Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[aleCcowaN]

Current anomalies are calculated over the 1981-2000 period (not a 30-year normal) so a mild Niño is still sort of mild in spite of a warming world.

El Niño plus the Indian Ocean Dipole may be the answer to the Australian situation as well as Niño 1-2 and Niño 3 partly explain current niñesque South American floods. About the current state of IOD I have little to no idea, as my mind places it in the antipodes of my concerns. I know the IOD is fundamental to aid El Niño and cause together catastrophic droughts and wild fires in the Principality of Hutt River, Australia and Indonesia.

 

[Trakar]

I assume you got the Zanzibar snark ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_on_Zanzibar

Actually, I did not, that is a book that never made it on any of my reading lists. Unfortunate, in that it seems like one that should have, but the late sixties and early seventies were a very busy time in my life. Thanks, it is on my list now, anything Greg Bear (and Macdoc) recommends is worth an afternoon!
Thanks!

 

[Trakar]

Interesting thing is that Australia seems to be feeling an El Nino, even though it is only mild. Is the EN on top of AGW more powerful? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Indubitably, dear fellow!
Of course, conditions are actually more pre-Nino at this time, we still looking at end of summer, fall, before true el Nino patterns fully establish themselves. Personally, I'm rooting for an abortion, but this destined to be a preemie is kicking and screaming as a fetus. (apologies for the verbal analogies).

 

[macdoc]

If that water temperature holds til November that is going to be a seriously risky cyclone season.

 

[crestfallensidekick]

Is there any validity to the notion that scientists are only going along with AGW to preserve their funding? It strikes me as dubious, but I don't know quite enough about funding in science to refute it.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Is there any validity to the notion that scientists are only going along with AGW to preserve their funding? It strikes me as dubious, but I don't know quite enough about funding in science to refute it.

The bit "scientists are only going along with AGW to preserve their funding" belongs to conspiracy theories, as every fantasy related to obscure unidentified vested interests.

Perhaps you may ask it in its own thread: Global Warming Conspiracy Thories (sic, some slip of the pen towards conservatism?). It can be discussed there, not here. Thank you for understanding.

 

[aleCcowaN]

If that water temperature holds til November that is going to be a seriously risky cyclone season.

I don't think this is the year for that.

Anyway, next Friday Arthur -a category one hurricane or maybe weakened to a tropical storm- will be affecting North Carolina's coasts. Don't buy firecrackers if you live there.

 

[a_unique_person]

Is there any validity to the notion that scientists are only going along with AGW to preserve their funding? It strikes me as dubious, but I don't know quite enough about funding in science to refute it.

If you were just out to get rich, there are better ways to do it than be a scientist.

 

[Kestrel]

If you were just out to get rich, there are better ways to do it than be a scientist.

I often wonder if climate change deniers have ever known an actual working scientist.

 

[macdoc]

Anyway, next Friday Arthur -a category one hurricane or maybe weakened to a tropical storm- will be affecting North Carolina's coasts. Don't buy firecrackers if you live there.

Already warned the motorcycle riders to stay off the coast next weekend.
The American's are gonna have a soggy celebration

 

[macdoc]

Not a great time to be a wannabe coal baron.

When the courts got involved it was the death knell for SO2 .....fast forward 40 years...

WEDNESDAY, JUL 2, 2014 04:42 PM EDT
Federal judge rejects mine proposal, cites coal’s contribution to climate change
This is what happens when you take the true cost of carbon into account

What’s the very best reason not to expand coal mining on public land? Coal is contributing to global warming. And a federal judge just blocked a proposed Colorado mine for that very reason, InsideClimateNews reports. People, it would appear, are finally starting to get it.

In touting the potential economic benefits of the mine but ignoring fossil fuels’ effect on climate change, ruled U.S. District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson, federal agencies failed to consider the complete cost of the project. He decreed: “It is arbitrary to offer detailed projections of a project’s upside while omitting a feasible projection of the project’s costs.”

more

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/02/fed...l_cites_coals_contribution_to_climate_change/

hopefully this will be a significant precident.

 

[CapelDodger]

Is there any validity to the notion that scientists are only going along with AGW to preserve their funding? It strikes me as dubious, but I don't know quite enough about funding in science to refute it.

One thing to know about science funding is that it's limited. Funds diverted to climate science are being diverted from other fields of study. This means that non-climate scientists have a strong motivation to find errors in climate science while being well-qualified to detect them. And yet all the world's national science institutes find AGW convincing.

Which throttles the funding conspiracy theory at birth, not that that'll make any difference to a true believer. I think for most AGW deniers "scientists" are an alien group which exists quite separately from normal society; what they fail to appreciate is that they are the ones who live on the outside. Nothing else can explain how Monckton has become the public face of AGW denial. Yes. That face.

 

[CapelDodger]

I often wonder if climate change deniers have ever known an actual working scientist.

Me too.

 

[CapelDodger]

Not a great time to be a wannabe coal baron.

When the courts got involved it was the death knell for SO2 .....fast forward 40 years...

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/02/fed...l_cites_coals_contribution_to_climate_change/

hopefully this will be a significant precident.

I think the current US Supreme Court can be depended on to overturn it.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Nothing else can explain how Monckton has become the public face of AGW denial. Yes. That face.

Seeing hockey sticks and twisted temperature records everywhere has that effect of making you a Marty Feldman lookalike.

 

[Trakar]

I think the current US Supreme Court can be depended on to overturn it.

after the last week, I tend to agree.

 

[Trakar]

...what they fail to appreciate is that they are the ones who live on the outside. Nothing else can explain how Monckton has become the public face of AGW denial. Yes. That face.

LOL, if you distort the Gospel enough, when reality slaps you repeatedly in the face, you develop the habit of showing your ass.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

after the last week, I tend to agree.

Maybe so, but the very idea of forcing companies to include all the costs, even hidden costs like excess CO2 pollution, is a very good thing, and unheard of 30 years ago.

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
I often wonder if climate change deniers have ever known an actual working scientist.

Since apparently only 6% of working scientists vote R in the US...it puts the availabiliy of a likeminded scientist in the right wingding's social circle pretty small

 

[Haig]

I often wonder if climate change deniers have ever known an actual working scientist.

Sure they do and more and more working scientists are becoming skeptics in this debate ... see this

C(lie)mate Update - July 2014

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11S4yyQ7Ts8&list=UUTiL1q9YbrVam5nP2xzFTWQ