, or 770 km northeast of Cairns and 445 km north northeast of Willis Island has 10 minute sustained winds of 35 knots with gusts of 50 knots. The cyclone is reported as moving east at 8 knots.

Gale Force Winds
=================
60 NM from the center

Dvorak Intensity: T3.0/3.0/D1.0/24HRS

Forecast and Intensity
=======================
12 HRS: 13.5S 152.1E - 40 knots (CAT 1)
24 HRS: 14.9S 153.1E - 50 knots (CAT 2)
48 HRS: 18.6S 159.1E - 65 knots (CAT 3)
72 HRS: 25.5S 166.0E - 70 knots (CAT 3)

Additional Information
========================

DT based on 0.65 curved band on VIS imagery. System is small so may undergo rapid intensity fluctuations. Standard development expected to due to low wind shear on forecast track.

The next tropical cyclone bulletin will be issued at 7:00 AM UTC..
The Brazilian flood disaster is just horrible. If you can read Spanish, you can make your way through this.
Obama did almost nothing environmentally when he had a large Democratic majority his first 2 years, and for that I am very disappointed in him.
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
I have no idea what this means. Rephrase?


A tax is levied on my boss.
The economy is flat.
My hours have been cut.
I am doing more work in less time and things are going unfinished.
That tax just robed me of a helper at best.
At worse it did not allow for a raise for all my extra workload !
And customers go un served and revenue falls even shorter.
Transfer that through the entire economy and THAT IS WHERE WE ARE NOW!
And I do like breeders.
I just dont like to see the ones that dont work and make more money than I do when they are physically capable of matching my output!
How is that fair or progressive?
In fact in many cases they are more physically able than myself!
I could go on disability tomorrow!
And could have done so more than 15 years ago.
Dont go there with that crud!
Get It!
Quoting EnergyMoron:


Actually, if you are as energy efficient as you say you are you would love the proposal to offset the carbon tax treasury income with income tax reductions.

You would win big and the jet-setters would have to pay for having money to burn...

and this is consistent with the Federalist 36.

I like the Constitution.


Besides being Constitutional it fits in well with free-market theory. When subsidies and unaccounted externalities aren't figured into the supply/demand equation consumption of a given resource will be skewed resulting in lack of efficiency and a net social loss. This is the case with fossil fuels. A carbon tax would offset these inefficiencies while income tax reductions would encourage less wasteful behaviors.
Quoting EnergyMoron:


Integrity is your greatest asset.

Over a decade ago I had to tell a VP "no" to a direct order that was unlawful and got my "just rewards"

His name is now posted on my door in the newspaper settlement of his, well, to be precise, civil violations (without admitting or not admitting guilt).

If you are afraid to tell your boss the truth there is a name for that.

I am talking about taxes and overspending not illegal activity or a conflict with my boss.
My employer treats me like a God and I tell him no all the time.
Quoting gatorojo:


Besides being Constitutional it fits in well with free-market theory. When subsidies and unaccounted externalities aren't figured into the supply/demand equation consumption of a given resource will be skewed resulting in lack of efficiency and a net social loss. This is the case with fossil fuels. A carbon tax would offset these inefficiencies while income tax reductions would encourage less wasteful behaviors.


Thanks.

Yes, what I propose is free market and constitutional and addresses AGW.

Definitely a good night. Right now. Period.

EM, keep your promises
Quoting gatorojo:


Besides being Constitutional it fits in well with free-market theory. When subsidies and unaccounted externalities aren't figured into the supply/demand equation consumption of a given resource will be skewed resulting in lack of efficiency and a net social loss. This is the case with fossil fuels. A carbon tax would offset these inefficiencies while income tax reductions would encourage less wasteful behaviors.

What?
You just said if I am taxed more I will have more money to spend!!!!
Are you listening to the net end result of your plan/words?
I seriously doubt you could go on disability tomorrow. Social Security administration says the backlog is 5 months.
Exactly. Externalities are not accounted for in most fossil fuel emissions (or much pollution in general)

Externalities are costs the polluter imposes on others.

Spathy have you taken college level economics courses. I am curious.
Quoting gatorojo:


Besides being Constitutional it fits in well with free-market theory. When subsidies and unaccounted externalities aren't figured into the supply/demand equation consumption of a given resource will be skewed resulting in lack of efficiency and a net social loss. This is the case with fossil fuels. A carbon tax would offset these inefficiencies while income tax reductions would encourage less wasteful behaviors.

Get rid of the subsidy's and reduce my taxes,sounds like the more direct route!
Not increase my taxes to offset subsidy's.
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
Exactly. Externalities are not accounted for in most fossil fuel emissions (or much pollution in general)

Externalities are costs the polluter imposes on others.

Spathy have you taken college level economics courses. I am curious.


Yes and it was a constant battle.
Yet my teacher respected my slant an I did very well!
Thank you very much.
In fact when I wrote a paper due at the last minute and had no sources posted I was called in front of a board when I told the instructor its just my learned knowledge.
The board dismissed the inquiry after a three hour grilling.
They went through that paper three ways to Sunday backwards and forwards.
I had nothing in hand!
I answered everything they asked.
It would have taken less time if we had not had such a good give and take.
Unfortunately I was unable to finish the class due to funding and work schedule.
Unfortunate that circumstances prevented you from finishing your course.

Maybe you should try some econ courses at a local college since you are interested in that field.
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
I seriously doubt you could go on disability tomorrow. Social Security administration says the backlog is 5 months.

Are you always this anal retentive?
You sound like a former blogger.
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
Unfortunate that circumstances prevented you from finishing your course.

Maybe you should try some econ courses at a local college since you are interested in that field.

Thanks
Thats a very constructive thing to say.
Unfortunately I am working 7 days a week and am doing laundry and cooking soup to last me the week while I am blogging and cant sleep this fine evening.
Speaking of that!
BRB
Gotta go turn off the hot water heater.
Dishes are done!
Tropical Cyclone Warning Center Brisbane
Tropical Cyclone Bulletin
TROPICAL CYCLONE ZELIA (10U)
5:00 PM EST January 14 2011
==========================================

At 4:00 PM EST, Tropical Cyclone Zelia, Category One (992 hPa) located at 12.8S 151.5E, or 770 km northeast
of Cairns and 425 km north northeast of Willis Island has 10 minute sustained winds of 35 knots with gusts of 50 knots. The cyclone is reported as moving east southeast at 8 knots.

Gale Force Winds
=================
60 NM from the center

Dvorak Intensity: T3.0/3.0/D1.0/24HRS

Forecast and Intensity
=======================
12 HRS: 13.9S 152.5E - 45 knots (CAT 1)
24 HRS: 15.4S 153.8E - 50 knots (CAT 2)
48 HRS: 20.0S 161.0E - 65 knots (CAT 3)
72 HRS: 27.3S 168.1E - 75 knots (CAT 3)

Additional Information
========================

Curved band pattern with 0.60 degree wrap on log 10 spiral, giving DT of 3.0. MT and PT also suggest 3.0. System is small so may undergo rapid intensity fluctuations. Standard development expected to due to low wind shear on forecast track.

The next tropical cyclone bulletin will be issued at 13:00 PM UTC..
Quoting spathy:

Get rid of the subsidy's and reduce my taxes,sounds like the more direct route!
Not increase my taxes to offset subsidy's.

Yes, getting rid of subsidies would be part of making market based solutions work. Ending subsidies would result in higher energy costs, but lower taxes. As with a carbon tax, whether one paid more or less with elimated subsidies would depend on a number of factors. However, as a whole, there would be a net gain.
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
The Brazilian flood disaster is just horrible. If you can read Spanish, you can make your way through this.
It's in Portuguese. Brazilinas speak portuguese, just sayin.
Think a large pattern shift might occur soon.

Tropical Cyclone Warning Center Perth
Tropical Cyclone Bulletin
TROPICAL LOW, FORMER VINCE (09U)
3:00 PM WST January 14 2011
========================================

At 2:00 PM WST, Tropical Low, Former Vince (996 hPa) located at 16.1S 113.6E, or 650 km north of Exmouth has 10 minute sustained winds of 30 knots with gusts of 40 knots. The cyclone is reported as moving east at 10 knots.

Forecast and Intensity
=======================
12 HRS: 15.7S 114.4E - 30 knots (Tropical Low)
24 HRS: 15.2S 114.2E - 30 knots (Tropical Low)

The next tropical cyclone bulletin will be issued at 13:00 PM UTC..
Quoting alfabob:
Think a large pattern shift might occur soon.

Could you elaborate? I am not a meteorologist. Thanks.
What they mean is that if a business diverts the price of polluting to everyone else this is what happens when you instead hold the business accountable by making it illegal:

1) Since the business is now paying for it by not polluting the toxin you will pay more for their product, but you will probably pay less for health insurance because there will be less people randomly dying as a result of this specific toxin.
2) And since these people aren't dying then jobs aren't lost and families aren't destroyed. Overall, you'll probably pay less since jobs and the economy aren't disrupted by these surprise deaths.

So don't focus on the cost of one single thing. This is a big interconnected dynamic world.

The trick is to quantify the pollutant or environmental destruction or whatever it's so that you can appropriately regulate business and make sure people aren't doing illegal things.

It's not wrong to stop crime. It's not wrong to stop someone from polluting. It's only wrong when people via a popular consensus feel it's wrong. We have to establish a national standard one way or another. I know that I do not want to see random deaths from industrial practices because business too often escape paying any of hte costs and hte burden instead is given to the public at large. Not only does this make it hard for the business to learn the necessary lessons (you have to get hurt to learn sometimes), but can we put a price on random deaths? Can you put a price on love? It's too easily exploited.

If I indirectly randomly kill a persons father by smoking too much near him, there's a good chance no one will notice, but if I killed directly, I'd be in the newspaper and prosecuted. Businesses get away with killing random people this way and it's ok up until we understand it and have the chance to stop it.
Quoting paratomic:
What they mean is that if a business diverts the price of polluting to everyone else this is what happens when you instead hold the business accountable by making it illegal:

1) Since the business is now paying for it by not polluting the toxin you will pay more for their product, but you will probably pay less for health insurance because there will be less people randomly dying as a result of this specific toxin.
2) And since these people aren't dying then jobs aren't lost and families aren't destroyed. Overall, you'll probably pay less since jobs and the economy aren't disrupted by these surprise deaths.

So don't focus on the cost of one single thing. This is a big interconnected dynamic world.

The trick is to quantify the pollutant or environmental destruction or whatever it's so that you can appropriately regulate business and make sure people aren't doing illegal things.

It's not wrong to stop crime. It's not wrong to stop someone from polluting. It's only wrong when people via a popular consensus feel it's wrong. We have to establish a national standard one way or another. I know that I do not want to see random deaths from industrial practices because business too often escape paying any of hte costs and hte burden instead is given to the public at large. Not only does this make it hard for the business to learn the necessary lessons (you have to get hurt to learn sometimes), but can we put a price on random deaths? Can you put a price on love? It's too easily exploited.

If I indirectly randomly kill a persons father by smoking too much near him, there's a good chance no one will notice, but if I killed directly, I'd be in the newspaper and prosecuted. Businesses get away with killing random people this way and it's ok up until we understand it and have the chance to stop it.

Yep, that is a good example of many.

Looking at climate change, an unaccounted for externality might be sea-level rise. Building sea walls to protect our cities will be expensive, and it is likely those costs will be passed on to tax payers. In a perfectly working market based economy those costs would be included in the cost of doing business. Of course those costs would be passed along to consumers, and consumers would adjust their consumption accordingly.

..or...maintaining a huge military presence in the middle-east to maintain our oil supply. We pay the taxes for our military to be there, but the cost should be imposed upon the corporations doing business.

All in all, by accounting for all costs on the business side, one gets a socially optimal result with maximum efficiency. Prices will tend to go up to the true cost of doing business, but taxes will tend to go down as the tax payer isn't required to foot the bill for corporations.

Of course, true free market economics is hard to implement. It is difficult to quantify the price of some externalities, especially when the negative effects take place in the future. Corporations with vested interests will also use there power to prevent legislation that would be costly to them. For instance, the tobacco industry delayed common sense policy for over 25 years.

G'morn all!
Un-Florida like again..
Link

Coal takes the strain...again.

Paul Hudson | 16:44 UK time, Monday, 10 January 2011




On BBC Look North on friday I reported that during the recent intense cold weather, it's been our traditional coal and gas fired power stations that have been working flat out to keep our homes and businesses warm.

