Jump to content
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

Good bye El Nino?

Recommended Posts

Stevetoad

In case no one noticed, the EPA is planning to make CO2 a pollutant. Guess what? That means everyone who breathes is a polluter, because we breathe out CO2. And trees at night also breathe out CO2. Can it get more absurd than that?

Careful Axel! Your making sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

Instead of carbon taxes, we should have massive tax incentives for alternative energy, both on the consumer side for the adoption of it and for businesses for innovating and investing in alternative energy, more efficient cars, etc...

You can't have it both ways Axel. Tax incentives on the consumer side are no more than subsidies, tax credits doled out by politicians as they decree. It has nothing to do with a free market. Nothing short of offering the consumer a better cheaper product could be considered free market.

Letting companies that make breakthroughs in "green" energy keep more of their earnings to create more jobs, innovate further, and grow is pure free market. Let them assume the risk of investing and trying to build a better mouse trap. And if they succeed, let them keep the reward. Then we all win.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

Instead of carbon taxes, we should have massive tax incentives for alternative energy, both on the consumer side for the adoption of it and for businesses for innovating and investing in alternative energy, more efficient cars, etc...

You can't have it both ways Axel. Tax incentives on the consumer side are no more than subsidies, tax credits doled out by politicians as they decree. It has nothing to do with a free market. Nothing short of offering the consumer a better cheaper product could be considered free market.

Letting companies that make breakthroughs in "green" energy keep more of their earnings to create more jobs, innovate further, and grow is pure free market. Let them assume the risk of investing and trying to build a better mouse trap. And if they succeed, let them keep the reward. Then we all win.

You have a very black and white view on this. I believe you need a little of both. The electric car tax incentive right now is a major driver in bringing the price down to affordable levels. I would never have purchased an electric car if it wasn't for those incentives. This is a great way to jump start a market. There's no reason only the business owner should be rewarded, that makes no sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

Instead of carbon taxes, we should have massive tax incentives for alternative energy, both on the consumer side for the adoption of it and for businesses for innovating and investing in alternative energy, more efficient cars, etc...

You can't have it both ways Axel. Tax incentives on the consumer side are no more than subsidies, tax credits doled out by politicians as they decree. It has nothing to do with a free market. Nothing short of offering the consumer a better cheaper product could be considered free market.

Letting companies that make breakthroughs in "green" energy keep more of their earnings to create more jobs, innovate further, and grow is pure free market. Let them assume the risk of investing and trying to build a better mouse trap. And if they succeed, let them keep the reward. Then we all win.

You have a very black and white view on this. I believe you need a little of both. The electric car tax incentive right now is a major driver in bringing the price down to affordable levels. I would never have purchased an electric car if it wasn't for those incentives. This is a great way to jump start a market. There's no reason only the business owner should be rewarded, that makes no sense to me.

All I'm saying is that you can't claim to be a supporter of a free market. It is a distorted market when the gov picks and chooses who gets the tax credits and subsidies. A market where the gov has to convince consumers with bribes may never stand on its own. It's almost a guarantee that some unintended market consequence will raise its head at some point in the future. And the politicians love having the power to award these subsidies to their own good ol' boys (i.e. campaign contributors).

If there is adequate competition, then the business owner will have to pass along any of those rewards to the consumer. That is the guiding principle of the free market - the consumer is always the winner. If there are no rewards, then it is not a viable market.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funkthulhu

In case no one noticed, the EPA is planning to make CO2 a pollutant. Guess what? That means everyone who breathes is a polluter, because we breathe out CO2. And trees at night also breathe out CO2. Can it get more absurd than that?

Working, as I do, as an environmental regulator I can assure you that you and I and most businesses will not be regulated as polluters. There will be benchmarks for the amount of CO2 produced and those who produce the most will be regulated the most.

As per EPA regulations, anything you do privately as a person (and presumably trees as well) would fall under the Household Waste Exemption and is outside of the scope of industrial regulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funkthulhu

Dean, I am not avoiding the question, I just go home at night. . .

As for Anthropogenic Global Climate Change, the solution is not simple because the problem is not simple.

There is no "magic bullet" that will solve the crisis but there are several steps that, when combined, will have a more synergistic effect than any one thing by itself.

1. Education: As Axel and Mats and myself have stated several times over many threads, there is an underlying fallacy in modern society that any one person's uneducated opinion holds just as much sway as the whole of scientific consensus. This is an ego problem as well as an education problem. As soon as people are confident enough with their sense of self that they do not feel threatened when what they believe is proven false, they will be much more open minded in general. Combine with this a rudimentary, but ingrained, understanding the scientific process and how to evaluate both data and theory and you will be very far ahead of where we are now. Once the overwhelming majority of the people have this skill they will be able to see the problem, and possibly understand it, rather than just being told about it. They will also see that we as a species will need to work together to solve the problem.

2. Hydrocarbon use: While the run-away feed-back loops of global warming are starting to release nearly as much CO2 and Methane as the burning of fossil fuels, our use of fossil fuels is the "easiest" thing we can curtail. This is not as simple as just quitting oil, gas, and coal cold turkey, there needs to be a replacement energy source in place to take up the slack. Which leads to...

3. Alternative energy: We are slowly but surely improving our technology for solar and wind power (hydropower and nuclear have their own environmental image problems). The problem is not the generation of the energy, but the storage of that energy and the transfer of that energy. We need better technology in the form of long-term high-capacity batteries and capacitors. We also, at least in the US, need to improve our infrastructure (currently rated a D). Improvements to our power grid will make our solar and wind energy more efficient to transfer (as well as making jobs), and improvements to our roads and bridges will increase fuel efficiency (and make jobs). Rail lines are remarkably less expensive per mile than new highways and trains are amazingly efficient at transporting large cargo long distances. Anything that improves efficiency lowers our hydrocarbon useage, and many of these transport mechanisms are ripe for transfer to being completely electric reducing CO2 output even more. (I would also put something in here about developing fusion as an energy source, but I'm trying to keep this to current or near-future tech and I really don't think that's going to happen for decades.)

