Climate Science is in the crapper for warmists .

[code1211]

Whenever the discussion moves--at it must, and always does--to the overwhelming majority consensus of scientific thought...the assertions begin, about fat cat scientists fudging data to get grant money, or the Orwellian lock-step blindness of the scientific community inobedience to Marxists.


You know...conspiracy theories.

The post to which you responded contained no references to those things.

 

[code1211]

Sweet Godzilla on His Throne. I'm talking of explicit conspiracy theories that arise all the time in these discussions. If you refuse to take your co-religionists up on such matters, that doesn't make any of us remiss for pointing it out.

You seem to be the only person discussing this topic area. Everyone else not responding directly to you is talking about the science.

 

[code1211]

Has anyone seen complete revised numbers on the solar energy budget? it used to be that it was thought about half the sea level rise was from thermal expansion, and the other half from glacier melt. With the newer satellites out there, NASA is telling us the oceans absorb more heat than previously thought, though I never seen a number. What is nearly all the sea level rise is due to solar expansion, from the increased hat the sun has since the maunder minima?

The best way to measure the temperature of the ocean is to measure it.

The ARGO array of buoys is revealing that the oceans are actually cooling.

If our government was trying to inform rather than to convince, one might expect that this bit of data would be wide spread instead of being an open secret.

Global Change Analysis

 

[samsmart]

■Longest spell since the Civil War without a major hurricane hitting the US
■Grover Cleveland’s presidency saw 26 hurricanes hit the US, compared to Barack Obama with 3 hurricanes.

2005 Atlantic hurricane season - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was the most active Atlantic hurricane season in recorded history, shattering numerous records.

2004 Atlantic hurricane season - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hurricane Charley became the second-costliest hurricane in United States history, at the time, after striking Florida as a Category 4, leaving $14 billion in damage. Later in August, Hurricane Frances became the third costliest U.S. hurricane, primarily due to impact in Florida. The most significant storm in terms of intensity and damage was Hurricane Ivan. It was a Category 5 hurricane that devastated multiple countries adjacent to the Caribbean Sea, before entering the Gulf of Mexico and bringing catastrophic impact to the Gulf Coast of the United States. After becoming extratropical on August 18, the remnants executed a large cyclonic loop and regenerated into a tropical storm in the Gulf of Mexico on August 22. It later struck Texas and quickly dissipated. In the United State alone, Ivan caused $18.8 billion in losses, more than Hurricane Charley.

Why you want to compare how few hurricanes there have been during Obama's administration but neglect to point out that during the GWB administration the US suffered at least two years of active hurricane seasons, and one of which being the most destructive in the US?

Hurricane Wilma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[yobarnacle]

The whole AGW scheme is a failed socialist plot to bring down America.

China and India are larger co2 producers than the USA, but you don't hear the eco-nuts screaming at them.


and damage needs to find a common denominator

http://stats.areppim.com/calc/calc_usdlrxdeflator.php


and MAJOR hurricanes are few

http://72.30.186.176/search/srpcach...v&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=U03KsC25K2ZEvzjEymSZlQ--

 

[code1211]

So you aren't denying the warming, just that's man made? I mean ice only melts because it gets warmer does it not?

Ice does operate under the constraints of Natural Law. Nature can be a real Mother.

Within the various questions as to why the Arctic Ice is melting, is the question of ocean currents. At the South Pole, the ice is doing dandy. At the North, the ice that's in the water is not faring so well.

The air is clearly cool enough to freeze water in both places. Is it the evil CO2 doing it or have the currents of the oceans changed? Again?

Also, could it be some deposited ash that darkens the ice changing the albedo? There's plenty of questions that have not been answered.

As with most of AGW Science, we have an effect. Now we just need to race to make our particular cause de jour the most popular one. We have a consensus to build.

 

[code1211]

2005 Atlantic hurricane season - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



2004 Atlantic hurricane season - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Why you want to compare how few hurricanes there have been during Obama's administration but neglect to point out that during the GWB administration the US suffered at least two years of active hurricane seasons, and one of which being the most destructive in the US?

Hurricane Wilma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The temperature of the water in which the hurricanes form and spin contributes to the ultimate strength of weakness of the storms. That seems to be dropping slightly in recent years.

In the Atlantic, the land temperatures of the Saharan areas seems to have a pretty strong input into the formation of Tropical storms headed our way.

Predicting the strength or number of a season is a crap shoot. NOAA was about 50% some years back. I haven't checked for their success rating lately.