And for the third winter running, the intense cold has gone hand in hand with periods of little or no wind. This should come as no surprise since prolonged cold is invariably associated with areas of high pressure.

Peak demand also comes during summer heat waves - as we all turn on our air conditioning units - again usually associated with areas of high pressure, with little or no wind.

December 21st 2010 was one of the coldest days on record in Yorkshire. The bar chart below gives an idea of how much electricity was being generated by which type of power facility, when temperatures were at their lowest.


With much of the country experiencing very little wind, both onshore and offshore, wind turbines were largely inactive.

At the moment that is not a problem. Only 5% of electricity is currently generated by wind farms, and so other power stations can step in and ramp up output.

But in only 9 years time, the UK will legally have to generate around 30% of its electricity from renewable sources, of which 25% is expected to come from wind farms alone, as it is seen as a clean, carbon free energy source.

So what will happen then, when the wind doesn't blow?

If a similar meteorological situation occurred in 2020, then almost 25% of power would have to come from sources other than wind.

This means that there would have to be some power stations - using coal or gas, since nuclear power output can't be increased at short notice - that simply exist as a stand-by facility, in case the wind doesn't blow.

And that's a very expensive way of producing electricity.

And what happens if, as seems at least possible, the next 10-15 years sees an increase in the type of disrupted weather patterns that we have experienced recently, because of solar considerations?

Professor Mike Lockwood at Reading University thinks that the UK could indeed experience colder winters on average, compared with the last few decades because of the sun's low activity.

This would lead to a higher frequency of 'blocking' weather patterns leading to less frequent windy conditions than would normally be expected if one looks at climatological averages - suggesting we would have to continue to rely on coal and gas fired power generation well into the future - and possibly more than is currently envisaged.




Australian officials say Queensland is reeling from its worst natural disaster in history, after floods have caused billions of dollars worth of damage.

So why has there been so much rain along eastern board of Australia? BBC Meteorologist, Nina Ridge, says the persistent rainfall has been the result of a weather phenomenon called La Niña.

La Niña is a weather pattern that affects the Pacific Ocean region, and occurs when surface sea temperatures are cooler than normal in the eastern Pacific, and warmer than normal in the western Pacific.

Light shines through a building's window onto a flooded street as night falls
The flooded main street in Rockhampton's city centre

Normal conditions

Normally, cold water comes up from the deep sea and pools near the coast of South America.

Easterly trade winds drag the cold water from South America across the Pacific towards Australia. The cold water is gradually warmed by the sun as it reaches Australia.

Rain clouds build along the coast of Australia due to the warm moist air, while it tends to stay dry along the Pacific coast of South America.

La Niña

During La Niña, the cold water that pools near the coast of South America surges across the Pacific and there is a greater build up of warmer water along the eastern coast of Australia.

As a result, there is a greater contrast in sea surface temperatures between the east and west Pacific, and a greater contrast in air pressure.

The easterly trade winds become stronger due to this contrast, dragging warm, moist air along the Australian coastline, creating larger rain clouds and producing more rainfall.

An El Niño weather event is when warm water pushes towards the central Pacific, the cold water retreats and rain falls in the central Pacific area. Strong El Niño years can cause droughts along the eastern coast of Australia.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/hi/news/newsid_9340000/9340513.stm


Well that was refreshing

To my surprise, there were just a few dozen record daily lows set or tied in the United States yesterday (surprise, as I was expecting to see far more of them) asccording to HAMweather. The coldest record was -22 in Edgemont, ND. There should be even fewer cold records this morning; temps across most of the nation have moderated, with large parts of the west and Midwest up to 15 and 25 degrees warmer this morning than they were yesterday at this time.

Here in Naples, the ten-day says every day will rise into the 70s, and every night will be 50 or above. That sounds good to me... ;-)
650- Nea, our NWS said a low of 23º, but it's only 30º right now. Moderation would be nice. (Jax)

90º and sunshine would be nicer.
Quoting iceagecoming:
Well that was refreshing

Thanks for posting that, yet another piece of (mostly) nonsense from yet another TV weatherman who's not a climate scientist. He uses pretty much the same "logic" as many other "skeptics":

A) Though the planet is warming overall, it's cold in England, so the planet isn't really warming;

B) Because his fellow "skeptics" have succeeded in downplaying the effects of climate change, there's been no impetus to move away from a fossil-fuel paradigm, but...

C) ...since they haven't moved toward those alternate energy source, there's little available when needed--so what good is it? They should stick with fossil fuels, because they provide so much more energy than the alternatives!

Gotta love that, er, logic. ;-)

Of course, Hudson goes on elsewhere to claim that the minimal sun will bring about global cooling--in spite of the fact that the planet continues to warm. But that's a story for another time. ;-)
Quoting aquak9:
650- Nea, our NWS said a low of 23º, but it's only 30º right now. Moderation would be nice. (Jax)

90º and sunshine would be nicer.

We were supposed to be 39 here, but my usually agreeable thermometer says we're 47. Let the warmup begin!

(And, yes, 90 sounds good right about now!)
654. IKE
23.4 my morning low...so far.

PWS about 6 miles from me....

WZEP AM 1460 DeFuniak Springs, FL, DeFuniak Springs, Florida (PWS)
Updated: 3 sec ago
16.9 °F
Clear

Windchill: 17 °F
Humidity: 90%
Dew Point: 14 °F
Wind: 0.0 mph
Wind Gust: 0.0 mph
Pressure: 30.39 in (Rising)
Visibility: 10.0 miles
UV: 0 out of 16
Pollen: 2.40 out of 12
Pollen Forecast new!
Clouds: Clear -
(Above Ground Level)
Elevation: 174 ft

............................................

Crestview,FL. airport....

Crestview, Florida (Airport)
Updated: 24 min 58 sec ago
16 °F
Clear

Humidity: 92%
Dew Point: 14 °F
Wind: Calm
Pressure: 30.47 in (Rising)
Visibility: 10.0 miles
UV: 0 out of 16
Pollen: 3.20 out of 12
Pollen Forecast new!
Clouds: Clear -
(Above Ground Level)
Elevation: 210 ft



34 on my thermometer here in north tampa. left the plants outside last night and everything looks fine. I see 70's in the forecast and the strawberries are loving it.
654:

16 degrees in FL for the low! Wow. Well, Ike, looks like it'll moderate a bit for you guys pretty soon.
657. IKE
Quoting cat5hurricane:
654:

16 degrees in FL for the low! Wow. Well, Ike, looks like it'll moderate a bit for you guys pretty soon.


Yup...warmer weather on the way!

I'm surprised my electric bill wasn't higher. Got it in yesterday...$195.69.
658. IKE
PRELIMINARY EXTENDED FORECAST DISCUSSION
NWS HYDROMETEOROLOGICAL PREDICTION CENTER CAMP SPRINGS MD
155 AM EST FRI JAN 14 2011

VALID 12Z TUE JAN 18 2011 - 12Z FRI JAN 21 2011


THE PRELIMINARY FRONTS AND PRESSURES FOR DAYS 3 THROUGH 7 ARE
BASED ON THE 00Z/14 ECMWF. THE LATEST DETERMINISTIC ECMWF HAS
ROBUST SUPPORT FROM BOTH THE 12Z/13 ECENS MEAN AND THE 00Z/14
UKMET FROM COAST TO COAST FOR MUCH OF THE MEDIUM RANGE. THE GFS
AND GEM GLOBAL ARE OUT OF SYNC WITH THE STRONG EUROPEAN CENTRE
CLUSTER WITH THE HANDLING OF THE MAJOR SHORTWAVES AFFECTING THE
NATION THIS FORECAST PERIOD...WITH THE GFS NOT EVEN WELL
CORRELATED WITH THE 00Z/14 GEFS MEAN. THE ECMWF HAS BEEN
VERIFYING STRONGLY ON AVERAGE THIS COLD SEASON WITH ITS SURFACE
PRESSURES...PARTICULARLY DAYS 6 AND 7. THE UPCOMING PATTERN WILL
BE HIGHLIGHTED BY SOME OF THE COLDEST AIR OF THE SEASON THUS FAR
FOR PORTIONS OF THE GREAT LAKES AND NORTHEAST...WITH LOW
THICKNESSES COINCIDING WITH HIGH SURFACE PRESSURES.


CISCO


Ike, looks like the lakes around you do a good job keeping you a little warmer, thats nice.
Quoting Neapolitan:

Thanks for posting that, yet another piece of (mostly) nonsense from yet another TV weatherman who's not a climate scientist. He uses pretty much the same "logic" as many other "skeptics":

A) Though the planet is warming overall, it's cold in England, so the planet isn't really warming;

B) Because his fellow "skeptics" have succeeded in downplaying the effects of climate change, there's been no impetus to move away from a fossil-fuel paradigm, but...

C) ...since they haven't moved toward those alternate energy source, there's little available when needed--so what good is it? They should stick with fossil fuels, because they provide so much more energy than the alternatives!

Gotta love that, er, logic. ;-)

Of course, Hudson goes on elsewhere to claim that the minimal sun will bring about global cooling--in spite of the fact that the planet continues to warm. But that's a story for another time. ;-)

Didn't seem like nonsense to me. In fact, a very good post. Not every post that doesn't point to GW occurring has to be nonsense.
661. IKE
Quoting oceanminded:
Ike, looks like the lakes around you do a good job keeping you a little warmer, thats nice.


It does help. Sun-up in about 10 minutes.
662. DEKRE
Quoting cat5hurricane:
654:

16 degrees in FL for the low! Wow. Well, Ike, looks like it'll moderate a bit for you guys pretty soon.


This is crazy - up here in Canada I have 23°F when it should be 6°F
Quoting DEKRE:


This is crazy - up here in Canada I have 23°F when it should be 6°F

Yeah...it's warmer in Alaska than many places in Florida at the moment. In fact, Kodiac, Alaska is registering a temperature at 30 right now!
Quoting IKE:


Yup...warmer weather on the way!

I'm surprised my electric bill wasn't higher. Got it in yesterday...$195.69.

That's not too bad. Mine was really bad last year until I bought on the those electric heated blankets. Man, those things are great. Now I can keep the temp of the entire house down at night or if I'm lounging around watching TV. It's not the perfect solution of course, but it sure helps.
665. IKE
Quoting cat5hurricane:

That's not too bad. Mine was really bad last year until I bought on the those electric heated blankets. Man, those things are great. Now I can keep the temp of the entire house down at night or if I'm lounging around watching TV. It's not the perfect solution of course, but it sure helps.


I have a heat pump. When it gets this cold at night my heater stays on continuously.

Considering how cold it's been the last month, I'm surprised it's not higher.

It only went up $42 from what it was last month.

My low this morning was 23.0. Yesterday morning it was 22.5.
it would be unusual during a la nina year but the Eddie might be a go at waimea bay next wk 21st
ahhhh, this makes my day : )

SWFL Today is forecasted to be Much Warmer than yesterday.

no thermal undies today -it will be nice to work the horses w/out 20 pounds of clothes on.

Aloha, IKE & AQUA - hang in each day is closer to spring : )
Quoting cat5hurricane:

Didn't seem like nonsense to me. In fact, a very good post. Not every post that doesn't point to GW occurring has to be nonsense.

True. But ones that spout the illogic I pointed out are, indeed, nonsense.
Quoting IKE:


I have a heat pump. When it gets this cold at night my heater stays on continuously.

Considering how cold it's been the last month, I'm surprised it's not higher.

It only went up $42 from what it was last month.

My low this morning was 23.0. Yesterday morning it was 22.5.

For Florida, that is cold. Man. I guess that is understandable since your deviation from what you folks see on an average basis temperature-wise is much greater than most of the country right now. It may be a cold winter for most, but for Florida, a VERY cold winter thus far.
670. IKE
Quoting surfmom:
ahhhh, this makes my day : )

SWFL Today is forecasted to be Much Warmer than yesterday.

no thermal undies today -it will be nice to work the horses w/out 20 pounds of clothes on.

Aloha, IKE & AQUA - hang in each day is closer to spring : )


Morning surfmom. Sunshine now. High today near 50 here. Upper 50's tomorrow.
671. IKE
Quoting cat5hurricane:

For Florida, that is cold. Man. I guess that is understandable since your deviation from what you folks see on an average basis temperature-wise is much greater than most of the country right now. It may be a cold winter for most, but for Florida, a VERY cold winter thus far.