4. Carbon sequestration: This is tricky. We can inject CO2 into very deep wells, but we're running into difficulty with possible leaks, as well as the current (justified) trend in people not wanting fracking in their area. The potential fallout from a poorly designed and implemented CO2 sequestration well would set the whole concept back very quickly. However, we have an all natural way to sequester carbon that we're already talking about - Trees. This is also difficult because the areas of the world with the most deforestation that needs to be reversed are the places with the most people who don't want to live in a forest, but need ground to plant crops, raise livestock, etc. A lot of trees need to be planted and left to mature. (even this is a geologically very short term way to take Carbon out the atmosphere, as the trees die in several hundred years but it does give us some time to find more solutions)

5. Population Control: There are too many people already, we're probably going to hit a max sustainable number of humans on the planet somewhere near 10 or 12 billion. As has been said, not just Hydrocarbons, but human activity is leading to the release of a lot of greenhouse gasses (deforestation, livestock, etc.). By reducing the population we reduce our output. This is an education issue as well. With better education and better science we get better medicine (especially quickly in 3rd world developing nations). As soon as 3 out of 5 of your kids don't die from treatable diseases, you don't need to have 5 kids. Population growth has always been fastest in the developing nations with the poorest average levels of education. Giving everybody some education leads to more educated choices as to family size (which is also intrinsically linked to the availability of women's reproductive rights and contraception).

Doing all of these things would make real progress to getting the problem under control, but may still not be enough unless we all (planet-wide) work together. The process of working to slow down and eventually reverse global warming is not a single benefit. The process of making all our tech more efficient helps everybody; educating everybody also helps everybody (fewer wars, fewer human rights violations, less overpopulation, etc.)

So, yeah, tl;dr - There is no easy answer and I don't have "the answer" but we have to start somewhere and that first step is to stop letting our ego/religion/politics blind us that a problem exists.

Funk - the simple yes or no question I was referring to earlier (and that still remains unanswered as a yes or no), and that you dismissed with a flurry of goobly-gook diversionary language was as follows:

Are you prepared to tell me that Global Warming Proponents have no ideological, commercial, or ulterior motives of their own???

You asked "now what?" and I answered, you then say I'm avoiding the question.

However I will say that as a group, and in contrast to the global warming deniers, Global Warming Scientists have far fewer ideological, commercial and "ulterior" motives of their own. Scientists, by definition, must pursue the facts of where the data leads regardless of personal belief or what they may "want". It's why the scientific method works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammer

As one of the founders of "Bring Back the Snark on PT" I am the first person to love a good food fight. My undergrad degree is political science. So believe you me, I LOVE me a good current events conversation.

However, this thread and the many like on it PT have been very eye opening. Dean, I'm not suggesting you close the topic. It is obvious that the participants enjoy the sparring. So have fun! Who am I to stop it?

A couple observations from your friend...

The tribalism, intellectual superiority and "my team has cornered the market on facts and truth" in this thread is down right scary. As a student of people, people groups and politics (how people collectively solve problems) there is so much "pot calling the kettle black" in this thread I want to throw up. (and don't you you dare use that expression to make racial statements, ' cause that is just wrong)

ANY person who is so inflexible that they can make no allowance that someone's point or perspective may actually have merit should step out of the arena. I believe this is especially true when ALL the facts appear to line up with one's opinion or line up only in one direction. That is the time to question the facts the most. Nothing in life is ever so black and white.

I am very disappointed to see so many smart and educated people pursue factual and scientific discussions with such religious zeal and dogma. That approach is a disaster for interpersonal relationships on a micro level. It is also a potential disaster for the social, economic as well as peace and harmorny and democracy when writ large. Millions of dead bear witness to this truism across the millenia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pogobob

I admit that I'm sarcastic and that is my natural defense mechanism against drama, bullchit and stupidity. Now I'm going to be a scientist for a second. I guarantee there will be warmer weather sometime in the next thousand years. And I also guarantee that there also was warmer weather in the past thousand years. So take all your charts and theories to the recycle center.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

As one of the founders of "Bring Back the Snark on PT" I am the first person to love a good food fight. My undergrad degree is political science. So believe you me, I LOVE me a good current events conversation.

However, this thread and the many like on it PT have been very eye opening. Dean, I'm not suggesting you close the topic. It is obvious that the participants enjoy the sparring. So have fun! Who am I to stop it?

A couple observations from your friend...

The tribalism, intellectual superiority and "my team has cornered the market on facts and truth" in this thread is down right scary. As a student of people, people groups and politics (how people collectively solve problems) there is so much "pot calling the kettle black" in this thread I want to throw up. (and don't you you dare use that expression to make racial statements, ' cause that is just wrong)

ANY person who is so inflexible that they can make no allowance that someone's point or perspective may actually have merit should step out of the arena. I believe this is especially true when ALL the facts appear to line up with one's opinion or line up only in one direction. That is the time to question the facts the most. Nothing in life is ever so black and white.

I am very disappointed to see so many smart and educated people pursue factual and scientific discussions with such religious zeal and dogma. That approach is a disaster for interpersonal relationships on a micro level. It is also a potential disaster for the social, economic as well as peace and harmorny and democracy when writ large. Millions of dead bear witness to this truism across the millenia.

The problem is that people are still debating the Scientific results when the debate should have been moved into the arena of politics and policy. The former is settled, the latter is not. Scientists know how to do science, most laypeople, preachers, and policy makers generally do not know how to do science and should be courteous enough to respect the work the scientists do. When you get your car repaired, you don't question the car mechanic, do you? It takes years of study to become an expert on climate, and even if you spend days or weeks reading up on climate, you can't compete with that level of expertise.

Pogobob's comment is a perfect example of how people are still debating the science as opposed to figuring out what the proper path of action is. I've had numerous discussions with Dean on the topic, and even he doesn't argue that global warming is happening or not. We need to be talking about how to deal with it and what to do about it. Insurance companies have already included global warming into their insurance actuaries, large corporations like Coca Cola and others are modifying their production plans and taking risk mitigation strategies that take into account global warming. Even the military is taking global warming into account. Yet you still have lay people arguing that science is crooked as a means to discredit all the scientific work related to global warming. It's time to wake up. if you want to make a difference, start getting involved on what to do about it. If you think carbon taxes are bogus, then speak up about it without relying on an argument that global warming is bogus. Show a better alternative.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nachocarl

Wow Hammer! You just summed up our current situation in DC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funkthulhu

Thanks, Axel.

Short and sweet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Palmaceae

Hammer, very well said, I was accused of being dogmatic when in reality I was not, some of the others in this discussion were and continue to be.

Axel, you say "Scientists know how to do science, most laypeople, preachers, and policy makes generally do not know how to do science and should be courteous enough to respect the work the scientists do. When you get your car repaired, you don't question the car mechanic, do you?"

You should follow your own advice, scientist should be courteous enough to respect others also, including preachers as it works both ways, not just your way. Scientist are not gods, they are not perfect, it is ok to question things, as it has been said many times in this post it is not always black and white. Data can be construed in many ways for many different reasons.

