Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[aleCcowaN]

Really I'm sure in one of his comments he said he was a civil engineer, or am I confusing him with someone else?

I have earned part of my rupees working as a "civil engineer" -one of many intellectual works I can do- since I am 20. So, you are not wrong but that is just buck-making.

My ascription as "climate scientist" is inexact -but not unfair- . It is an assumption that comes from three different kind of "jobs" I did in the last decade, plus my basic ability to tear apart papers, and teach others how to tear apart papers, being climate change and all that is related to it a high percentage of what I've done.

Now, I am pre-retiring (15 years earlier). I am fed up of explaining and explaining things again to the tiny minds that manage educational and scientific institutions, and the kind of students they are admitting.

 

[aleCcowaN]

How is it relevant where he delivered the lecture, what are you trying to suggest because he talks to economists about climate change his science is no good

What part about the Cabot Institute didn't you understand when I talked about what the Cabot Institute seems to be?

I told you I wouldn't hear the conference. You have no time to drop a paragraph about it but I and others have to hear 58 minutes of only Santa knows what. Thanks, but no.

Did that individual wrote the paper? No, didn't he? Well, I already described what I found in the paper from a 3-5 minutes scan. It has no predictive value.

If you have something you want to support among what that individual said in the conference, quote it here and we'll discuss it tomorrow.

 

[balrog666]

As of this very moment on December 3rd in St. Louis, MO, it is 71 degrees outside. We had a draught this past summer and a warmer-than-normal winter before that.

But global climate change is a hoax.

Okay, okay, I know this is just a single data point and proves nothing. But, for some reason, the same people who ask me "Where's that global warming now? Har, har, har!" every time it is *********** freezing around here are strangely silent about the topic now.

/rant

You mischaracterize the obvious - it is FIXING climate change that is the hoax.

 

[Puppycow]

I would actually rather be wrong about the severity of the global warming problem.

Being right means we're in for a lot of bad stuff.

 

[CapelDodger]

Good question!

I think it needs something big and a shift in the approach. The government panels were not efficient enough, as we have seen in the past 20 years or so.

It's the classic political response to a novel problem to create a committee, in the hope that it will all blow over. It is then referred to as having "taken firm action". Quite often things do indeed turn out to be a storm in the headlines, but then again sometimes not.

You may have noticed that the first IPCC report was relatively prompt, the next took a little longer, and so it has progressed. I expect the next to be scheduled for a nice round 2020, by which time much more will have happpened in many senses - physical, political, economic, diplomatic, even religious.

In a general and dispassionate sense, this is just another of those "What were they thinking?" periods in history.

 

[Upchurch]

You mischaracterize the obvious - it is FIXING climate change that is the hoax.

For all our sakes, you better hope not.

 

[Piggy]

This weather is just insane. This is the third winter in a row here in OKC that we seem to be skipping most of Winter. Thinking back, a frigid 3-4 months in a row seems to be nothing but nostalgia at this point. The climate used to follow a regular pattern for the first 30 years or so of my life, I'd like to go back to that, but most of my friends enjoy the heat. I'm a weirdo snow ape. I got to turn off my air conditioner for about 2 weeks in November, but now it's bee n back on every day with 75-80 degree days,... in December.

Regardless of what's doing it, this is crazy. When it's not insanely warm, we have flash record breaking ice storms that are worse than anything since we've been keeping records here.

I wonder if the deniers will accept reality when crops begin to fail here.

Last year the warm winter nixed the maple syrup harvest.

This coming year, around where I live, we're looking at missing the peach and pecan harvests because the trees won't have enough freeze days.

What's odd right now is that some of the same industries which are denying AGW in public are also privately taking steps to guard against its effects.

 

[xjx388]

I don't know of anyone who says that climate change is a hoax. If anything, many conservatives argue about how much is caused by us and/or how much we can actually change and/or how severe the problem is/will be. I think those are valid arguments and there isn't a clear consensus on the answers. I am not a climate scientist, but I don't think there's any reason to panic and spread the FUD.

In any case, I don't think that a higher than average temperature is a clear indication of global warming in effect any more than snow on Christmas Day 2004 in South Texas is an indication that global warming is a hoax. The climate is subject to processes that we don't really fully understand and can't predict.

 

[DavidJames]

I don't know of anyone who says that climate change is a hoax.

Then you haven't been paying attention.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You can just close the window to fix that.

I was going to suggest that he doesn't get to the pub nearly often enough.

 

[Brainster]

The point is that those (like Rush) who point to cold weather as proof that global warming isn't happening are debunked by the fact that exceptionally warm weather can happen at this time of the year.

It's not that complicated a point, and was quite clear in the OP.

No, I'm pretty sure that wasn't his point, for the simple reason that warm weather and cold weather don't prove anything in isolation. It's just freaking weather. I can remember a New Jersey Christmas around 1964 where we played football in the backyard in shortsleeves, and others where we went ice-skating and froze despite being bundled up.

 

[Upchurch]

Just a quick search brought back Rick Santorum and Sean Hannity.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, I'm pretty sure that wasn't his point, for the simple reason that warm weather and cold weather don't prove anything in isolation. It's just freaking weather.

Yes. That is the point. Weather isn't climate. Those guys who deny the scientific consensus on global warming (that is, climate change) because we still sometimes have cold weather are wrong.

Re-read the OP. You seem to be missing the fact that this is exactly the point he was making.

 

[SezMe]

I don't know of anyone who says that climate change is a hoax.

You don't know Limbaugh, the mouthpiece of the right? Note that that is only about a month old.

 

[macdoc]

I would actually rather be wrong about the severity of the global warming problem.

Being right means we're in for a lot of bad stuff.