According to my town's WU page....normal high and low...

Normal (KCEW) 59 °F 33 °F
Quoting IKE:


According to my town's WU page....normal high and low...

Normal (KCEW) 59 °F 33 °F

Yep...there you go. But as Surfmom says, closer to spring. And I already am noticing it a bit lighter now in the evening!
673. IKE
Quoting cat5hurricane:

Yep...there you go. But as Surfmom says, closer to spring. And I already am noticing it a bit lighter now in the evening!


I'm noticing that too. My sunset now is 5:04 pm CST. Was 4:42 pm CST.

Also..I can tell the sun angle is headed back north now based on where the sun comes up over the eastern horizon.
674. IKE
Looks like the record low for this date in Crestview was...23 °F (1982).

Easily broken with this mornings low of 16 at their airport.
upper tampa bay water temps on the way up, 56 near my favorite winter fishin hole and rising over the next few days. Time for some poor mans lobster (sheepshead) fishing. Enjoy the warm up fellow Floridians.
ike surfmom, cat5 hi ya'll

yes we wait for the sun here in florida...why do you think we live here
677. IKE
Quoting aquak9:
ike surfmom, cat5 hi ya'll

yes we wait for the sun here in florida...why do you think we live here


Morning aquak. Beautiful sunshine this morning. Looks like a nice weekend for JAX,FL, with highs in the upper 50's Saturday and lower 60's Sunday.
Quoting aquak9:
ike surfmom, cat5 hi ya'll

yes we wait for the sun here in florida...why do you think we live here

Mornin'. Yep, exactly. And get ready for your warmup. It's coming.
Story from CNN:

two phenomena responsible for worlds bizarre weather

"...Tony Barnston, lead forecaster at Columbia University's International Research Institute for Climate and Society, said two phenomena - "La Nina and the North Atlantic Oscillation" are likely responsible for the patterns we're seeing..."

Wow. Kinda brave to say that NATURAL causes are responsible.

Of course, people will start with the "But is he a climate scientist?"

So I'll save you some trouble:

BA, Psychology 1972, UCLA
MA, Psychology 1975, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana
MS, Atmospheric Sciences, 1976, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana

List of papers

And here's something you can jump on to discredit the source:

1978-1979, Weekend weathercaster, WSAV Television, Savannah, GA

Oh, no, not another TV weatherman...
Quoting oceanminded:
upper tampa bay water temps on the way up, 56 near my favorite winter fishin hole and rising over the next few days. Time for some poor mans lobster (sheepshead) fishing. Enjoy the warm up fellow Floridians.

Sheepshead...actually never had it, but sounds good. Hope they'll be biting!
Quoting hcubed:
Story from CNN:

two phenomena responsible for worlds bizarre weather

"...Tony Barnston, lead forecaster at Columbia University's International Research Institute for Climate and Society, said two phenomena - "La Nina and the North Atlantic Oscillation" are likely responsible for the patterns we're seeing..."

Wow. Kinda brave to say that NATURAL causes are responsible.

Of course, people will start with the "But is he a climate scientist?"

So I'll save you some trouble:

BA, Psychology 1972, UCLA
MA, Psychology 1975, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana
MS, Atmospheric Sciences, 1976, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana

List of papers

And here's something you can jump on to discredit the source:

1978-1979, Weekend weathercaster, WSAV Television, Savannah, GA

Oh, no, not another TV weatherman...


A pig in a different blanket ain't the same as tofurkey!
I just wanna dig in the dirt, is that asking too much. Please give me warmer weather.

Good luck to those who go fishing.
683. IKE
Quoting aquak9:
I just wanna dig in the dirt, is that asking too much. Please give me warmer weather.

Good luck to those who go fishing.


I need to burn some leaves and branches in my yard.

Don't get mad at me GW believers:)
ike I wish I could come and get your leaves to mix with my sandy soil. OR I wish I could sit there with ya, and burn leaves.

Sunshine come, soon.
685. IKE
Quoting aquak9:
ike I wish I could come and get your leaves to mix with my sandy soil. OR I wish I could sit there with ya, and burn leaves.

Sunshine come, soon.


It's just a 4 hour drive. You can even look at my rain gauge you gave me!
Quoting hcubed:
Story from CNN:

two phenomena responsible for worlds bizarre weather

"...Tony Barnston, lead forecaster at Columbia University's International Research Institute for Climate and Society, said two phenomena - "La Nina and the North Atlantic Oscillation" are likely responsible for the patterns we're seeing..."

Wow. Kinda brave to say that NATURAL causes are responsible.

Of course, people will start with the "But is he a climate scientist?"

So I'll save you some trouble:

BA, Psychology 1972, UCLA
MA, Psychology 1975, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana
MS, Atmospheric Sciences, 1976, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana

List of papers

And here's something you can jump on to discredit the source:

1978-1979, Weekend weathercaster, WSAV Television, Savannah, GA

Oh, no, not another TV weatherman...

But, h3, no one (that I know of, anyway) is denying that La Nina and the NAO are factors in the increasingly "bizarre" weather. What climate scientists are saying, however, is that the natural cycles are being "enhanced" by warming, which is why the extremes continue to become more extreme. Many more record high temps, unprecedented rains and flooding, unprecedented heat waves, deeper snowstorms, and so on--all these have been long predicted by climate scientists to be side effects of oceanic/atmospheric warming.

For the record, Barnston says, "...it takes humans years to adjust to ‘inconvenient discoveries’, citing cigarette smoking and prolonged exposure to the sun as two examples. A more urgent change is needed and a far shorter lag time when it comes to stemming greenhouse gas emissions. We need to move quickly to the action step, as the implications of not acting are severe and wide reaching."
don't tempt me, ike. It would do my soul good, to just sit and poke at a fire.


And we sell so many of those rain gauges, we can barely keep them in stock. Glad you like it! :)
688. IKE
Quoting aquak9:
don't tempt me, ike. It would do my soul good, to just sit and poke at a fire.


And we sell so many of those rain gauges, we can barely keep them in stock. Glad you like it! :)


The birds like it too....along with the catfood I put out for a cat that hangs around.

I still report daily to COCORAHS. Rain gauge does a good job.
Thanks, ike.

Atlanta weather kicked us hard, we got low on stock, but we are starting to catch up. Business is slowly getting better. Folks love the Davis Vantage Vues.
Seriously, please stop talking about Global Warming, its ruining the blog.
Quoting TampaFLUSA:
It's in Portuguese. Brazilinas speak portuguese, just sayin.


Its funny how everyone thinks Brazilians speak Spanish... lol

A lot of people didn't pay attention too well in school :)
ETC3 Studio, Ellijay, Georgia (PWS)
Updated: 3 sec ago
14.0 F
Freezing Fog

Warmed up from 11 already. I'm still hoping to install a Davis 6153 in the Keys before season this year but work is non-existent. How do the less expensive units perform?
Quoting Jedkins01:
Seriously, please stop talking about Global Warming, its ruining the blog.

But it doesn't have to, so long as people stick to the science, debate honestly, and avoid personal attacks. Besides, some of us like to talk about that; there's no tropical activity in our neighborhood at the moment...
Chillin

My hubby owns RainmanWeather. Contact him, the Tycon performs well, and on his blog (Rainman32) he was three stations running for comparison.

Tell him you are fom WU and he can get you a really good deal- Davis, Lacross, Tycon, you name it. If it has to do with weather or stmospheric measuring- we've got the product to do the job.

RainmanWeather has the endorsement and backing of WeatherUndeground, too. And the better business seal of approval.
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
There's no evidence whatsoever that Cap and Trade or other environmental legislation will "devastate the economy"


So now you are a financial business wizard as well?

What a joke.

Are you a met in progress or are you a financial in progress.

Your comments seem to point to an answer of NO.


Quoting Neapolitan:

True. But ones that spout the illogic I pointed out are, indeed, nonsense.


You are one to talk.

According to you every weather event is proof positive of AGW.

I almost spilled coffee on my keyboard from laughing at your recent comments.


Quoting Jedkins01:
Seriously, please stop talking about Global Warming, its ruining the blog.


I'm confused, which is ruining the blog? The global warming or the talking about global warming?
Quoting calusakat:


You are one to talk.

According to you every weather event is proof positive of AGW.

I almost spilled coffee on my keyboard from laughing at your recent comments.




This post was caused by Global Warming.
Quoting Neapolitan:

But it doesn't have to, so long as people stick to the science, debate honestly, and avoid personal attacks. Besides, some of us like to talk about that; there's no tropical activity in our neighborhood at the moment...


Hmm yes but isn't that similar of what can be said about communism? "Well it could work if everyone could get along". You know, if people could get along, heck I would go for communism too, a place where everyone shared and there was no money, awesome idea, accept that it only works in a movie not reality.

I think the same thing can be said debated over Global Warming, in theory it can be done without trouble, but it won't.

Plus at some point, you gotta know when to call it quits, when someone will not listen to you no matter what is said right?
Quoting Neapolitan:

We were supposed to be 39 here, but my usually agreeable thermometer says we're 47. Let the warmup begin!

(And, yes, 90 sounds good right about now!)



Those temperature differences between what actually happened and what was predicted are not surprising when you consider the source. Comparing three different weather sites, the AGW biased site is always predicting much lower lows while the other two have been predicting 4 to 6 degrees higher. BTW the other two have also been much closer to actual temps, within 2 degrees usually.

Not surprising since the AGW folks want to emphasize the extreme side to that it fits with the AGW mantra.


Quoting calusakat:


You are one to talk.

According to you every weather event is proof positive of AGW.

I almost spilled coffee on my keyboard from laughing at your recent comments.



"Proof"? No, there's no proof; proofs are for mathematics. I do, however, like to point out the scientific evidence of warming; don't blame me there's so much of it.

At any rate, I'm pleased to know I provide entertainment for you; it's just another of the many services I offer! ;-)
Quoting Neapolitan:

We were supposed to be 39 here, but my usually agreeable thermometer says we're 47. Let the warmup begin!

(And, yes, 90 sounds good right about now!)



yuck.... 90 in January? I'll take 90 in the summer, but 90 in winter, you can have it, I'd rather have highs in the 50's in the winter, change in season is good! Plus here in Florida, many years we don't get much seasonal change, so enjoy it while it lasts!
Quoting Jedkins01:


Hmm yes but isn't that similar of what can be said about communism? "Well it could work if everyone could get along". You know, if people could get along, heck I would go for communism too, a place where everyone shared and there was no money, awesome idea, accept that it only works in a movie not reality.

I think the same thing can be said debated over Global Warming, in theory it can be done without trouble, but it won't.

Plus at some point, you gotta know when to call it quits, when someone will not listen to you no matter what is said right?

So discussion of a widely-accepted scientific theory is--the same as Communism? Sorry; you lost me there. ;-)

So far as "calling it quits", I'll do so the moment people stop sheepishly falling for the lies and deceit and obfuscation being broadcast by those with the most to profit by maintaining the current fossil fuel paradigm. When that happens, I will shut up. Promise. Until then, though, I'll keep putting out the message.
Thanks Aqua! Those are much more reasonable than the Davis units. That's something that I could swing this year. I will give him a call down the road. Sounds like a good 50th b-day present for myself. We live in a very hostile enviroment(salt, wind, sun, etc). Plus I'd like to have one that would stick around in 120MPH or so.
696. calusakat 2:21 PM GMT on January 14, 2011

Quoting Neapolitan:


True. But ones that spout the illogic I pointed out are, indeed, nonsense.

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

Quoting calusakat:


You are one to talk.

According to you every weather event is proof positive of AGW.

I almost spilled coffee on my keyboard from laughing at your recent comments.

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

Quoting Neapolitan:

"Proof"? No, there's no proof; proofs are for mathematics. I do, however, like to point out the scientific evidence of warming; don't blame me there's so much of it.

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

Excuse me?

Proof (truth), sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a proposition

Get a real dictionary not an AGW one.

Not to mention the fact that you just attempted one of your now expected acts of REDIRECTION.

People are getting wise to your silly slight of hand attempts.


Quoting calusakat:



Those temperature differences between what actually happened and what was predicted are not surprising when you consider the source. Comparing three different weather sites, the AGW biased site is always predicting much lower lows while the other two have been predicting 4 to 6 degrees higher. BTW the other two have also been much closer to actual temps, within 2 degrees usually.