And BTW I do question my mechanic because some are not very trust worthy and try to rip you off and I think this statement sums it all up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

Hammer, very well said, I was accused of being dogmatic when in reality I was not, some of the others in this discussion were and continue to be.

Axel, you say "Scientists know how to do science, most laypeople, preachers, and policy makes generally do not know how to do science and should be courteous enough to respect the work the scientists do. When you get your car repaired, you don't question the car mechanic, do you?"

You should follow your own advice, scientist should be courteous enough to respect others also, including preachers as it works both ways, not just your way. Scientist are not gods, they are not perfect, it is ok to question things, as it has been said many times in this post it is not always black and white. Data can be construed in many ways for many different reasons.

And BTW I do question my mechanic because some are not very trust worthy and try to rip you off and I think this statement sums it all up.

What you say is not correct. If you want to question science, go get a PhD in the field, do some research in the field, and write a legit paper to challenge or question any results. The whole point of the review system in science is that the questioning and challenging is build into the system itself. You cannot have unqualified people challenge the results. To apply this concept to the car mechanic, if you don't trust one car mechanic, you go to another car mechanic to get a second opinion. You don't get a book on how to fix a car and hope you can replace the same level of expertise that a mechanic who's trained and has years of experience. In this case, Dean's "free market system" works, bad mechanics get bad reviews. In the case of science, bad science gets exposed by the review process.

Scientists don't claim to be Gods except maybe in Hollywood movies. And no scientist is going to tell a preacher how to deal with matters of the heart and soul. However, preachers often overstep their boundaries and preach about politics and science in their own congregations instead of tending to matters of the heart and soul like they should. I actually follow my own advice, even though I am educated and trained as a scientist, I don't actually work in the field of climate change, so I accept the results that I see published, even those results that might counter any of my own ideas. For example, I've taken a keen interest in some of the theories around low sun activity. To me it's all interesting and fascinating. Those papers are legit, they've been reviewed.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funkthulhu

El Nino!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Palmaceae

Scientists don't claim to be Gods except maybe in Hollywood movies. And no scientist is going to tell a preacher how to deal with matters of the heart and soul. However, preachers often overstep their boundaries and preach about politics and science in their own congregations instead of tending to matters of the heart and soul like they should. I actually follow my own advice, even though I am educated and trained as a scientist, I don't actually work in the field of climate change, so I accept the results that I see published, even those results that might counter any of my own ideas. For example, I've taken a keen interest in some of the theories around low sun activity. To me it's all interesting and fascinating. Those papers are legit, they've been reviewed.

Axel,

I cannot agree with you when you say preachers over step their boundaries, who's boundaries, yours? My job as a Pastor includes a lot of things which include the "heart and soul" as you mentioned, but there is a lot more to it than that, Maybe scientist overstep their boundaries in the same way?

So back to El Nino, what info do you have on how El Nino and El Nina affects our weather, especially our winter weather?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

Scientists don't claim to be Gods except maybe in Hollywood movies. And no scientist is going to tell a preacher how to deal with matters of the heart and soul. However, preachers often overstep their boundaries and preach about politics and science in their own congregations instead of tending to matters of the heart and soul like they should. I actually follow my own advice, even though I am educated and trained as a scientist, I don't actually work in the field of climate change, so I accept the results that I see published, even those results that might counter any of my own ideas. For example, I've taken a keen interest in some of the theories around low sun activity. To me it's all interesting and fascinating. Those papers are legit, they've been reviewed.

Axel,

I cannot agree with you when you say preachers over step their boundaries, who's boundaries, yours? My job as a Pastor includes a lot of things which include the "heart and soul" as you mentioned, but there is a lot more to it than that, Maybe scientist overstep their boundaries in the same way?

So back to El Nino, what info do you have on how El Nino and El Nina affects our weather, especially our winter weather?

Randy, I don't think scientists overstep their boundaries in the way you suggest. But you have a point as to who should dictate what your boundaries are. I actually know your answer, the word starts with a "G", but I'm afraid your question on your boundaries is going to take us down a rats hole. It's a good discussion to have, but PalmTalk is the wrong place to have it.

However, I can answer the El Nino, La Nina question. Apparently, the most likely scenario is an "El Nino Modoki", which keeps warmer than usual waters in the Central Pacific but temps will go back to normal levels in the Eastern Pacific. See http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/there-is-nothing-new-about-the-el-nino-modoki/ for an interesting discussion of this.

The current consensus amongst 3-6 months models is for a return of the arctic vortex pattern (i.e. blocking pattern) of last Winter, but shifted somewhat to the East. What this means is that the storm track is going to edge far enough East to brush South and Central California but skip the PNW, and the arctic vortex outbreaks will come out of the great Lakes into the Eastern US instead of the Great Basin and Rockies down into Texas like last year. For South Florida, it means a cool and wet pattern, for Northern Florida and northwards it means a return of freezes. Unlike last Winter, these freezes will skip Texas and hit the South further East.

In California, you can expect near normal rainfall to the South and diminishing as you move North.

Anyway, these aren't my predictions, these are the predictions I've been hearing and reading about. I think Keith posted something a while back, (http://www.palmtalk.org/forum/index.php?/topic/42800-read-it-and-weep-or-maybe-pray-except-for-the-cali-folks-that-is/) and apparently, the "new Farmer's Almanac" which uses such long term models actually agrees with. See the map below from http://firsthandweather.com/310/el-nino-possible-effects-upcoming-winter/. My only beef with this map is that I don't buy the Texas assessment. If the pattern does shift slightly East, Texas will be spared, and maybe only far Eastern Louisiana will be affected.

Winter-Map4.png

To compare, here is the "New" Farmer's Almanac, which I actually trust less for the West coast, because they failed to predict the California drought. The "Old" Farmer's Almanac is more reliable, see further down.

screen-shot-2014-08-25-at-8-51-52-am-640

Here is the associated text:

According to the 2015 edition of the Farmers’ Almanac, the winter of 2014–15 will see below-normal temperatures for about three-quarters of the nation. A large zone of very cold temperatures will be found from east of the Continental Divide east to the Appalachians. The most frigid temperatures will be found from the Northern Plains into the Great Lakes. The coldest outbreak of the season will come during the final week of January into the beginning of February, when frigid arctic air drops temperatures across the Northern Plains to perhaps 40 below zero. As the frigid air blows across the Great Lakes, snow showers and squalls will drop heavy amounts of snow to the lee of the Lakes.

No region will see prolonged spells of above-normal temperatures; only near the West and East Coasts will temperatures average close to normal.