You and I would guess every single planetary systems scientist anywhere.

While there is this "apocalypse" fascination ala Sandy when the large forces get unleashed and an epoch gets stuffed into a few decades....one would wish the physics were a little different and agw was the least worry for the future.

I still recall reading about the potential in the 50s and thinking it as a long way in the future if at all and then the drumbeats grew steadily louder each decade and I could see some of the changes in the biome..the all of a sudden it's NOW!
..it's that accelerating progression that brings the concern. WTF next ????

 

[macdoc]

oops - this next

California is under an atmospheric river, or ARK storm with the worst to come

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/de...sh/84/95/84956e0fa82e0047f475e0a9619af2e7.jpg

California is under an atmospheric river or ARK storm with the worst to come. This is a string of storms that battered California on Wednesday and Friday, and will continue through Sunday. Forecasters had warned of a string of intense tropical storms that would pass through northern California over a five-day period, but this is something that has not been seen in a long time.

The first storm arrived on Wednesday, bringing wind gusts of up to 40 MPH and substantial rain.

The second storm arrived on Friday, dumping substantial amounts of rain on top of saturated ground and bringing up fears of localized flooding in certain flood prone areas.

The third storm is expected to deliver the worst soaking and will last through Sunday. All three storms are expected to have dumped 4 to 8 inches in the valley and 12 to 18 inches of rain in the Sierras.

Three unusual events are going on. First, this weather pattern is normally not seen before January. Atmospheric rivers are massive columns of warm, tropical water that are picked up from the Pacific Ocean, carried for thousands of miles, and then dumped on California. In other words, this is an atmospheric river.

Second, atmospheric rivers can rapidly melt an existing Sierra snow pack. If there is no snow pack, the water will drain off right away. The current string of storms can inundate the valley, while the Sierras will be unable to freeze the rain and serve as cold storage for a slower spring snow melt and controlled runoff. Whatever these storms dump, it all will start to drain right away.

Third, the natural watershed that drains the massive Sierra mountain range will bring most of Northern California’s water to the Feather and American rivers. Those two rivers meet up at Sacramento, where the water either heads out through the delta to San Francisco Bay or it is sent southward via the central canal. Add in thousands of creeks, streams, sloughs and tributaries, and a lot of trouble can happen in a relatively short period.

Minor atmospheric rivers are traditionally an annual event in California. Those are called the “Pineapple Express”. However a major atmospheric river can be a huge problem. Scientists refer to a devastating atmospheric river as an “ARK storm” that could flood part of California’s central valley to a 20 foot depth. The last ARK storm occurred in the 1800s and was estimated to have dumped several times the volume of the Mississippi River during 40 straight days of rain.

The United States Geological Service (USGS) has officially designated the current series of storms as an atmospheric river.
The USGS also discusses the ARk Storm Scenario, a major experiment that simulated the worst that could happen.

.........

wow first Sandy on the East Coast and now the west coast....expensive year for weather....Sci Am sure called that - Shades of Katrina where they ran simulations the year before that came only too true

concludes....

This would be the best time to review the business and household disaster preparedness plans and to prepare for power outages and anything else that comes with flooding in Northern California.

CALIFORNIA STORMS 2012DECEMBER 1, 2012BY: EDITH ALLEN

this was the prediction in 2011

ARkStorm: California’s Other 'Big One'

ScienceDaily (Jan. 18, 2011) — For emergency planning purposes, scientists unveiled a hypothetical California scenario that describes a storm that could produce up to 10 feet of rain, cause extensive flooding (in many cases overwhelming the state's flood-protection system) and result in more than $300 billion in damage.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110117142512.htm

 

[ConspiRaider]

You don't know Limbaugh, the mouthpiece of the right? Note that that is only about a month old.

Holy living hell I jest KNEW that the English would save us, specifically the University of East Anglia! Fudged reports on climate change and stuff!! Leaked memos and it's a political issue, it's NOT science, yes!!!

Rush saves the Planet, yay! Just for that I will refrain from calling him Rash Limpboy for 36 hours starting now, yay yay!!

 

[Robert Prey]

Junk Science

"Reformation in the Church of Global Warming"​

"Nearly 50 NASA scientists and astronauts took aim at NASA’s endorsement of global warming science. They claim the agency is on the wrong side of science and must change course or ruin the reputation of the world’s top space agency."

“We feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate,” they wrote. “At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself."

http://junkscience.com/2012/05/22/reformation-in-the-church-of-global-warming/

 

[332nd]

"Reformation in the Church of Global Warming"​

"Nearly 50 NASA scientists and astronauts took aim at NASA’s endorsement of global warming science. They claim the agency is on the wrong side of science and must change course or ruin the reputation of the world’s top space agency."

“We feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate,” they wrote. “At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself."

http://junkscience.com/2012/05/22/reformation-in-the-church-of-global-warming/

Who are these nearly 50 NASA astronauts & scientists? I ask because your link fails to name them.

 

[ConspiRaider]

"Reformation in the Church of Global Warming"​

"Nearly 50 NASA scientists and astronauts took aim at NASA’s endorsement of global warming science. They claim the agency is on the wrong side of science and must change course or ruin the reputation of the world’s top space agency."

“We feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate,” they wrote. “At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself."

http://junkscience.com/2012/05/22/reformation-in-the-church-of-global-warming/

Nearly 50? How about an exact number? By saying 'nearly', it's as if the author is trying to pad things, you know?

What's the real number and the names? Post them. Astronauts? Which ones? And if NASA is the world's top space agency and if it has an exemplary reputation - wouldn't that kinda sorta lend credibility to their advocacy of the science backing AGW?