Not surprising since the AGW folks want to emphasize the extreme side to that it fits with the AGW mantra.



Precisely.

Not too mention the reporting of the record highs. To him, a record high is one where a high doesn't necessarily have to break the previous record high. It merely has to tie the previous record high to get mentioned. Wonder if he applies the same silly principal to record lows??
Quoting Neapolitan:

So discussion of a widely-accepted scientific theory is--the same as Communism? Sorry; you lost me there. ;-)

So far as "calling it quits", I'll do so the moment people stop sheepishly falling for the lies and deceit and obfuscation being broadcast by those with the most to profit by maintaining the current fossil fuel paradigm. When that happens, I will shut up. Promise. Until then, though, I'll keep putting out the message.

What message? The message of the conspiracy you conjured up. Sounds like an agenda to me...
For Nea...

Good morning, ultimately it is a public cost when government fails to plan wisely. The money it will cost now for prevention pales in comparison with what it will cost later.

Excerpt from Christian Science Monitor story on Brazilian flood near Rio D.J. where the latest body count is 511 (and more heavy rain expected next week):

Local officials estimate the death toll at 511 so far, concentrated in four hillside cities north of Rio de Janeiro, after torrential rains caused rivers to jump their banks and hillsides to give way. While national and state authorities are pinning the blame on municipalities for allowing citizens to build in insecure areas, the federal government itself is coming under scrutiny for recently slashing its budget for handling natural disasters.

"There is carelessness at every level of government," says Gil Castello Branco, the secretary general of Contas Abertas, a non-profit that monitors government spending. "We turn that old saying on its head: We aren't safe, we are sorry."

Link

Everyone knows prevention costs less than treatment after the fact.
That goes for both healthy environments and healthy citizens.
Quoting cat5hurricane:

Precisely.

Not too mention the reporting of the record highs. To him, a record high is one where a high doesn't necessarily have to break the previous record high. It merely has to tie the previous record high to get mentioned. Wonder if he applies the same silly principal to record lows??

Pssst: a record is a record is a record. Let me ask you: if you run the mile in 3:00 today, then run it in 3:00 a year from now, what's your personal record for the mile?

BTW: of those record lows I mentioned this morning, about a third were ties with previous records. So, yes, I do use that "silly principal"...as does every meteorological agency on the planet. Sill us. ;-)
Quoting Neapolitan:

So discussion of a widely-accepted scientific theory is--the same as Communism? Sorry; you lost me there. ;-)

So far as "calling it quits", I'll do so the moment people stop sheepishly falling for the lies and deceit and obfuscation being broadcast by those with the most to profit by maintaining the current fossil fuel paradigm. When that happens, I will shut up. Promise. Until then, though, I'll keep putting out the message.



Have you ever heard of metaphors? Comparing communism with debating is a good, one, I guess you didn't get it too well though lol.

Either way, once again, at some point you gotta know when to call it quits.

What if I started bombarding you non-stop with my Christian beliefs? You know to me, eternity is a little more important than life issues like Global Warming. Of course, you would call it "shoving down the throat" or whatever term you prefer to use because you do not believe in such things.

Of course you would also say, its off topic, but so is Global Warming. I know, you would say actually Global Warming is much closer to being on topic than talking about Christianity.

Well think about this, instead of using scrutinization, try getting the big picture. My point is, how would you like as if I likewise aggressively went after you with my Christian beliefs, non stop, because I find you to be a lost person not knowing the truth.

But why do I not do so? Because it is a weather blog, and all it would do is cause endless trouble.

So my question is, will you be a good citizen, and not keep shoving down others throats what you believe to be true, or will you be a choose to be a close minded individual, something you are supposedly against?
What is probably already starting is a war between Big Insurance and Big Energy.
This is how policy will change.
I believe you can take that to the bank.

Quoting aquak9:
For Nea...


Great! Little marshmallows, even! Thanks! ;-)

(That's a big mug; care to share?)
Quoting Neapolitan:

Pssst: a record is a record is a record. Let me ask you: if you run the mile in 3:00 today, then run it in 3:00 a year from now, what's your personal record for the mile?

BTW: of those record lows I mentioned this morning, about a third were ties with previous records. So, yes, I do
use that "silly principal"...as does every meteorological agency on the planet. Sill us. ;-)

Right...
715. IKE
***peaks in...see's GW jabs being thrown. Exits...***
Now for something different. The MetEd program released an introductory chapter on tropical meteorology. Should be perfect for those that have hung around here long enough to hear about things they aren't quite familiar with.

Email:
The COMET Program is pleased to announce the publication of "Chapter 1, Introduction", of the online textbook, "Introduction to Tropical Meteorology". This textbook is being developed over time and its chapters are being published incrementally. This is the first chapter to be published in the Version 2.0 format of the textbook. Please follow this link to open the textbook: http://www.meted.ucar.edu/tropical/textbook/. The chapter provides an introduction to tropical meteorology. Learners will become familiar with:

- Various definitions of the tropics
- The role of the tropics in the global energy balance
- The meridional transport of energy by the atmosphere and ocean
- Latitudinal variation in the profiles of temperature and humidity
- Longitudinal variation in stability and cloud development across tropical oceans
- The geographic and seasonal distribution of temperature and factors that determine the distribution
- The diurnal temperature range and influencing factors
- The role of the tropics in the global angular momentum balance
- How tropical climates are defined and where they are found
Just take it and run, Nea
A good economist can tell you who has the upper hand between insurance and energy.
I'd place my bet on insurance right now.
Oil will probably have to start seriously looking at R&D in nuclear which as we all know is not without its serious ramifications as well. But if the prime objective is to protect our atmosphere, then that will be the next logical choice.
Perhaps outer space will become a good place to deposit our nuclear waste. And of course that will draw attention to ourselves...haha. Good grief.
All I know is once Big Money starts to really feel the pain things change. All of us "little people" down here are listened to only when it is in their best interests and then the message will be manipulated so that people are influenced and so on and so forth. Things change in increments but only appear to change suddenly. One of my favorite allusions is to the "wrong way" plane that purportedly started WWII. A whole lot of stuff had to happen before that last incident, though didn't it. Interesting being human.
Have a nice day everyone.
Thought this one might be interesting (data from here):

Click for larger image:
See No Science. Speak No Science. Hear No Science.

Clear evidence of imminent cooling, if you ask me. ;-)
Quoting calusakat:


You are one to talk.

According to you every weather event is proof positive of AGW.

I almost spilled coffee on my keyboard from laughing at your recent comments.




It's not just weather events that they'll tie to AGW:

Global warming causes acne
Quoting Neapolitan:
Thought this one might be interesting
No, it isn't, sorry.
About the whole GW debate, I guess it is easier for some to say "it is a natural process" so they don't have to do anything about it. They don't have to reflect on it. It is always easier to wash your hands of it than to really think about it.

In the mean time, 20 years have gone by and islands that once housed millions of people are underwater. But its a natural cycle. (rolling my eyes)
Quoting Jedkins01:



Have you ever heard of metaphors? Comparing communism with debating is a good, one, I guess you didn't get it too well though lol.

Either way, once again, at some point you gotta know when to call it quits.

What if I started bombarding you non-stop with my Christian beliefs? You know to me, eternity is a little more important than life issues like Global Warming. Of course, you would call it "shoving down the throat" or whatever term you prefer to use because you do not believe in such things.

Of course you would also say, its off topic, but so is Global Warming. I know, you would say actually Global Warming is much closer to being on topic than talking about Christianity.

Well think about this, instead of using scrutinization, try getting the big picture. My point is, how would you like as if I likewise aggressively went after you with my Christian beliefs, non stop, because I find you to be a lost person not knowing the truth.

But why do I not do so? Because it is a weather blog, and all it would do is cause endless trouble.

So my question is, will you be a good citizen, and not keep shoving down others throats what you believe to be true, or will you be a choose to be a close minded individual, something you are supposedly against?

I'm sorry you interpret what I'm doing as "shoving down the throat"; I see it more as defending science and scientists from the growing onslaught of anti-intellectualism.

To use your Christianity analogy: no, I wouldn't find it appropriate here on a weather blog if you were to start proselytizing for your religion. However, if you were to be participating in a religious forum, I would certainly expect you to honestly and openly defend your faith if others entered that forum and started telling you things you knew to be false, misleading, or just wrong.

But that's really a weak analogy; Hebrews 11:1 says "...faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," which is a perfectly adequate description for a religious person, but it comes nowhere close to describing the scientific process. IOW, it's faith to believe in something you can't see or even detect, but it's something other than faith to believe what you're seeing with your own eyes. And what I see with my own eyes is a growing mountain of evidence that we humans are messing with the atmosphere and heating up the planet.

In closing: I know at what point to call it quits--and we are nowhere that point. ;-)
Quoting breald:
About the whole GW debate, I guess it is easier for some to say "it is a natural process" so they don't have to do anything about it. They don't have to reflect on it. It is always easier to wash your hands of it than to really think about it.

In the mean time, 20 years have gone by and islands that once housed millions of people are underwater. But its a natural cycle. (rolling my eyes)


It is a natural process, Earth has been through MANY "climate changes" in the past, without any assistance from man.
Quoting atmoaggie:
No, it isn't, sorry.

Oh, sorry. I should have said, "Thought this one might be interesting for those interested in our changing climate". Didn't mean to offend, friend. ;-)
Burn em at the stake
Global Warming is no more than a long-range forecast.

We can't predict the low temperature tonight, but we can ABSOLUTELY know that 20 years will be 1 degree C warmer?

Right, and it's going to snow on March 2, 2011 at my house.
Of course you would also say, its off topic, but so is Global Warming. I know, you would say actually Global Warming is much closer to being on topic than talking about Christianity.

Im sorry thats beyond absurd. Climate science IS the topic on this board. Faith and religion is not.

They need to ban some of the more unreasonable posters. It just wastes everyones time to have to trudge through unreasoned and unreferenced posts.

Its a thousand times worse than the most uncivil posts.

Anyway.






Fig 4. Redrawn by John Cook with data from Murphy et al 2009.

An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950
(reviewing post 723)

Its not like the climate could cause real issues or anything to worry about. right?

Link

What have we got to loose by being good stewards of this "temporary" planet?

Does a Christian religion require just "acts" or works as well, like in the poor man and Lazarus or the story of the good Samaritan... what does religion require, hating the outsider or including the excluded?

Quoting IKE:
***peaks in...see's GW jabs being thrown. Exits...***
To funny.Anyway I only have a little time on here myself since I'm at work.I'm surprised the media isn't mentioning anything about that 7.0 earthqauke that struck those islands.
Global warming? Climate change?? Here in frozen NWFL we are calling it COLD.
Ice on the bayou, temps in the lower 20's-- I'm ready for some warming....

I know there are places snowed in-- but we are not accustomed to these miserable temps.

Yeah- I'm whining. Give back my flip flops!
Quoting oracle28:
Global Warming is no more than a long-range forecast.

We can't predict the low temperature tonight, but we can ABSOLUTELY know that 20 years will be 1 degree C warmer?

Right, and it's going to snow on March 2, 2011 at my house.


Will I get a white Christmas this year?
Quoting washingtonian115:
To funny.Anyway I only have a little time on here myself since I'm at work.I'm surprised the media isn't mentioning anything about that 7.0 earthqauke that struck those islands.


you know I fussed for at least an hour yesterday, begging someone to take a better educated look at the seismos.

Quoting smartinwx:


Will I get a white Christmas this year?


If you do, it will be due to Global Warming!!
Quoting Neapolitan:

I'm sorry you interpret what I'm doing as "shoving down the throat"; I see it more as defending science and scientists from the growing onslaught of anti-intellectualism.

To use your Christianity analogy: no, I wouldn't find it appropriate here on a weather blog if you were to start proselytizing for your religion. However, if you were to be participating in a religious forum, I would certainly expect you to honestly and openly defend your faith if others entered that forum and started telling you things you knew to be false, misleading, or just wrong.

But that's really a weak analogy; Hebrews 11:1 says "...faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," which is a perfectly adequate description for a religious person, but it comes nowhere close to describing the scientific process. IOW, it's faith to believe in something you can't see or even detect, but it's something other than faith to believe what you're seeing with your own eyes. And what I see with my own eyes is a growing mountain of evidence that we humans are messing with the atmosphere and heating up the planet.