Over the eastern third of the country, we are expecting an active storm track with a number of storms delivering copious amounts of snow and rain. Near-normal precipitation is expected for the Pacific Northwest, the Southwest States, and Northern Plains, while below-normal precipitation values are forecast for the Southwest States as well as the Upper Midwest and the Great Lakes. The Central and Southern Plains are expected to receive above-average precipitation.

We are “red flagging” the first 10 days of January and the first week of February along the Atlantic Seaboard for active wintry weather featuring bouts of heavy precipitation and strong winds. Another red flag timeframe for widespread wintry conditions is the middle part of March from the nation’s midsection to the East Coast.”

And finally, here is the old Farmer's almanac, which matches more closely the models from NOAA.

53f96c145e4a3.preview-620.jpg

Here's an interesting note about how the old Farmer's almanac goes about it.

[Old] Almanac staff utilize three scientific disciplines to calculate their weather predictions: solar science, climatology and meteorology. Solar activity, especially sunspots, plays an important role in predicting the weather, Stillman said. Low solar activity has been an indicator of colder weather, and can occur for a period of years to decades, she said. The effects may last years to decades, as well.

“Sunspots appear every 11 years. You can follow it like a stock market wave,” she explained. “Recently, we’ve been getting into the shallow valley-small hill cycle.”

Such a high-and-low cycle of sunspots has an effect on our climate, specifically correlating to colder weather, Stillman said.

“The cycle is (now) the smallest it’s been for 100 years. That’s an indicator of extreme cold,” she said. “We will enter a period — for possibly a few decades — of colder-than-normal temperatures.”

As a final note, keep in mind that ALL of the above maps were put together with the notion of a weak El Nino. But there is still a chance for a powerful El Nino. The biggest El Nino of the Century in 1982-83 developed incredibly slowly, no one was able to predict its strength. (http://www.beefcentral.com/news/weather/dont-dismiss-a-2014-super-el-nino-just-yet/)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

Just as an FYI, last year's pattern was driven by a persistent blocking ridge over the Gulf of Alaska due to the Gulf's abnormally warm SST's. (Those abnormal SSTs are linked to human activity, see paper below). This Winter, we will have those same high SSTs in the Gulf of Alaska, and they're combining with a weak El Nino Modoki. A more active storm track over the Central Pacific may nudge the blocking ridge further East and upwards. Energy coming in from the Central Pacific is going to split in front of the ridge, under-cutting it to bring rain into Southern and Central California, and over cutting it and coming down West of the Continental divide and plunging straight South. That same stream of moisture undercutting the ridge will head East and may keep Texas out of trouble, but will most certainly collide with the Arctic air over Florida to produce the cool and wet conditions for Florida.

Here's an interesting article about the SST's in the Gulf of Alaska: http://cliserv.jql.usu.edu/paper/CA_drought_final.pdf

Conclusions: California's historic drought reached an additional milestone in the winter of 2013-14.

Synoptically, an extreme and persistent ridge occupied the Gulf of Alaska for much of the

winter; this ridge emerged from persistent sources of Rossby wave energy emanating from

the western North Pacific in late summer. The ridge’s subsequent intensification generated a

surge of wave activity fluxes downwind and deepened the trough over the northeast U.S.,

forming a dipole. It was found that the dipole and associated large-scale circulation pattern

did not correspond directly with any of the prominent climate modes. Instead, it was realized

that the dipole was linked with a type of ENSO precursor, namely the WNP pattern. The

WNP connection between the dipole and ENSO precursor has strengthened in recent decades.

The CESM1 simulations indicated that increased GHG loading in the atmosphere did

strengthen the connection between the dipole and ENSO precursor, as well as the dipole’s

amplitude. It is important to note that the dipole is projected to intensify, which implies that

the periodic and inevitable droughts California will experience will exhibit more severity.

The inference from this study is that the abnormal intensity of the winter ridge is

traceable to human-induced warming but, more importantly, its development is potentially

predicable. Given the increased association with ENSO precursor, the dipole itself could add

to our ability to predict North American ENSO. As to the ongoing drought, NOAA’s Climate

Prediction Center is anticipating an El Niño to develop by summer 2014, with a 50% chance

for it to develop into a full-fledged El Niño in the fall. If this El Niño turns out to be strong

enough it might provide some drought relief for California due to wet conditions that are

consistent with empirical El Niño climatology for the region.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Palmaceae

Thanks Axel! I will read this when I get home tonight, good info but still praying for a warm winter for all our palm friends and good rains for California.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

Axel,

You might be able to help me out with this. Do you know a site that lists the pre-winter predictions year by year and compares them to what the actual winter conditions ended up being.

I found this information as hard to find as the older predictions of stock market prognosticators and how their advice actually panned out.

In other words, can you find any supporting evidence that these predictions are any more useful than random guessing. I know for stock market predictions they are not, but they keep on coming, and people continue making a lot of money offering them. No one ever seems to go back and compile the data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LJG

Science must be merely a tool. It does not have and should never have an ideological power. However this is not the case many times. Ideology has penetrated science and made it easy for skeptics to question it. There has been some real sloppy and embarrassing science the last few decades. And when you look into why, it is because it wasn't used as a tool to gather knowledge (regardless of its potential applications) but as a way to garner support to some ideology. The last sentence of course being my own opinion on the matter.

As a guy with a BioScience degree I obviously grasp the importance of science and I certainly believe in global warming. Not sure how anyone can say man has not impacted our environment. Top to bottom. But I am a bit skeptical on some of the science behind it and the severity the results tell. What I find hilarious is that many of you other "scientist" in your attempts to discredit those that do not believe as you, you blindly walk to the beat of the drum. Science was done on Jews (and non-Jew) in WWII. Science helped in the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. I give you the Project MKULTRA. How about the Marshall Islands Experiment. Google the Aversion Project. You know what else these all had in common? Government support and backing in some form. Now we have guys like Funk that want to tax business further. Of course they need the government with the help of "science" to push this agenda. And now we must all believe the science presented to us is infallible once again? So of course there will be skeptics. So now let's label them some derogatory term to make them look stupid and marginalize them. Let's see. Birther? Nope. Taken. Tea Bagger? Damn. Taken. Ahh I got it. "Denier". Now any skeptic is simply labeled a "denier".