Predicting the track and strength of a hurricane that is bearing down is very valuable and amazingly accurate. Those models they produce showing the predicted land fall place and the strength at that time are really like magic. For me, the ability to predict the whole season is an interesting if worthless pursuit, but the ability to warn those foolish enough to live in harm's way carries real value.

Global Change Analysis

 

[samsmart]

The temperature of the water in which the hurricanes form and spin contributes to the ultimate strength of weakness of the storms. That seems to be dropping slightly in recent years.

In the Atlantic, the land temperatures of the Saharan areas seems to have a pretty strong input into the formation of Tropical storms headed our way.

That may be. But it is intellectually dishonest to point out the number of hurricanes during one President's administration when there was the most with the the number of hurricanes during the present President's administration and think it has some impact but not mention how the last President's administration had 4 major hurricanes hit the U.S. in the span of 2 years.

 

[Deuce]

One small correction, They don't actually have a theory, but a hypothesis.
The hypotheses is the observation that the average rise in temperature is related to the rise in Co2.
A theory would be an actual scientific energy state diagram of how the two events are connected.
As of yet, no one has outlined the actual process of the forcing described in the alarms.

What? Are you serious? Nobody has explained the mechanism of greenhouse warming to you?

 

[Fisher]

I was under the impression that it was the CO2 in our atmosphere that kept all the water on the earth from having frozen into a solid block of ice resulting in us being an ice planet.

 

[code1211]

That may be. But it is intellectually dishonest to point out the number of hurricanes during one President's administration when there was the most with the the number of hurricanes during the present President's administration and think it has some impact but not mention how the last President's administration had 4 major hurricanes hit the U.S. in the span of 2 years.

I'm not sure I see any relationship between who lives in the White House and the formation of hurricanes.

Are you saying there is a relationship?

 

[flogger]

What? Are you serious? Nobody has explained the mechanism of greenhouse warming to you?

Its not the mechanism of greenhouse warming but the significance of the minute human contribution of CO2 to it thats at issue here . Do keep up :roll:

 

[Wiseone]

Ice does operate under the constraints of Natural Law. Nature can be a real Mother.

Within the various questions as to why the Arctic Ice is melting, is the question of ocean currents. At the South Pole, the ice is doing dandy. At the North, the ice that's in the water is not faring so well.

The air is clearly cool enough to freeze water in both places. Is it the evil CO2 doing it or have the currents of the oceans changed? Again?

Also, could it be some deposited ash that darkens the ice changing the albedo? There's plenty of questions that have not been answered.

As with most of AGW Science, we have an effect. Now we just need to race to make our particular cause de jour the most popular one. We have a consensus to build.

I'm not really interested in why climate change is happening, I'm not a climate scientist and I don't have any formal education in the subject. And I'm not advociating for a "why" to climate change.

But the climate is changing, that is a fact.

That article on the opening of the various northern shipping routes sounds like a bit of good news.

All of the effects of warming that I've noticed seem like pretty good news. The frantically proclaimed warnings of stronger storms seems to have been hype. The flooding of the coastal regions seems to have been hype. Ongoing drought seems to have been hype.

This spring has been cold and prolonged and I'm not in favor. This year's Indy 500 will be raced in temperatures 25 degrees cooler than last year. Last year was too hot. This year is too cold.

I guess I need to live under a dome.

An example of a negative potential impact of climate change

The Arctic: Tequila sunset | The Economist

 

[flogger]

I'm not really interested in why climate change is happening, I'm not a climate scientist and I don't have any formal education in the subject. And I'm not advociating for a "why" to climate change.

But the climate is changing, that is a fact.

Indeed it is and always has been , but worrying about stuff like this is like worrying about asteroid strikes or earthquakes and just about as pointless. We'll adapt because we always have and always will, our species has always coped well with such variations and there little reason to imagine that will change just because a few environmental extremists say we now cant.

 

[Wiseone]

Indeed it is and always has been , but worrying about stuff like this is like worrying about asteroid strikes or earthquakes and just about as pointless. We'll adapt because we always have and always will, our species has always coped well with such variations and there little reason to imagine that will change just because a few environmental extremists say we cant.

Well we do worry about things like earthquakes, asteriod strikes, and other natural disasters or other natural events that affect us and how we live. Just because something is naturally happening doesn't mean that no one does or shouldn't care.

Its not an issue of will mankind will survive, that is indeed an extreme position to take, its about how the changes will or may impact our lives both for the better, like the new shipping routes, or for the worse like the decrease in fishing resources. Both stories I've linked articles to in this topic.

 

[code1211]

I'm not really interested in why climate change is happening, I'm not a climate scientist and I don't have any formal education in the subject. And I'm not advociating for a "why" to climate change.