In closing: I know at what point to call it quits--and we are nowhere that point. ;-)


Once again, you go back to the way you see it, what if you find out some day all these global Warming theories (more scientifically hypothesis) are wrong? What then? Will you ever learn about what real science is? Real science asks the scientists to always question. To say Global Warming is as scientifically sound as say, the laws of physics or our knowledge of the atom is just ridiculous. Science is always in change, there were many things that are part of everyday science that we used to consider complete science fiction, while other things that were supposedly sound science have now been proven wrong.

If you want to engage in real science, I suggest you keep a humble heart and an open mind.

Believe in Global Warming all you want, but please, if your argument for standing by Global Warming is that it is sound science, then you have on business debating over what sound science is.

I can all but guarantee that the current theories of climate change will change quite significantly as we head into the future.

When it comes to science, our present knowledge is always blinded, maybe that's why us scientific people love science fiction movies and novels as inaccurate as they may be.

Its because in science, there's always limited knowledge and understanding of the present, and there's always more to dream of when looking into the future. The fact that we don't know whats going on very much is part of what makes science more enjoyable

No matter what is really true about what's going on in the atmosphere, we do know enough about it to say its time to change the way we use our resources and use energy. I do agree that we do need to do whatever it takes to lose dependency on fossil fuels, and learn to move on and progress into better energy technology though.
Quoting Jedkins01:



Have you ever heard of metaphors? Comparing communism with debating is a good, one, I guess you didn't get it too well though lol.

Either way, once again, at some point you gotta know when to call it quits.

What if I started bombarding you non-stop with my Christian beliefs? You know to me, eternity is a little more important than life issues like Global Warming. Of course, you would call it "shoving down the throat" or whatever term you prefer to use because you do not believe in such things.

Of course you would also say, its off topic, but so is Global Warming. I know, you would say actually Global Warming is much closer to being on topic than talking about Christianity.

Well think about this, instead of using scrutinization, try getting the big picture. My point is, how would you like as if I likewise aggressively went after you with my Christian beliefs, non stop, because I find you to be a lost person not knowing the truth.

But why do I not do so? Because it is a weather blog, and all it would do is cause endless trouble.

So my question is, will you be a good citizen, and not keep shoving down others throats what you believe to be true, or will you be a choose to be a close minded individual, something you are supposedly against?


Actually communism/socialism is a good analogy when discussing AGW.

Go back and look at how communism/socialism is usually installed in a society and how it is applied to the general population and then look back on the comments of several bloggers here and the similarities become quite scary.

Taking from the rich because they can afford it.

Taking from the common man so that he will be forced to follow your decree.

Filling the pockets of the aristocracy with the spoils of communism/socialism.

Pockets like those who will become billionaires from being middle men in Cap&Trade taxation.

Lowering the standard of living for the common man because of the increase in taxation and because, heck that is what has to be.

Less money means less to spend on things like gasoline and other stuff.

We the Lords of AGW have spoken.


Heard there was another bird kill on the news somewhere
Trying to find out where
Quoting oracle28:
Global Warming is no more than a long-range forecast.

We can't predict the low temperature tonight, but we can ABSOLUTELY know that 20 years will be 1 degree C warmer?

Right, and it's going to snow on March 2, 2011 at my house.

"Climate and weather are very different things, and the level of predictability is comparably different.

"Climate is defined as weather averaged over a period of time -- generally around 30 years. This averaging smooths out the random and unpredictable behaviour of weather. Think of it as the difference between trying to predict the height of the fifth wave from now versus predicting the height of tomorrow's high tide. The former is a challenge -- to which your salty, wet sneakers will bear witness -- but the latter is routine and reliable.

"This is not to say it's easy to predict climate changes. But seizing on meteorologists' failures to cast doubt on a climate model's 100-year projection is an argument of ignorance."

(NOTE: the above was copied and pasted from a GW site; I didn't wish to spend more than 20 seconds or so refuting that particular claim for the 100th time.)
Quoting oracle28:


It is a natural process, Earth has been through MANY "climate changes" in the past, without any assistance from man.



So what!! If you ask the people who are affected by GW they will tell you its not. Lands that have been inhabited for thousands of years are now struggling with massive floods or ice melting beneath their feet.

Why not think that maybe there is something more going on? What's it going to hurt? I don't get all the push back.
Quoting RitaEvac:
Trying to find out where

Find out where cuz we already know what the cause of their death was...global warming of course.
Quoting oracle28:
Global Warming is no more than a long-range forecast.

We can't predict the low temperature tonight, but we can ABSOLUTELY know that 20 years will be 1 degree C warmer?

Right, and it's going to snow on March 2, 2011 at my house.


Um no sorry incorrect - its an observed phenomena and a model-able mechanism explaining climate change.

As a summation of the heat content of the earth under higher retention properties and equal radiation - it will increase. Its not a prediction.

Quoting Jedkins01:


Once again, you go back to the way you see it, what if you find out some day all these global Warming theories (more scientifically hypothesis) are wrong? What then? Will you ever learn about what real science is? Real science asks the scientists to always question. To say Global Warming is as scientifically sound as say, the laws of physics or our knowledge of the atom is just ridiculous. Science is always in change, there were many things that are part of everyday science that we used to consider complete science fiction, while other things that were supposedly sound science have now been proven wrong.

If you want to engage in real science, I suggest you keep a humble heart and an open mind.

Believe in Global Warming all you want, but please, if your argument for standing by

As I've said many times here and elsewhere: if the planet starts cooling and if the majority of climate scientists announce they were wrong and if my own copious research shows that the AGW theory was fatally flawed, yes, I will eat tons of crow, and publicly announce how wrong I was. But based on current science, the chance of that happening is roughly zero, so I'm not too worried...

Take care...
Quoting breald:



So what!! If you ask the people who are affected by GW they will tell you its not. Lands that have been inhabited for thousands of years are now struggling with massive floods or ice melting beneath their feet.

Why not think that maybe there is something more going on? What's it going to hurt? I don't get all the push back.



Its called random weather events.

To tie these events to AGW is nonsense.


I love when someone rants about "socialism" on the largest free collective government researched and built, internationally regulated common communication system ever.

i.e. the Internet.

lol. What a disaster. You've got to be kidding.


Quoting aquak9:


you know I fussed for at least an hour yesterday, begging someone to take a better educated look at the seismos.

Their's a video a couple of pages back that have the earthquake registerd as a 7.0.
Quoting breald:



So what!! If you ask the people who are affected by GW they will tell you its not. Lands that have been inhabited for thousands of years are now struggling with massive floods or ice melting beneath their feet.

Why not think that maybe there is something more going on? What's it going to hurt? I don't get all the push back.


Lands have had floods and ice and warmth at varying times during the past 4-5 billion years, this phenomenon is indeed new to HUMANS, but not new to earth.

I heard Everest is still rising, it must be due to man made global swelling.
Quoting oracle28:
Global Warming is no more than a long-range forecast.

We can't predict the low temperature tonight, but we can ABSOLUTELY know that 20 years will be 1 degree C warmer?

Right, and it's going to snow on March 2, 2011 at my house.

And the prediction becomes an agenda, a politically motivated one, when folks believe only what they want to hear, and still refuse to keep an open mind to the many scientists that aren't onboard with AGW.
Quoting Neapolitan:

As I've said many times here and elsewhere: if the planet starts cooling and if the majority of climate scientists announce they were wrong and if my own copious research shows that the AGW theory was fatally flawed, yes, I will eat tons of crow, and publicly announce how wrong I was. But based on current science, the chance of that happening is roughly zero, so I'm not too worried...

Take care...


Where I heard that before.

Hmmm

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Your belief that your position is absolute has lead you to your admitted arrogance.


Quoting calusakat:



Its called random weather events.

To tie these events to AGW is nonsense.




Um incorrect -

Climate IS the total summation of weather events over a accepted extended period.



Climate

1
: a region of the earth having specified climatic conditions
2
a : the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation b : the prevailing set of conditions (as of temperature and humidity) indoors
3
: the prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period : atmosphere

Quoting JFLORIDA:


Um incorrect -

Climate IS the total summation of weather events over a defined period.

Wrong try again
Quoting JFLORIDA:


Um incorrect -

Climate IS the total summation of weather events over a defined period.


If you can sum it, you can divide it.

So divide it down for me, what will the high temperature in Chicago be on January 14, 2031?
Quoting breald:



So what!! If you ask the people who are affected by GW they will tell you its not. Lands that have been inhabited for thousands of years are now struggling with massive floods or ice melting beneath their feet.

Why not think that maybe there is something more going on? What's it going to hurt? I don't get all the push back.

To rush to judgement and convieniently conclude "because it was global warming" is a frivalous correlation. I have news for you...floods been occurring for a long time on this planet.
Quoting Neapolitan:

As I've said many times here and elsewhere: if the planet starts cooling and if the majority of climate scientists announce they were wrong and if my own copious research shows that the AGW theory was fatally flawed, yes, I will eat tons of crow, and publicly announce how wrong I was. But based on current science, the chance of that happening is roughly zero, so I'm not too worried...

Take care...



Sir I don't believe the Earth is cooling, neither is there any science to support it, my point is our understanding of why the Earth is warming, and how it will really effect things is truly limited as is always the case with science.


Because of the nature of science, in that old theories are laways being proven wrong, and knew knowledge always being discovered, its ridiculous to be so darn sure and passionate over a scientific theory that will change.

As I say again, one thing we can both agree on, is its time to leave the old ways of trashing our planet behind, and improve our ways of handling the earth, we do have the technology to do so.

The hard part is somehow getting big business to comply, that is the dirty and nasty part, lol
Twisting motion still north of Panama in the same damn spot as yesterday, just what the hell does it think it's doing.
Quoting oracle28:


If you can sum it, you can divide it.

So divide it down for me, what will the high temperature in Chicago be on January 14, 2031?


definition


2 a : a statement expressing the essential nature of something b : a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol c : a product of defining
757. Jax82
We can bicker in here all day long, point fingers, say who is right who is wrong. The AGW extremists probably drive gas guzzling SUV's. The naturalists probably drive ford fusions. But this much is true:

The Earth = 4,540,000,000 +/- years old

Accurate record keeping = 100 +/- years old
Quoting oracle28:


Lands have had floods and ice and warmth at varying times during the past 4-5 billion years, this phenomenon is indeed new to HUMANS, but not new to earth.

I heard Everest is still rising, it must be due to man made global swelling.

You know, last year my lawn was pretty dry. In fact, the lawns in my neighborhood were looking pretty burnt out all summer. We all just asumed it was a dry summer, but maybe we should go back and re-evaulate. Global drying maybe? Stay tuned and I'll let you know.
Quoting oracle28:
Global Warming is no more than a long-range forecast.

We can't predict the low temperature tonight, but we can ABSOLUTELY know that 20 years will be 1 degree C warmer?

Right, and it's going to snow on March 2, 2011 at my house.



Quoting Jax82:
We can bicker in here all day long, point fingers, say who is right who is wrong. The AGW extremists probably drive gas guzzling SUV's. The naturalists probably drive ford fusions. But this much is true:

The Earth = 4,540,000,000 +/- years old

Accurate record keeping = 100 +/- years old

EXACTLY
Quoting Jedkins01:



Glad to see you get the big picture...

"Climate and weather are very different things, and the level of predictability is comparably different.

"Climate is defined as weather averaged over a period of time -- generally around 30 years. This averaging smooths out the random and unpredictable behaviour of weather. Think of it as the difference between trying to predict the height of the fifth wave from now versus predicting the height of tomorrow's high tide. The former is a challenge -- to which your salty, wet sneakers will bear witness -- but the latter is routine and reliable.

"This is not to say it's easy to predict climate changes. But seizing on meteorologists' failures to cast doubt on a climate model's 100-year projection is an argument of ignorance."

(NOTE: the above was copied and pasted from a GW site; I didn't wish to spend waste more than 20 seconds or so refuting that particular claim for the 101st time.) ;-)
Ignoring the issue of GW being real or not, what do we have to loose by being careful with our resources and changing to renewable sources even if we let the same old crooks run the show, but now with more sustainable tools?