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

Len, you're right, Science is rife with abuses. The scientific method is a tool, and it's been abused in unethical ways. There's no question that some abuse is taking place today in the field of climate change study in order to further specific agendas. But all of this doesn't invalidate the scientific method. The public doesn't know how to distinguish between empirical results and theoretical results, and the only issue I have with so called climate change deniers is the denial of empirical evidence. All scientific theories should and must be challenged, and never taken as an ideology no matter how much math and logic the theories are built upon. But you can't deny empirical evidence. We know the planet is warming at significant rates, we're able to measure it. What we don't know is where it's going to take us. If you read the papers on global warming, you will find hundreds of different theories as to what may happen. I only take issue when govt policy is crafted by cherry picking from the hundreds of theories and pick the one scenario that's going to further a specific political agenda.

When it comes to global warming, there aren't simple, cut and dry results. Some predictions argue that the jet stream will fail due to salinity changes. This process is unfolding as we speak, they're able to measure the decline in salinity in the Northern atlantic where the jet stream plunges into the depths. This is a result of the greenland ice sheets melting away. There is empirical evidence that we may plunge into a mini ice age as a result. If there are enough greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, then the cooling will be offset and not be as damaging, and a real ice age isn't going to take place until we run out of fossil fuels AND the CO2 begins to decline significantly. Palaeoclimatology offers a glimpse into our past and shows how the jet stream has cycled on and off over the ages as climate warms and cools. So there are lots of precedents for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

Axel,

You might be able to help me out with this. Do you know a site that lists the pre-winter predictions year by year and compares them to what the actual winter conditions ended up being.

I found this information as hard to find as the older predictions of stock market prognosticators and how their advice actually panned out.

In other words, can you find any supporting evidence that these predictions are any more useful than random guessing. I know for stock market predictions they are not, but they keep on coming, and people continue making a lot of money offering them. No one ever seems to go back and compile the data.

I personally wouldn't pay a dime for any of those predictions. You can look up Farmer's Almanac and old farmers Almanac on Wikipedia. The old Farmer's almanac claims 80% accuracy but third party sources have measured it to be only 51% accurate, which, IMHO might as well be random luck. The new Farmer's almanac is more clever: it's predictions are so vague that they can't be measured for accuracy. Of course, the vagueness provides no predictive usefulness but it gives people a sense of security, I guess that's what sells.

Last year, the old Farmer's almanac predicted a bitter cold Winter in the East, and they hit the mark. They completely failed at properly predicting the West Coast's weather. So 50% right only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LJG

Len, you're right, Science is rife with abuses. The scientific method is a tool, and it's been abused in unethical ways. There's no question that some abuse is taking place today in the field of climate change study in order to further specific agendas. But all of this doesn't invalidate the scientific method. The public doesn't know how to distinguish between empirical results and theoretical results, and the only issue I have with so called climate change deniers is the denial of empirical evidence. All scientific theories should and must be challenged, and never taken as an ideology no matter how much math and logic the theories are built upon. But you can't deny empirical evidence. We know the planet is warming at significant rates, we're able to measure it. What we don't know is where it's going to take us. If you read the papers on global warming, you will find hundreds of different theories as to what may happen. I only take issue when govt policy is crafted by cherry picking from the hundreds of theories and pick the one scenario that's going to further a specific political agenda.

When it comes to global warming, there aren't simple, cut and dry results. Some predictions argue that the jet stream will fail due to salinity changes. This process is unfolding as we speak, they're able to measure the decline in salinity in the Northern atlantic where the jet stream plunges into the depths. This is a result of the greenland ice sheets melting away. There is empirical evidence that we may plunge into a mini ice age as a result. If there are enough greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, then the cooling will be offset and not be as damaging, and a real ice age isn't going to take place until we run out of fossil fuels AND the CO2 begins to decline significantly. Palaeoclimatology offers a glimpse into our past and shows how the jet stream has cycled on and off over the ages as climate warms and cools. So there are lots of precedents for this.

Axel, it is these very results you stat that I am so skeptical about. They go right into the hands of the media and the media loves fear. "Jet-stream could fail! Earth will freeze!" My point is that the scientific method can be manipulated by unscrupulous scientist and therefor the empirical evidence kicked out could be wrong. Case in point: I follow the Colony Collapse Disorder research closely. I have had some interesting debates here on PT about them. The organic mafia or pesticide use haters want to use this as a way to stop NeoNic use. Their science kicks back "empirical evidence". Well here is what the USDA has stated about the matter

"While a number of potential causes have been championed by a variety of researchers and interest groups, none of them have stood up to detailed scrutiny. Every time a claim is made of finding a "smoking gun," further investigation has not been able to make the leap from a correlation to cause-and-effect."

So if can't even get to the bottom of something like CCD, how the hell do you expect skeptics to believe what is being pushed out on something so complex as global warming. Again, I believe in global warming and man has a play in it. But let's get back to pure science and get ideology out of it so we can really see where things are.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

Len, you're right, Science is rife with abuses. The scientific method is a tool, and it's been abused in unethical ways. There's no question that some abuse is taking place today in the field of climate change study in order to further specific agendas. But all of this doesn't invalidate the scientific method. The public doesn't know how to distinguish between empirical results and theoretical results, and the only issue I have with so called climate change deniers is the denial of empirical evidence. All scientific theories should and must be challenged, and never taken as an ideology no matter how much math and logic the theories are built upon. But you can't deny empirical evidence. We know the planet is warming at significant rates, we're able to measure it. What we don't know is where it's going to take us. If you read the papers on global warming, you will find hundreds of different theories as to what may happen. I only take issue when govt policy is crafted by cherry picking from the hundreds of theories and pick the one scenario that's going to further a specific political agenda.

When it comes to global warming, there aren't simple, cut and dry results. Some predictions argue that the jet stream will fail due to salinity changes. This process is unfolding as we speak, they're able to measure the decline in salinity in the Northern atlantic where the jet stream plunges into the depths. This is a result of the greenland ice sheets melting away. There is empirical evidence that we may plunge into a mini ice age as a result. If there are enough greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, then the cooling will be offset and not be as damaging, and a real ice age isn't going to take place until we run out of fossil fuels AND the CO2 begins to decline significantly. Palaeoclimatology offers a glimpse into our past and shows how the jet stream has cycled on and off over the ages as climate warms and cools. So there are lots of precedents for this.

Axel, it is these very results you stat that I am so skeptical about. They go right into the hands of the media and the media loves fear. "Jet-stream could fail! Earth will freeze!" My point is that the scientific method can be manipulated by unscrupulous scientist and therefor the empirical evidence kicked out could be wrong. Case in point: I follow the Colony Collapse Disorder research closely. I have had some interesting debates here on PT about them. The organic mafia or pesticide use haters want to use this as a way to stop NeoNic use. Their science kills back "empirical evidence". Well here is what the USDA has stated about the matter

"While a number of potential causes have been championed by a variety of researchers and interest groups, none of them have stood up to detailed scrutiny. Every time a claim is made of finding a "smoking gun," further investigation has not been able to make the leap from a correlation to cause-and-effect."