But the climate is changing, that is a fact.



An example of a negative potential impact of climate change

The Arctic: Tequila sunset | The Economist

It seems like all of the disasters of warming are introduced with words like potential and could and might and may and model.

Far less likely is it to find that the predictions of dire consequence include words like It has been observed, the real world results or historical records reveal.

With respect, the link you have posted is of the former description. It lists a few real world items of fact and then takes off on an expedition to never never land.

 

[Wiseone]

It seems like all of the disasters of warming are introduced with words like potential and could and might and may and model.

Far less likely is it to find that the predictions of dire consequence include words like It has been observed, the real world results or historical records reveal.

With respect, the link you have posted is of the former description. It lists a few real world items of fact and then takes off on an expedition to never never land.

Any decent prediction of the future is peppered with words like, maybe, perhaps, its possible, etc because any decent prediction of the future knows that there is no real way to predict the future.

The smart course of action would be to continue to explore the possibilites, the easy course of action would be to just ignore it and give it no more thought because its just a possibility. Which do you want to do?

 

[flogger]

Well we do worry about things like earthquakes, asteriod strikes, and other natural disasters or other natural events that affect us and how we live. Just because something is naturally happening doesn't mean that no one does or shouldn't care.

The big difference though is that we are being politically manipulated into feeling culpable for this particular natural phenomenon in order to have our wallets emptied

Its not an issue of will mankind will survive, that is indeed an extreme position to take, its about how the changes will or may impact our lives both for the better, like the new shipping routes, or for the worse like the decrease in fishing resources. Both stories I've linked articles to in this topic

We are the most adaptable species ever to have existed and I'm sure we will be just fine. However the climate changes there will be pluses and minuses , winners and losers, but ultimately we will continue to thrive. The modern environmentalists really hate the prospect of that happening though

 

[iguanaman]

In case you have not noticed ice has been receding since the last ice age and will continue to do so until we start heading into the next ice age.

The fact that the melting has been increasing at exponential rates in the last 2 decades means nothing right? How long will you pull the wool over your eyes?

 

[flogger]

Any decent prediction of the future is peppered with words like, maybe, perhaps, its possible, etc because any decent prediction of the future knows that there is no real way to predict the future.

Yet the doomsters promoting AGW claim we can

The smart course of action would be to continue to explore the possibilites, the easy course of action would be to just ignore it and give it no more thought because its just a possibility. Which do you want to do ?

We simply do not have the resources to plan for every potential climate eventuality so ignoring it until we know what is going to happen is the only realistic option. Current observed reality shows a lengthening flatline in temperatures indicating a failing hypothesis and a continued lack of understanding of climate change so what should we now do ?

 

[Deuce]

Its not the mechanism of greenhouse warming but the significance of the minute human contribution of CO2 to it thats at issue here . Do keep up :roll:

That isn't what his post said, so whatever dude.

 

[flogger]

The fact that the melting has been increasing at exponential rates in the last 2 decades means nothing right? How long will you pull the wool over your eyes?

For much of the last 4 millenia the Arctic has been warmer and seen greater rates of change than we are seeing today, so what do you think it means ?

 

[yobarnacle]

Any decent prediction of the future is peppered with words like, maybe, perhaps, its possible, etc because any decent prediction of the future knows that there is no real way to predict the future.

The smart course of action would be to continue to explore the possibilites, the easy course of action would be to just ignore it and give it no more thought because its just a possibility. Which do you want to do?

Sure. Investigate possibilities. But that's NOT what warmers advocate.
They want carbon taxes, and outlaw coal, and put all of us on a severe energy diet.

The proposed "cure" is more disruptive than potential risks!

Now, if they proposed throwing out zoning commissions and allowing neighborhood stores in "residential" burbs, so everything you need is within walking distance, then I'd say they were serious about reducing emissions.

 

[iguanaman]

For much of the last 4 millenia the Arctic has been warmer and seen greater rates of change than we are seeing today, so what do you think it means ?

Polar Bears did not evolve to live on sea Ice that did not exist. There is less ice now than in the last 100,000 years at least. What do you think that means?

 

[iguanaman]

Yet the doomsters promoting AGW claim we can



We simply do not have the resources to plan for every potential climate eventuality so ignoring it until we know what is going to happen is the only realistic option. Current observed reality shows a lengthening flatline in temperatures indicating a failing hypothesis and a continued lack of understanding of climate change so what should we now do ?

So in you mind releasing millions of tons of fossil Co2 ( a greenhouse gas) into an atmosphere that has not seen it for millions of years will have no effect on Earth at all. I don't suppose you have a theory on why this could be possible?