I don't understand why theres the whole stubborn sentimental angry old man attitude, so that they can jump in their gas guzzlers if they want to, because thats the way they like it. Make me wonder what happened to my great great grandpa when the tracker replaced the horse, did he stick to his guns, or was he wise enough?
Quoting Jax82:
We can bicker in here all day long, point fingers, say who is right who is wrong. The AGW extremists probably drive gas guzzling SUV's. The naturalists probably drive ford fusions. But this much is true:

The Earth = 4,540,000,000 /- years old

Accurate record keeping = 100 /- years old


Ad hominem


An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue

So YOU think we should discus Morality? Denial is a Moral issue?

Quoting oracle28:


It is a natural process, Earth has been through MANY "climate changes" in the past, without any assistance from man.


If global warming was a nice peaceful ride to Jurassic Park, I wouldn't be concerned either. It's not; it's trillions in costs, billions of deaths, and the end of life as we know it when it happens suddenly.
Quoting cat5hurricane:

EXACTLY


The DONT DISCUS IT. Obviously you cant grasp even the most basic defined parameters.

WHY DO YOU HAVE TO SHUT ALL CONVERSATION DOWN BECAUSE YOU CANNOT MAKE A SINGLE VALID ARGUMENT?



Why do denialists INSIST on commenting on GW if they know nothing or very little about it, refuse to learn and refuse reason as a argumentative mechanism?

Thats not even respect for free speech.
GW?, were not changing, for nobody, and that's the way we like it...

SQUAWK!!!!!

( just for you, Neap.... )
Quoting Neapolitan:

"Climate and weather are very different things, and the level of predictability is comparably different.

"Climate is defined as weather averaged over a period of time -- generally around 30 years. This averaging smooths out the random and unpredictable behaviour of weather. Think of it as the difference between trying to predict the height of the fifth wave from now versus predicting the height of tomorrow's high tide. The former is a challenge -- to which your salty, wet sneakers will bear witness -- but the latter is routine and reliable.

"This is not to say it's easy to predict climate changes. But seizing on meteorologists' failures to cast doubt on a climate model's 100-year projection is an argument of ignorance."

(NOTE: the above was copied and pasted from a GW site; I didn't wish to spend waste more than 20 seconds or so refuting that particular claim for the 101st time.) ;-)


I am only saying that, because the whole point hes trying to make is exactly what I said, science is in itself, never sound. Science is always something we are learning more about, and is always in change. Yes you are right forecasting the weather and climate science may be different, but what is similar is are limited and always changing perspective and understanding of how it works.

I am just very thankful that me being a an extreme enthusiast of weather science, am living in modern times. It would have sucked to be a meteorologist 100 years ago, lol.
GW?, were not changing, for nobody, and that's the way we like it...

Repeat:

GW?, were not changing, for nobody, and that's the way we like it...

All together now:

GW?, were not changing, for nobody, and that's the way we like it...
The Earth = 4,540,000,000 +/- years old

Accurate record keeping = 100 +/- years old



Thank you!!!!!!!!

:)
Quoting cat5hurricane:

You know, last year my lawn was pretty dry. In fact, the lawns in my neighborhood were looking pretty burnt out all summer. We all just asumed it was a dry summer, but maybe we should go back and re-evaulate. Global drying maybe? Stay tuned and I'll let you know.


Global drying and global swelling are all caused by global warming, didn't you hear?

Science has proved it beyond a doubt.

a2+b2=c2

man+earth=global warming

It's SCIENCE, just like SCIENCE said global cooling back in the 70s.
Quoting JFLORIDA:


The DONT DISCUS IT. Obviously you cant grasp even the most basic defined parameters.

WHY DO YOU HAVE TO SHUT ALL CONVERSATION DOWN BECAUSE YOU CANNOT MAKE A SINGLE VALID ARGUMENT?



Why do denialists INSIST on commenting on GW if they know nothing or very little about it, refuse to learn and refuse reason as a argumentative mechanism?

Thats not even respect for free speech.

I'm having a discussion and making points just like you man. Sorry if we don't see eye to eye. Try the ignore button if you aren't on board with what I am saying. Or continue to whine like a baby. The ball's in your court.
Quoting JFLORIDA:
The Dunning-Kruger effect and the climate debate

One of the best titles for a scientific paper has to be the Ig Nobel prize winning "Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments". The paper compares people's skill levels to their own assessment of their abilities. In hindsight, the result seems self-evident. Unskilled people lack the skill to rate their own level of competence. This leads to the unfortunate result that unskilled people rate themselves higher than more competent people. The phenomenon is known as the Dunning-Kruger effect, named after the paper's authors, and is often seen in the climate debate. There are
many with a cursory understanding who believe they're discovered fundamental flaws in climate science that have somehow been overlooked or ignored by climate scientists.






And skilled people NEVER make mistakes or invalid conclusions.
See: Narcissism.
Quoting oracle28:


Global drying and global swelling are all caused by global warming, didn't you hear?

Science has proved it beyond a doubt.

a2+b2=c2

man+earth=global warming

It's SCIENCE, just like SCIENCE said global cooling back in the 70s.

Oh man! I couldn't stop hearing that back in the wake of those winters about the coming of the next ice age and global cooling. I even thought about investing in igloo stock during that time. Mercy. I guess it was the trendy topic...the thing to talk about when weather decides to get warm or cold. It's weather. It does that, ya know.
Quoting greentortuloni:


If global warming was a nice peaceful ride to Jurassic Park, I wouldn't be concerned either. It's not; it's trillions in costs, billions of deaths, and the end of life as we know it when it happens suddenly.

Perhaps the cost seem so much greater now than a hundred years ago because:

a) inflation

b) maybe it has something to do with so many more folks moving to the coast along flood and disaster prone areas in the last hundred years.

Just a thought.
maybe it was the Birkenstocks....wearing those 24/7 would tend to make anyone think the world was ending....
Yawn!
How were they figuring global cooling back in the 70s anyway?
post 779.....

best post today!

:)
Quoting oracle28:


And skilled people NEVER make mistakes or invalid conclusions.
See: Narcissism.


Again:

Ad hominem

An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.

So YOU think we should discus Morality? Denial is a Moral issue?

Is making an unethical and unreasonable argument moral?
Post 772 has been posted at least 3 or 4 times on this blog I'm marking it as spam.
Quoting RitaEvac:
GW?, were not changing, for nobody, and that's the way we like it...

Repeat:

GW?, were not changing, for nobody, and that's the way we like it...

All together now:

GW?, were not changing, for nobody, and that's the way we like it...


GW?, were not changing, for nobody, and that's the way we like it...

Repeat:

GW?, were not changing, for nobody, and that's the way we like it...

All together now:

GW?, were not changing, for nobody, and that's the way we like it...
Quoting RitaEvac:
How were they figuring global cooling back in the 70s anyway?


There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an
imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated
the peer-reviewed literature even then.


Tell me when you decide to make factual and reasonable comments please so I don't skip over everything you say.
Post #779
+1000 !!!
Wouldn't it be wonderful if current weather discussions could return to the blog???
Quoting RitaEvac:
How were they figuring global cooling back in the 70s anyway?

Simple. The same flawed, inconclusive, and frivalous research they are using today to conclude the globe is warming.

Quoting JFLORIDA:


There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an
imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated
the peer-reviewed literature even then.

Tell me when you decide to make factual and reasonable comments please so I don't skip over everything you say.

So they were just stupid and wrong?
Quoting HaloReachFan:
Post 772 has been posted at least 3 or 4 times on this blog I'm marking it as spam.


As opposed to quoting unreasonable and fake arguments and attempts at humor just below?- Obviously you haven't read it yet.

If you ignore me all my posts will go away.

BTW when I click show good or best - yours disappear.
Quoting RitaEvac:


So they were just stupid and wrong?


They were a FABRICATION by the popular press - probably because it was cold out at the time.

They were a FABRICATION by the popular press - probably because it was cold out at the time.

so then today....They were a FABRICATION by the popular press - probably because it was WARM out at the time
Quoting JFLORIDA:


As opposed to quoting unreasonable and fake arguments and attempts at humor just below?- Obviously you haven't read it yet.

If you ignore me all my posts will go away.

BTW when I click show good or best - yours disappear.


Do I care if I disappear does it upset me? Am I starting to cry right now oh well maybe a fake cry. My life doesn't revolve around this site as yours does so good I hope I'm hidden that way when people scream "other countries can see this and little kids" well actually they can't see me thanks to Florida.

Just post different information tired of you posting the same thing over and over you didn't even find it you took it from somebody else.
http://www.sierraclub.org/coal/
Instead of trying to convince the deniers that it is warming and that the earth isn't flat lets fight against coal. The worst part of the problem.
Summit, Greenland forecast low is -92 for tonight which would beat the all-time record coldest temperature in the northern hemisphere of -90 set in Verkhoyansk, Russia in 5/2/1892, 7/2/1892 and Oimaykon, Russia  6/2/1933.
What do you think of this JFLORIDA?

Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.
Quoting HaloReachFan:


Do I care if I disappear does it upset me? Am I starting to cry right now oh well maybe a fake cry. My life doesn't revolve around this site as yours does so good I hope I'm hidden that way when people scream "other countries can see this and little kids" well actually they can't see me thanks to Florida.

Just post different information tired of you posting the same thing over and over you didn't even find it you took it from somebody else.


Im, tired of your unreasonable posts I would post the Ad hominem DEFINITION again but obviously you cant even grasp the most basic definition or the meaning of the term itself.

No to mention logical fallacies. Which basically mean you are wrong. But you probably don't even realize that.

Bye - switching the filter back to good.
Quoting HaloReachFan:


Do I care if I disappear does it upset me? Am I starting to cry right now oh well maybe a fake cry. My life doesn't revolve around this site as yours does so good I hope I'm hidden that way when people scream "other countries can see this and little kids" well actually they can't see me thanks to Florida.

Just post different information tired of you posting the same thing over and over you didn't even find it you took it from somebody else.



hey man, nice name!
when did this turn in too a GW blog i think we have a blog for this
Quoting jwh250:
Summit, Greenland forecast is -92 for tonight which would beat the all-time record coldest temperature in the northern hemisphere set in Verkhoyansk, Russia in 5/2/1892, 7/2/1892 and Oimaykon, Russia  6/2/1933.


The Earth is warming but they might beat the all time record for coldest temp in the northern hemisphere that's incredible. Imagine if it was cooling down.
Quoting JFLORIDA:


Im, tired of your unreasonable posts I would post the Ad hominem DEFINITION again but obviously you cant even grasp the most basic definition or the meaning of the term itself.

No to mention logical fallacies. Which basically mean you are wrong. But you probably don't even realize that.

Bye - switching the filter back to good.


WHINE. That's all you do. Really am I the only one that sees it? Actually I'm not as I can already tell you are flustered today thanks to some good people.
Quoting HaloReachFan:
What do you think of this JFLORIDA?

Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.


Now finally you bring that up. So its an accumulating excess. How would it not matter. If only a fixed amount can be absorbed any amount over that would eventually cause problems.

Why do you think the oceans are acidifying?

There is an excess. That excess traps heat.
Quoting HaloReachFan:
What do you think of this JFLORIDA?

Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.


You also are only stating 1 of the many greenhouse gases that effect the atmosphere.

The bigger problem is this here, we can all argue here about whether or not we are effecting climate change directly or indirectly, but the FACT remains, our climate is changing in a way in which we as a species are going to have to adapt to.

Quoting Tazmanian:
when did this turn in too a GW blog i think we have a blog for this


Taz its a weather and climate blog. Im pretty much over discussing GW and prefer climate change - but we cant even get past basic definitions and reasonably discus the science of weather and climate for political reasons here.
804. DEKRE
Quoting RitaEvac:
How were they figuring global cooling back in the 70s anyway?


No scientist did.
The "Global Warming" debate actually started in the 70's. I myself was one of the first to point out the CO2 problematic; this was in 72 or 73, I don't really remember, too long ago
I'm adapting just fine.
Quoting JFLORIDA:


Now finally you bring that up. So its an accumulating excess. How would it not matter. If only a fixed amount can be absorbed any amount over that would eventually cause problems.

Why do you think the oceans are acidifying?

There is an excess. That excess traps heat.


How many parts per million is C02 at now?
Quoting ILwthrfan:


You also are only stating 1 of the many greenhouse gases that effect the atmosphere.

The bigger problem is this here, we can all argue here about whether or not we are effecting climate change directly or indirectly, but the FACT remains, our climate is changing in a way in which we as a species are going to have to adapt to.