So if can't even get to the bottom of something like CCD, how the hell do you expect skeptics to believe what is being pushed out on something so complex as global warming. Again, I believe in global warming and man has a play in it. But let's get back to pure science and get ideology out of it so we can really see where things are.

Len, you totally missed the point. The jet stream failure is a THEORY, the measurement of the decrease in salinity of the jet stream in the North Atlantic is a DATA POINT, that is what is already being measured, and this was predicted by this theory. The theory still isn't verified unless the jet stream actually shuts down. My point is that you cannot refute the empirical evidence, however, anyone is more than welcome to refute a theory if they can come up with a more compelling one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

Axel,

I think you may be the one missing a point. You keep mentioning empirical evidence. And that it is ignored. The point I have been trying to make, and one that I think relates to Len's comments, is that even empirical evidence, like the observations from satellites can easily be wrong and/or manipulated. And much, if not all, of that evidence is provided by people who have a vested interest in one point of view.

All of the measurements/observations from space are dependent on government instrumentation, interpretation, and selectivity. I just did some research trying to find out why the predictions the IPCC made in 1990 for sea level rise due to global warming were off by so much. That is, the actual sea level rise form 1990-2007 was only 1/5 of what was predicted.

One source explained it like this. It turned out, after some independent research, that land based monitors were not confirming the satellite based "observations." It appeared as if the satellites were reporting inflated data that exaggerated the predicted rate of sea level rise - for reasons unknown.

So, what did they do? They needed to "recalibrate" the satellite instrumentation slightly. If true, that is an example of how easily vast amounts of spaced based empirical data can be manipulated (or legitimately revised) - all it takes is a recalibration.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funkthulhu

So, no human alive can meet your expectations of both subjective expertise and complete independence of thought/money/motivation.

And if nobody can meet your expectations, then you don't have to acknowledge any experts or their results, no matter how much data they have.

And we can safely ignore this subject until we're all in the ground....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

Axel,

I think you may be the one missing a point. You keep mentioning empirical evidence. And that it is ignored. The point I have been trying to make, and one that I think relates to Len's comments, is that even empirical evidence, like the observations from satellites can easily be wrong and/or manipulated. And much, if not all, of that evidence is provided by people who have a vested interest in one point of view.

All of the measurements/observations from space are dependent on government instrumentation, interpretation, and selectivity. I just did some research trying to find out why the predictions the IPCC made in 1990 for sea level rise due to global warming were off by so much. That is, the actual sea level rise form 1990-2007 was only 1/5 of what was predicted.

One source explained it like this. It turned out, after some independent research, that land based monitors were not confirming the satellite based "observations." It appeared as if the satellites were reporting inflated data that exaggerated the predicted rate of sea level rise - for reasons unknown.

So, what did they do? They needed to "recalibrate" the satellite instrumentation slightly. If true, that is an example of how easily vast amounts of spaced based empirical data can be manipulated (or legitimately revised) - all it takes is a recalibration.

Now you're talking about the quality of data sets. The point is to continually collect more data and improve the data set with each run. You've actually cited a perfect example of how the scientific process actually really does work. Independent research showed that land based monitors were not confirming the satellite based observations - bingo, this is a great example of checks and balances in the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

Axel,

I think you may be the one missing a point. You keep mentioning empirical evidence. And that it is ignored. The point I have been trying to make, and one that I think relates to Len's comments, is that even empirical evidence, like the observations from satellites can easily be wrong and/or manipulated. And much, if not all, of that evidence is provided by people who have a vested interest in one point of view.

All of the measurements/observations from space are dependent on government instrumentation, interpretation, and selectivity. I just did some research trying to find out why the predictions the IPCC made in 1990 for sea level rise due to global warming were off by so much. That is, the actual sea level rise form 1990-2007 was only 1/5 of what was predicted.

One source explained it like this. It turned out, after some independent research, that land based monitors were not confirming the satellite based "observations." It appeared as if the satellites were reporting inflated data that exaggerated the predicted rate of sea level rise - for reasons unknown.

So, what did they do? They needed to "recalibrate" the satellite instrumentation slightly. If true, that is an example of how easily vast amounts of spaced based empirical data can be manipulated (or legitimately revised) - all it takes is a recalibration.

Now you're talking about the quality of data sets. The point is to continually collect more data and improve the data set with each run. You've actually cited a perfect example of how the scientific process actually really does work. Independent research showed that land based monitors were not confirming the satellite based observations - bingo, this is a great example of checks and balances in the system.

It has been said that extraordinary claims, require extraordinary proof. Based on such checkered history, should this type of data be considered extraordinary proof?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

Dean, here's what I would consider irrevocable, extraordinary proof for global warming:

1) At least 3 feet of sea level rise, i.e. you don't need a SAT to measure it, we're loosing land at this point. Since 1870, the claim is for a 195 mm/7.7 in rise, still pretty hard to measure.

2) Indicator plants marching Northward: a.k.a. palms for example. Not sure how to measure this.

3) Loss of around 40CP of chill in California (CP = Chill portion), so far, only 10CP lost.

4) ENSO Neutral SST going to +0.5C in the Central and East Pacific (non-reversed trade winds)

5) Glacier mass decrease (1980-2012 the mean cumulative mass loss of glaciers = -16 m so far)

As long as the indicators are still in the beginning stages, i.e. just starting to move up, there's no way to know where it's going. There are two mechanisms that will counteract global warming and may very well mask the signal:

1) Low sun activity: we've already entered a period of low sunspot activity, even at the highest peak, we're seeing little in the way of sunspots. Without all the extra CO2 in the atmosphere, we could very well be going into a mini-ice age not to dissimilar to the little ice age of the 18th century.

2) Volcanoes and meteors all contribute to major global cooling. See http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/stratospheric-aerosols.html, if we get another major eruption somewhere on the globe and it coincides with the low sunspot activity, we will be grateful to have the extra CO2 in the atmosphere. There was such a precedent: "a historic low in solar activity [combined] with a volcanic winter event, the latter caused by a succession of major volcanic eruptions capped by the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer.