Good thing, too. If we had just continued on the obvious trend of colder and colder in that plot...
Quoting ILwthrfan:


You also are only stating 1 of the many greenhouse gases that effect the atmosphere.

The bigger problem is this here, we can all argue here about whether or not we are effecting climate change directly or indirectly, but the FACT remains, our climate is changing in a way in which we as a species are going to have to adapt to.



That graph uses a timeline from 1961-1990 as a base for the graph. Seems unfair to use what 29 years as a guideline. Also when did official records start being kept on temperature? 1875ish? The seems even fairer to place blame on humans although maybe its the temperature of humans causing the rise more humans=hotter temperature that is fact. But until something drastic comes out there is no need for us to change our daily routine (go back to the stone ages) to stop something that we are not causing.
Quoting JFLORIDA:

"...Unskilled people lack the skill to rate their own level of competence..."

And we see this fact in the climate science community, also. There are many "skilled" people that may have an understanding in one field (physics), that have little to no understanding in other fields (statistics).

Which leads to an unfortunate result that some skilled people rate themselves higher than thse who actually have a degree in the field they're using to make their claim.

To say that one scientist, because of his fields, his papers, or his background has a higher understanding of EVERYTHING in all other fields is also part of this "Dunning-Kruger effect".

There are many with a degree in one field who believe they're discovered fundamental TRUTHS in the science that have somehow been overlooked or ignored by those in other fields.

This is drummed into us, over and over, particularly in this blog.

To say that only a select group of scientists, degreed in a select range of fields, who have written papers that have been reviewed and published in journals acceptable only to them, who will not let others more competent in other fields review their data, and make the charts based on data that only they can have, are the only ones we should listen to is absurd.
Quoting HaloReachFan:


How many parts per million is C02 at now?


Its global but today around 390 ppm I imagine. And before we get the amateur concentration assessments please read up.

OBSERVATIONS
The Dunning-Kruger effect IS an ad hominem argument
810 I can't read anything because it went off the screen part and is hidden.
Quoting hcubed:
Quoting JFLORIDA:

"...Unskilled people lack the skill to rate their own level of competence..."

And we see this fact in the climate science community, also. There are many "skilled" people that may have an understanding in one field (physics), that have little to no understanding in other fields (statistics).

Which leads to an unfortunate result that some skilled people rate themselves higher than thse who actually have a degree in the field they're using to make their claim.

To say that one scientist, because of his fields, his papers, or his background has a higher understanding of EVERYTHING in all other fields is also part of this "Dunning-Kruger effect".

There are many with a degree in one field who believe they're discovered fundamental TRUTHS in the science that have somehow been overlooked or ignored by those in other fields.

This is drummed into us, over and over, particularly in this blog.

To say that only a select group of scientists, degreed in a select range of fields, who have written papers that have been reviewed and published in journals acceptable only to them, who will not let others more competent in other fields review their data, and make the charts based on data that only they can have, are the only ones we should listen to is absurd.

Actually YOU say that - YOU are being absurd.

 I say if we should listen to you, you should be able to handle basic definitions and understand how to reference and correctly logically argue a point.
I see I can just click the link.

Has C02 ever been higher than it is today?
Quoting hcubed:
Quoting JFLORIDA:

"...Unskilled people lack the skill to rate their own level of competence..."

And we see this fact in the climate science community, also. There are many "skilled" people that may have an understanding in one field (physics), that have little to no understanding in other fields (statistics).

Which leads to an unfortunate result that some skilled people rate themselves higher than thse who actually have a degree in the field they're using to make their claim.

To say that one scientist, because of his fields, his papers, or his background has a higher understanding of EVERYTHING in all other fields is also part of this "Dunning-Kruger effect".

There are many with a degree in one field who believe they're discovered fundamental TRUTHS in the science that have somehow been overlooked or ignored by those in other fields.

This is drummed into us, over and over, particularly in this blog.

To say that only a select group of scientists, degreed in a select range of fields, who have written papers that have been reviewed and published in journals acceptable only to them, who will not let others more competent in other fields review their data, and make the charts based on data that only they can have, are the only ones we should listen to is absurd.


Hey don't DARE question the Monarchs and Lords of Global Warming! lol
Oh yay, it's in the 50s again!
KI4FIA - Daytona Beach (Ponce Inlet), FL, Daytona Beach, Florida (PWS)
Updated: 3 sec ago
55.5 °F
By the way, perhaps now is a good time to interject this little lesson:
Everything You Know Is Wrong 1: Us and Them
November 1, 2007
Summary
Good reasoning doesn’t come naturally. In fact, humans are instinctively terrible reasoners—most of the time, the way our brains work isn’t rational at all. Even with exceptional training in analytical thinking, we still have to overcome instincts to think simplistically and non-analytically. In this lesson, students explore some of the irrational ways in which humans think, and learn to recognize and overcome the habits of mind that can get in the way of good reasoning. Here we focus on the ways that people define themselves and others—how we develop our personal and group identities, how we treat people whose identities are similar or different, and how this affects our perceptions and our ability to reason.

For the full tutorial, please click on Link
Quoting HaloReachFan:


That graph uses a timeline from 1961-1990 as a base for the graph. Seems unfair to use what 29 years as a guideline. Also when did official records start being kept on temperature? 1875ish? The seems even fairer to place blame on humans although maybe its the temperature of humans causing the rise more humans=hotter temperature that is fact. But until something drastic comes out there is no need for us to change our daily routine (go back to the stone ages) to stop something that we are not causing.


Okay, even if your right, and the current warming trend is purely part of the natural cycle. The global temperature is still rising? Overpopulation versus our ability to supply fresh water is becoming an ever steeper climb especially in poverty strictened nations. Also if the freqency of extreme events is increasing along with the increase in global temperature. Think how these storms can economically cripple a nation, Katrina, N'easter after N'easter. These are having devastating effects on us. How about the dramatic increase in cancer rates of people living near industrial zones? These emmissions are harmful for us and all living things. Why not look for a greener way? Whats stopping us other than us being lazy and corrupt?
Quoting oracle28:
The Dunning-Kruger effect IS an ad hominem argument


It is in a way, on the grounds of expertise, but a valid one. Because it is a referenced physiological study relating to validity of this type of  arguments.  Read the definition again and the conditions for use.

There are definitions and rules for discussing topics reasonably. You cant make up things as you go. Its not valid.
Quoting cat5hurricane:

To rush to judgement and convieniently conclude "because it was global warming" is a frivalous correlation. I have news for you...floods been occurring for a long time on this planet.


What if it isn't a cycle? But, for the sake of argument, lets say it is a cycle. Why not do SOMETHING to better our environment anyway? What is the problem with wind farms, or alternate energy that will not be as harsh on our environment regardless?
BTW for future reference:

post 810 formatted wrong. Firefox wouldn't let me correct it - Chrome would.
Quoting Chicklit:
Oh yay, it's in the 50s again!
KI4FIA - Daytona Beach (Ponce Inlet), FL, Daytona Beach, Florida (PWS)
Updated: 3 sec ago
55.5 F
By the way, perhaps now is a good time to interject this little lesson:
Everything You Know Is Wrong 1: Us and Them
November 1, 2007
Summary
Good reasoning doesn%u2019t come naturally. In fact, humans are instinctively terrible reasoners%u2014most of the time, the way our brains work isn%u2019t rational at all. Even with exceptional training in analytical thinking, we still have to overcome instincts to think simplistically and non-analytically. In this lesson, students explore some of the irrational ways in which humans think, and learn to recognize and overcome the habits of mind that can get in the way of good reasoning. Here we focus on the ways that people define themselves and others%u2014how we develop our personal and group identities, how we treat people whose identities are similar or different, and how this affects our perceptions and our ability to reason.

For the full tutorial, please click on Link


Maybe its cause we are designed to not be dead computer systems. Not everything in life can be explained through reason. Reason has its place in life, however we should be thankful are brains aren't all wired towards reason.
Quoting jwh250:
Summit, Greenland forecast low is -92 for tonight which would beat the all-time record coldest temperature in the northern hemisphere of -90 set in Verkhoyansk, Russia in 5/2/1892, 7/2/1892 and Oimaykon, Russia  6/2/1933.


And just think, without the 8 tenths of a degree of warming we've seen in the past century, it might be only -92.8 degrees...
Have you dug out yet in New England. I see my old stomping grounds in New Hampshire got pounded pretty good
Quoting breald:


What if it isn't a cycle? But, for the sake of argument, lets say it is a cycle. Why not do SOMETHING to better our environment anyway? What is the problem with wind farms, or alternate energy that will not be as harsh on our environment regardless?


YES! Exactly. How about the use of Tidal force? Solar energy ect. There are things out there that have zero negative feed back.
Quoting HaloReachFan:


How many parts per million is C02 at now?

Roughly 100ppm more than it was just 150 years ago. All those other interglacial cycles over the eons saw CO2 rise and fall by roughly that same 100ppm--but those rises and falls were spread out over 5,000 to 20,000 years.

There's no arguing point in the contrarian quiver that's been more definitively disproven than the one that says the current CO2 rise is natural.

(BTW: the sum total of all CO2 vented by active volcanoes amounts to about 1/150th of anthropogenic emissions. Just so you know.)
Quoting ILwthrfan:


Okay, even if your right, and the current warming trend is purely part of the natural cycle. The global temperature is still rising? Overpopulation versus our ability to supply fresh water is becoming an ever steeper climb especially in poverty strictened nations. Also if the freqency of extreme events is increasing along with the increase in global temperature. Think how these storms can economically cripple a nation, Katrina, N'easter after N'easter. These are having devastating effects on us. How about the dramatic increase in cancer rates of people living near industrial zones? These emmissions are harmful for us and all living things. Why not look for a greener way? Whats stopping us other than us being lazy and corrupt?


Almost everything you said above can be easily explainable.

The overpopulation issue isn't for this really I was just making a point about body temperatures.

the extreme events might not actually be rising. How great do you think their instruments were back in the day on detected Earthquakes, Hurricanes, Tornados and other extreme events? They couldn't of grasped all of them. We still might not today but we are a lot closer today than any time in the past.

Same thing for cancer. Can you go back in time and say this person has cancer? Technology is saving us.

What your post really says is it is time that we just stop using everything and go back into the stone ages.
Quoting Jedkins01:

...we should be thankful are brains aren't all wired towards reason.

Some folks' brains clearly aren't; I'll agree with you there. You can find a lot of them hanging around over at WattsUpWithThat.com... ;-)
Quoting breald:
About the whole GW debate, I guess it is easier for some to say "it is a natural process" so they don't have to do anything about it. They don't have to reflect on it. It is always easier to wash your hands of it than to really think about it.

In the mean time, 20 years have gone by and islands that once housed millions of people are underwater. But its a natural cycle. (rolling my eyes)
After reflecting...

And once upon a time, not that long ago, people inhabited the Mississippi River delta. The one that used to extend east of New Orleans. To the present-day Chandeleur Islands. Once was a larger area of land than the present delta, now almost completely open water.

And the transition was entirely natural. The horror.

And once upon a time, in the Bahamas, the water level was 90 feet below present day. People lived there. Patterns on the ocean floor suggest ruins of man-made structures. But nature took away where those people lived. Either that or a Sabre-toothed Jaguar SUV did. You decide.
Quoting ILwthrfan:


YES! Exactly. How about the use of Tidal force? Solar energy ect. There are things out there that have zero negative feed back.


TUNNELS!
Quoting cat5hurricane:

I'm having a discussion and making points just like you man. Sorry if we don't see eye to eye. Try the ignore button if you aren't on board with what I am saying. Or continue to whine like a baby. The ball's in your court.


No, actually you think you're making points. What you're actually doing is showing you can't actually converse about the science, so you try to score dumb conversational points.
AMY!!!!!!!
Quoting Neapolitan:

Roughly 100ppm more than we were 150 years ago. All those other interglacial cycles over the eons saw CO2 rise and fall by roughly that same 100ppm--but those rises and falls were spread out over 5,000 to 20,000 years.

There's no arguing point in the contrarian quiver that's been more definitively disproven than the one that says the current CO2 rise is natural.

(BTW: the sum total of all CO2 vented by active volcanoes amounts to about 1/150th of anthropogenic emissions. Just so you know.)
We don't necessarily know that which you say here.

Ice cores of CO2 do not fully convey the variability of CO2 concentration on smaller time scales. Think of it as a 100 to 300 year average (which is variable).
Quoting JFLORIDA:



No, just that everything isnt based in your ignorant, simplistic political opinion or should be the topic for inane commentary. Right?