The problem will be when we go back to an active sunspot period without a lot of volcanic activity. That's probably when the most catastrophic warming will take place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pogobob

The sea level has not risen one inch let alone 3ft! .Spend some time in the ocean and you would know this FACT. True some coastal areas are eroding, they always have. Damming and concreting streams all along California has stopped sand flow replentishment and also roads and railroads act as barriers keeping sand from getting to the beaches. I've been surfing for 5 decades and the waves are still breaking in the exact places on the points and reefs. Sand bottomed beacbreaks are always moving around due to sand migration. I am blown away by the on going garbage you guys read and recite here. It's obvious that the internet has caused all of this instant information bombardment and simple minds are falling for it as hardline evidence. You guys have WAY too much time if you spend (WASTE) your days (DAZE) trying to digest this bile. Then you try to out intellect each other with your graphs and highlighted dogmas. Some of you have never even talked about palms anywhere on palmtalk! Your collective college degrees are my Charmin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gtlevine

consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years

Nonsense.

This is all crap and nothing more than a big re-distribution of wealth scheme. For anyone with an actual human brain, it astounds me they buy into the lie. Even if your a complete left wing automiton, just read your own report by the IPCC losers. It says global warming is not a linear relationship to co2 in the atmosphere. It is actually logrithmic, which means once co2 gets to a certain level no more noticable warming occurs. The level where global warming flatens out is so low we will never get even close to 3 foot ocean rises. This subject is not even worth talking about. You global warming hoaxters are willing to screw all of us and make politicians and their cronies rich for some completely phony hoax. Just stop it already!

Edited by Gtlevine
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gtlevine

As one of the founders of "Bring Back the Snark on PT" I am the first person to love a good food fight. My undergrad degree is political science. So believe you me, I LOVE me a good current events conversation.

However, this thread and the many like on it PT have been very eye opening. Dean, I'm not suggesting you close the topic. It is obvious that the participants enjoy the sparring. So have fun! Who am I to stop it?

A couple observations from your friend...

The tribalism, intellectual superiority and "my team has cornered the market on facts and truth" in this thread is down right scary. As a student of people, people groups and politics (how people collectively solve problems) there is so much "pot calling the kettle black" in this thread I want to throw up. (and don't you you dare use that expression to make racial statements, ' cause that is just wrong)

ANY person who is so inflexible that they can make no allowance that someone's point or perspective may actually have merit should step out of the arena. I believe this is especially true when ALL the facts appear to line up with one's opinion or line up only in one direction. That is the time to question the facts the most. Nothing in life is ever so black and white.

I am very disappointed to see so many smart and educated people pursue factual and scientific discussions with such religious zeal and dogma. That approach is a disaster for interpersonal relationships on a micro level. It is also a potential disaster for the social, economic as well as peace and harmorny and democracy when writ large. Millions of dead bear witness to this truism across the millenia.

I am inflexible for good reason.

Man made global warming hysteria is purely a left wing pursuit. It is part of the over all Environmentalist movement which is not really about Environmentalism, but it is this era's communism. All the communists of yesterday are part of the environmentalism movement of today. The science has proved it is a hoax a long time ago, but as a political movement, the science from the left will keep morphing and coming up with bogus data to keep the scam going long enough hopefully to get the political action they desire. Man Made global warming is the perfect hoax for them. You can never prove it is real since the climate changes on its own. But once they enact all their agenda they will all of a sudden say they saved the world, but no one can prove that either. This is one big rape of the American people, and I refuse to bend over for it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

The sea level has not risen one inch let alone 3ft! .Spend some time in the ocean and you would know this FACT. True some coastal areas are eroding, they always have. Damming and concreting streams all along California has stopped sand flow replentishment and also roads and railroads act as barriers keeping sand from getting to the beaches. I've been surfing for 5 decades and the waves are still breaking in the exact places on the points and reefs. Sand bottomed beacbreaks are always moving around due to sand migration. I am blown away by the on going garbage you guys read and recite here. It's obvious that the internet has caused all of this instant information bombardment and simple minds are falling for it as hardline evidence. You guys have WAY too much time if you spend (WASTE) your days (DAZE) trying to digest this bile. Then you try to out intellect each other with your graphs and highlighted dogmas. Some of you have never even talked about palms anywhere on palmtalk! Your collective college degrees are my Charmin.

consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years

Nonsense.

This is all crap and nothing more than a big re-distribution of wealth scheme. For anyone with an actual human brain, it astounds me they buy into the lie. Even if your a complete left wing automiton, just read your own report by the IPCC losers. It says global warming is not a linear relationship to co2 in the atmosphere. It is actually logrithmic, which means once co2 gets to a certain level no more noticable warming occurs. The level where global warming flatens out is so low we will never get even close to 3 foot ocean rises. This subject is not even worth talking about. You global warming hoaxters are willing to screw all of us and make politicians and their cronies rich for some completely phony hoax. Just stop it already!

You guys are funny. Even oil refineries along the coast are preparing for the sea level rises. See for example this Delaware refinery getting a permit to shore up the refinery to deal with rising sea levels. (https://delaware.sierraclub.org/sites/delaware.sierraclub.org/files/documents/2014/07/Joint%20Permit%20Application%20Cover%20and%20TOC.pdf)

I get the problem with political opportunists that catastrophise to take advantage of global warming to "grow the beast" some more, but come on, this denial of global warming doesn't make sense.

You're under-estimating the effect of sea level rise: just 1 foot of sea level rise will cost Southeast Florida $4 million in annual property tax income. At 3 feet, the loss is about $31 million annually. See http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/09/3742641/rising-sea-levels-falling-real.html.

Both the actual global warming that is and will take place and the utterly useless carbon taxes will impact your life in some way. So go ahead, ignore it, treat it like intellectual drivel, Call it Charmin if you like. It's easy to have a loud bark and call it all stupid, but I bet if you had $1 million to invest, you would take all of this pretty seriously and you would avoid investments that would be affected in one way or another. I challenge either one of you to wager money against global warming. Go and buy some ocean front property at 0.5 feet above sea level down in Florida.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

As one of the founders of "Bring Back the Snark on PT" I am the first person to love a good food fight. My undergrad degree is political science. So believe you me, I LOVE me a good current events conversation.

However, this thread and the many like on it PT have been very eye opening. Dean, I'm not suggesting you close the topic. It is obvious that the participants enjoy the sparring. So have fun! Who am I to stop it?

A couple observations from your friend...

The tribalism, intellectual superiority and "my team has cornered the market on facts and truth" in this thread is down right scary. As a student of people, people groups and politics (how people collectively solve problems) there is so much "pot calling the kettle black" in this thread I want to throw up. (and don't you you dare use that expression to make racial statements, ' cause that is just wrong)

ANY person who is so inflexible that they can make no allowance that someone's point or perspective may actually have merit should step out of the arena. I believe this is especially true when ALL the facts appear to line up with one's opinion or line up only in one direction. That is the time to question the facts the most. Nothing in life is ever so black and white.

I am very disappointed to see so many smart and educated people pursue factual and scientific discussions with such religious zeal and dogma. That approach is a disaster for interpersonal relationships on a micro level. It is also a potential disaster for the social, economic as well as peace and harmorny and democracy when writ large. Millions of dead bear witness to this truism across the millenia.

I am inflexible for good reason.

Man made global warming hysteria is purely a left wing pursuit. It is part of the over all Environmentalist movement which is not really about Environmentalism, but it is this era's communism. All the communists of yesterday are part of the environmentalism movement of today. The science has proved it is a hoax a long time ago, but as a political movement, the science from the left will keep morphing and coming up with bogus data to keep the scam going long enough hopefully to get the political action they desire. Man Made global warming is the perfect hoax for them. You can never prove it is real since the climate changes on its own. But once they enact all their agenda they will all of a sudden say they saved the world, but no one can prove that either. This is one big rape of the American people, and I refuse to bend over for it.

Dude! You missed your decade by about 50 years.

mccarthy.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gtlevine

The sea level has not risen one inch let alone 3ft! .Spend some time in the ocean and you would know this FACT. True some coastal areas are eroding, they always have. Damming and concreting streams all along California has stopped sand flow replentishment and also roads and railroads act as barriers keeping sand from getting to the beaches. I've been surfing for 5 decades and the waves are still breaking in the exact places on the points and reefs. Sand bottomed beacbreaks are always moving around due to sand migration. I am blown away by the on going garbage you guys read and recite here. It's obvious that the internet has caused all of this instant information bombardment and simple minds are falling for it as hardline evidence. You guys have WAY too much time if you spend (WASTE) your days (DAZE) trying to digest this bile. Then you try to out intellect each other with your graphs and highlighted dogmas. Some of you have never even talked about palms anywhere on palmtalk! Your collective college degrees are my Charmin.

consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years

Nonsense.

This is all crap and nothing more than a big re-distribution of wealth scheme. For anyone with an actual human brain, it astounds me they buy into the lie. Even if your a complete left wing automiton, just read your own report by the IPCC losers. It says global warming is not a linear relationship to co2 in the atmosphere. It is actually logrithmic, which means once co2 gets to a certain level no more noticable warming occurs. The level where global warming flatens out is so low we will never get even close to 3 foot ocean rises. This subject is not even worth talking about. You global warming hoaxters are willing to screw all of us and make politicians and their cronies rich for some completely phony hoax. Just stop it already!

You guys are funny. Even oil refineries along the coast are preparing for the sea level rises. See for example this Delaware refinery getting a permit to shore up the refinery to deal with rising sea levels. (https://delaware.sierraclub.org/sites/delaware.sierraclub.org/files/documents/2014/07/Joint%20Permit%20Application%20Cover%20and%20TOC.pdf)

I get the problem with political opportunists that catastrophise to take advantage of global warming to "grow the beast" some more, but come on, this denial of global warming doesn't make sense.

You're under-estimating the effect of sea level rise: just 1 foot of sea level rise will cost Southeast Florida $4 million in annual property tax income. At 3 feet, the loss is about $31 million annually. See http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/09/3742641/rising-sea-levels-falling-real.html.

Both the actual global warming that is and will take place and the utterly useless carbon taxes will impact your life in some way. So go ahead, ignore it, treat it like intellectual drivel, Call it Charmin if you like. It's easy to have a loud bark and call it all stupid, but I bet if you had $1 million to invest, you would take all of this pretty seriously and you would avoid investments that would be affected in one way or another. I challenge either one of you to wager money against global warming. Go and buy some ocean front property at 0.5 feet above sea level down in Florida.

Thats a ridiculous challenge i would take in a minute. Whoever would worry about investing based on man made global warming that may contribute in sea level rise in 2000 years is an idiot and broke already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

Dean, here's what I would consider irrevocable, extraordinary proof for global warming:

1) At least 3 feet of sea level rise, i.e. you don't need a SAT to measure it, we're loosing land at this point. Since 1870, the claim is for a 195 mm/7.7 in rise, still pretty hard to measure.

Axel - let me take your first point - and PogoBob has already stole my thunder. But here is an irrevocable fact - an irrevocable empirical observation.

I grew up on the sand in Mission Bay, San Diego. Sea level and Bay level were one in the same. The sidewalk in front of our house was the "beach," the boardwalk. During the highest tides of the year the water would almost cover the boardwalk. And I started to worry in the early 70s when listening to all the predictions, because another inch or two of rise in the ocean and it would have been at our front step. Anymore than that and dozens of houses were going to be in major trouble. 6-12 inches and hundreds would have been doomed.

Forty five years later - I doubt if the level has risen more than an inch, probably less. The sidewalk has never been underwater once, even during the highest tide of the century. But as Bob said, I have seen coastline disappear over my lifetime, but it is not because the level of the ocean has risen.

This observation, over 50 yrs of my life, when compared to all the hyperbole I hear, has me wondering what the heck is going on - because the rate I personally witnessed (and very easy to see and measure) is in line with the trend that was already reported to be in place for the last thousand years - practically nothing over 50 year periods - and was in place long before the industrial revolution.

This is why I question all the data that lines up so neatly supporting their agenda. Because this one major piece is clearly out of line. They keep telling me 2+2=5 but I don't buy it - fortunately I am still able to see and think for myself.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

Dean, do you really expect 7 inches to be noticeable to you? Wait, it's not 7, it's not even 3 inches. What's your point anyway? I gave you some metrics that I considered valid, and my point was that with the exception of the glaciers and the permafrost, the rest of the stuff is barely measurable as of right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gtlevine

Dean, do you really expect 7 inches to be noticeable to you? Wait, it's not 7, it's not even 3 inches. What's your point anyway? I gave you some metrics that I considered valid, and my point was that with the exception of the glaciers and the permafrost, the rest of the stuff is barely measurable as of right now.

........and it never will be in our lifetimes. Maybe some humans around in the next great natural warming cycle can put a tape measure on it, but until then would all you moral busy bodies leave us alone. A tyranny exercised for the perceived good of its victims may be the most oppressive. Right now this is a relentless tyranny from the left.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pogobob

"There are people out there who cannot afford to give the anchor of sanity even the slightest tug" I forget who said that, but it applies to certain individuals here who have gone mad the way of literate chemotherapy meltdown. Maybe if you pull your bedsore butts off your chairs and rejoin the blue sky world outside and breathe hard once in awhile your vision and your mind might start functioning like the creator intended!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...