Unreasoned opinion IS factored out of scientific argument by necessity.

post 832...... finally!!

:)
Quoting Tazmanian:
when did this turn in too a GW blog i think we have a blog for this


Does anyone realize that there are THREE TROPICAL CYCLONES in the Indian Ocean right now?
Quoting Jedkins01:


Maybe its cause we are designed to not be dead computer systems. Not everything in life can be explained through reason. Reason has its place in life, however we should be thankful are brains aren't all wired towards reason.


This is true. We are only part rational.
Quoting breald:


What if it isn't a cycle? But, for the sake of argument, lets say it is a cycle. Why not do SOMETHING to better our environment anyway? What is the problem with wind farms, or alternate energy that will not be as harsh on our environment regardless?


Oh that I agree with, in fact Ive been saying that all along. I can almost assure you that in the near future, the theories about Climate change and Global Warming will change dramatically. Old ideas will be cast out and proven wrong and new ideas will eventually become new theories as we learn more, its part of science.


What we do know though, is that we certainly are polluting the air. The fact that we don't know for sure how we are affecting it should move us to be better stewards of this planet that has been given to us for its awesome support of life. Even if we can prove we haven't affected the climate drastically, we are still polluting and trashing the Earth. Why not replace the old technology with new technology that will help clean our environment while also increasing energy efficiency.

A great example is, right now, electric engines are just starting to achieve practical use, but much of that is do to the fact that gasoline still rules with an iron fist.

If demand were to dramatically cast out gasoline engines, and replace them with electric, not only would we afford to develop much more powerful electric engine, but they would also become much more affordable.

I personally can't afford a hybrid car, neither do hybrids offer the power I need that a v8 heavy duty engine does in a truck. But heck if we could topple the oil industry, and fund what it takes to build powerful electric engines that can match and outmatch gasoline engines. I would much rather have an electric 4X4 truck than a gas one if it became practical.

Electric engines actually have a much higher potential for power as we look to the future, and guess what? No emissions! The hard part is getting to that place, toppling greedy industries isn't an easy feat...
Daniel Goleman has written a couple excellent books on his theory of Emotional Intelligence.
Quoting Neapolitan:

Some folks' brains clearly aren't; I'll agree with you there. You can find a lot of them hanging around over at WattsUpWithThat.com... ;-)

I wouldn't necessarily call CNN and Al Gore's research very reliable information sources either my friend.
Quoting JFLORIDA:

Back at you.

And I am flagging his comment also.

I didn't think the absurd comment was appropriate or constructive. Its not funny when people are annoying or disruptive to me.


Calling anyone else's opinion ignorant is not acceptable and leads this place in a bad direction. Flagging posts not conforming to the Community Standards should be expected. Especially by you.

And, no, you aren't given any more latitude than any troll that does the same. You may be special, but not that special.

And this isn't JFLORALA's blog. This is Dr. M's blog. "Annoying or disruptive" to you isn't at all important...
http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2011/01/december-update-current-usa-cooling.html

Seems like it's cooling here.
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Back at you. petty and ignorant of you too BTW.

And I am flagging his comment also.

I didn't think the absurd comment was appropriate or constructive. Its not funny when people are annoying or disruptive to me.




You can dish it out but you can't take it. Typical.
Quoting FFtrombi:


No, actually you think you're making points. What you're actually doing is showing you can't actually converse about the science, so you try to score dumb conversational points.

Where have you been the past couple hours? Not contributing. You have to put in some work around here before comments such as that warrant any merit.

Quoting Jedkins01:


Maybe its cause we are designed to not be dead computer systems. Not everything in life can be explained through reason. Reason has its place in life, however we should be thankful are brains aren't all wired towards reason.

All constructive argument, conversation and discourse and therefore all collective knowledge is based in Reason.

Everything in the natural universe is unreasonable until reasoned.

Everything we are collectively and constructively comes from reason.

1rea·son
a (1) : the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : intelligence (2) : proper exercise of the mind (3) : sanity b : the sum of the intellectual powers
846

I enjoy how you are an expert on EVERYTHING. If somebody doesn't agree on your expertise then they are casted out as ignorant and annoying.
Gee, now we just need SSIGG to come back in here...
Quoting Cochise111:
http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2011/01/december-update-current-usa-cooling.html

Seems like it's cooling here.


Yea Levi put that on a graph yesterday and was told it was wrong even when JFLORIDA failed to even test it out he just assumed it was wrong.
"...Unskilled people lack the skill to rate their own level of competence..."

What is it, then that determines the skill of an individual?

I'm not a doctor. So to other doctors, and the rest of the world, I'm unskilled in the field of medicine. I have the ability to rate that incompetence, accept it, and ask for help from the medical community.

I'm also not a statistician. To other statisticians, and to the rest of the world, I'm unskilled in statistics.

Would you believe anything I posted if it concerned statistics?

Shouldn't I ask for help from those who ARE skilled in the field?

If any scientist were to admit he was not a statistician, would you believe anything they wrote if statistics were used?
Quoting NRAamy:
post 832...... finally!!

:)


Yup. Hard at work and didn't have time to check the morning fiasco. LOL
Quoting HaloReachFan:
846

I enjoy how you are an expert on EVERYTHING. If somebody doesn't agree on your expertise then they are casted out as ignorant and annoying.

Sounds like an agenda to me. Seems like JFLORIDA only hears what he wants to hear to fulfill that prophecy. Seems like he only believes what he wants to believe, regardless of evidence presented by scientists that just so happens to refute AWG.

I got one a new term for him. Try "brainwashing". I keep hearing ad hominem thrown around. Let's keep an open mind to what really might be going on.

Oh, and you saw post 810 folks. Everyone do your homework now and read up!

I like where post 819 was going with wind farms. I like that idea. That's cool.

Quoting hcubed:
"...Unskilled people lack the skill to rate their own level of competence..."

What is it, then that determines the skill of an individual?

I'm not a doctor. So to other doctors, and the rest of the world, I'm unskilled in the field of medicine. I have the ability to rate that incompetence, accept it, and ask for help from the medical community.

I'm also not a statistician. To other statisticians, and to the rest of the world, I'm unskilled in statistics.

Would you believe anything I posted if it concerned statistics?

Shouldn't I ask for help from those who ARE skilled in the field?

If any scientist were to admit he was not a statistician, would you believe anything they wrote if statistics were used?
What does anything mean? - why do we bother with definitions and reasonable referenced discussion anyway? 

Why even ask if the answer will be rendered meaningless by a lack of grounding in reality?
Quoting the IPCC like post 810 did mean's nothing to the real world. They are liars and complete fools who make up facts some of the "brainwashed" folks listen to. That is all truth. I was told I would have an ocean in my backyard well it hasn't even made its way to me yet IPCC. Nobody likes you go away!!!!
Quoting HaloReachFan:
Can we retitle this blog Dr. M?

It should be something like "JFLORIDA'S 2nd Personal Blog. I know all"
 Inappropriate. Unreasoned and unethical.
new blog
BTW HaloReachFan:

You have yet to make a SINGLE referenced and legitimate climate argument today.

Or even a weather post for that matter.

Certainly not a science based one either.

So who is disrespectful this blog again???
I would like to see a valid climate post in here buy those claiming to be skeptics.
Quoting JFLORIDA:
BTW HaloReachFan:

You have yet to make a SINGLE referenced and legitimate climate argument today.

Or even a weather post for that matter.

Certainly not a science based one either.

So who is disrespectful this blog again???


Actually I have but you fail to talk about it. GO AWAY!!!!
Quoting JFLORIDA:
 Inappropriate. Unreasoned and unethical.


Nope you run this like your own personal blog. Others agree.
848. atmoaggie 9:00 AM PST on January 14, 2011
Gee, now we just need SSIGG to come back in here...



he was banned....
Quoting atmoaggie:
We don't necessarily know that which you say here.

Ice cores of CO2 do not fully convey the variability of CO2 concentration on smaller time scales. Think of it as a 100 to 300 year average (which is variable).

Please allow me to repeat: "There is no arguing point in the contrarian's overused quiver that hass been more definitively disproven than the one that says the current CO2 rise is natural".
Original question:

If any scientist were to admit he was not a statistician, would you believe anything they wrote if statistics were used?

Answer:

"What does anything mean? - why do we bother with definitions and reasonable referenced discussion anyway?

Why even ask if the answer will be rendered meaningless by a lack of grounding in reality?"

To me this means you either CANNOT answer a question, or WON'T answer a question. You won't, because you know where it's leading...
Quoting Cochise111:
http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2011/01/december-update-current-usa-cooling.html

Seems like it's cooling here.


yes, cooling is a part of global warming. Cooling further proves global warming is occurring.
It's science, you wouldn't understand...
Quoting HaloReachFan:


Actually I have but you fail to talk about it. GO AWAY!!!!


I posted twice on it. Referenced also.
Quoting JFLORIDA:
 Inappropriate. Unreasoned and unethical.


Yet, accurate.
Quoting HaloReachFan:


Nope you run this like your own personal blog. Others agree.
Quoting HaloReachFan:


Nope you run this like your own personal blog. Others agree.


Yes I demand reasonable discourse. That is a condition I dont negotiate on.

Interestingly ive NEVER really seen an unreasonable blog out of Dr M.


Quoting oracle28:


Yet, accurate.


Actually how are you evaluating it? If its unreasoned then the only way it could be correct is by chance.
Oracle (you think very highly of yourself) Do you realize how ridiculous your statement sounds? It's no wonder why this so-called "science" has no credibility in the eyes of the public. The planet is getting cooler, but it is termed "global warming." If the temperature numbers are not massaged, manipulated, smoothed, adjusted and otherwise changed, the earth has shown no warming worth noting. What I do understand is that this has nothing to do with "science." It's all about money such as taxes and "carbon credits." What a farce.
Quoting JFLORIDA:


Yes I demand reasonable discourse. That is a condition I dont negotiate on.

Interestingly ive NEVER really seen an unreasonable blog out of Dr M.




You just right there pretty much stated you run this blog. RIDICULOUS AND DISGUSTING.
Quoting JFLORIDA:


I posted twice on it. Referenced also.


But then again you said I don't post anything about the subject yet you just said I did. Make up your mind blog owner please.
Quoting from earlier blog:

Post 839. Jedkins01 4:52 PM GMT on January 14, 2011

...A great example is, right now, electric engines are just starting to achieve practical use, but much of that is do to the fact that gasoline still rules with an iron fist.

If demand were to dramatically cast out gasoline engines, and replace them with electric, not only would we afford to develop much more powerful electric engine, but they would also become much more affordable.

I personally can't afford a hybrid car, neither do hybrids offer the power I need that a v8 heavy duty engine does in a truck. But heck if we could topple the oil industry, and fund what it takes to build powerful electric engines that can match and outmatch gasoline engines. I would much rather have an electric 4X4 truck than a gas one if it became practical.

Electric engines actually have a much higher potential for power as we look to the future, and guess what? No emissions! The hard part is getting to that place, toppling greedy industries isn't an easy feat...

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

Another case of the devil being in the details.

While an electric car might LOOK efficient, one terribly important question that must be answered is...just how efficient was the energy production system that provided the power to operate that vehicle.

What sort of power station provided that energy. Was it gas? Was it coal? Was it Bunker C? Was it nuclear? Was it photovoltaic?

Each of those systems has production efficiencies which defines the amount of energy needed to product a specific output of energy.

For some of those sources, that is important enough to seriously reduce the actual net savings in energy.

This isn't a simple one way system that one size fits all.

That is why AGW is such a silly joke.


876. Jax82
NEW BLOG
Quoting Cochise111:
Oracle (you think very highly of yourself) Do you realize how ridiculous your statement sounds? It's no wonder why this so-called "science" has no credibility in the eyes of the public. The planet is getting cooler, but it is termed "global warming." If the temperature numbers are not massaged, manipulated, smoothed, adjusted and otherwise changed, the earth has shown no warming worth noting. What I do understand is that this has nothing to do with "science." It's all about money such as taxes and "carbon credits." What a farce.


1) First of, I was being sarcastic.
2) Oracle is a software company.
Quoting oracle28:


1) First of, I was being sarcastic.
2) Oracle is a software company.


Oracle is a very old software company. Must be a Freudian slip that you chose it for your screen name.