Global Warming?

[tcreeley]

Things you won't see on the Weather Channel.

1) There hasn't been one landfall hurricane in the U.S. in over 7 years; a "record".

2) There is no evidence of increasing intensity or frequency of hurricanes. As satellites have only been available for roughly 50 years, it is not surprising every Tiny Tim storm is recorded where nobody would otherwise have witnessed it. Sandy was not even a hurricane and not a "mega-storm". It occurred during high tide and full moon. One would have to believe CO2 is an intelligent being and planned accordingly and it wouldn't be shocking if some do. In 1954-1955 there were 6 (six) hurricanes that hit the East coast; 5 were H3, one H4. Sandy wasn't even H1. Don't take my word for it, the link below is a NOAA map which even they can't erase from history. With a cold PDO and still warm AMO, hurricanes will become more frequent as they were in the 1950's. It's a cycle folks, yet some think history began in 1979.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/images/tracks/majors_1951_1960.jpg

Despite what some may believe, the storm track Sandy was on has not warmed in 70 years. After Sandy however, the region cooled tremendously.

3) Tornadoes are not getting worse; quite the opposite. Nine of the ten deadliest tornadoes occurred before 1960 when CO2 was at "safe" levels (whatever that means). Again, satellites detect the smallest of storms so there is no way to compare directly every period of classifed tornado count for the last 100 years. However, the more severe tornadoes were recorded more accurately. Don't take my word for it. Here is NOAA data on that as well. No way they can doctor that either. Question: if there's a tornado in the woods and nobody is there to witness it, will the wind still blow? 2012 is nothing special.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/clim/EF3-EF5.png

4) The Antarctic is not melting away as was predicted; ice extent has been increasing as well as mass. Temperatures are not increasing either. Of course after the fact climate "scientists" claim that's what they predicted all along.

5) The Arctic melted more than what was predicted, so they can't even get that right and cannot explain it either other than repeating the same "mandunit" mantra. However, wind and ocean currents are a larger contributor to ice loss than temperature. This happened in both 2007 and 2012 and as the AMO returns to its cold phase as the PDO has (see current Bering Sea ice), the Eastern Arctic ice retreat will reverse just as it always has. Greenland is still no warmer than it was in the 1930's.

All of the above is easily verifiable.

So what was predicted in 1988 that got everyone's panties in a bind? Note the picture of the super heated Antarctic which was supposed to warm faster and more than the Arctic. Remember, the "greenhouse effect" is supposed to warm most at the poles (plural).
pg. 54 Popular Science - Google Books That article and James Hansen Congressional testimony the same year is what hooked me for several years. It is a load of garbage.

Someone mentioned glaciers are melting at an "unprecedented rate". Sorry, but the vast majority of glacier melt occurred before 1960. Less honest people (scientists are people too) often fail to point out that fact. Many glaciers are now growing; that is rarely reported either. Alaska was for several years the 'canary in the coal mine' poster child for AGW, but they don't talk about Alaska these days. Why? Because the PDO flipped negative and just as The Great Climate Shift occurred in ~1975 to the warm phase, now it is returning to 20-30 years of cold. Oh darn, another AGW fail.

I did not pollute the thread with multiple graphs and pictures. If some demand such evidence with links to the data source, I'm happy to oblige.

Supply the links, I am interested., Thanks

 

[2LaneCruzer]

Not really. It was wealth produced by capitalism that allowed us to improve our lives. The Soviet Union, China, Cuba.....the list is long, all are heavily regulated yet, are bastions of poverty, pollution and poor living conditions.

The FDA and EPA are corrupt as any mafia organization.


CO2 is not a pollutant even if 5 lawyers in black suits call it such.

You are correct: Capitalism is responsible for our economy and our standard of living. Communism, however, being the primary economic instrument is governmental, not private, and therefore is essentially controlling itself. This will often translate into zero control, environmentally speaking. The improvement in our air, water and hazardous materials disposal is primarily a function of government controls in this country, no ifs, ands or buts about it. These controls were brought about by regulations which had enormous input from the industries that were affected. Although industry had been dragged into this environmentally friendly world, the concept is generally supported by industry because it is what society wants, and they know it is to their benefit to do so...as long as it applies across the board to everyone. No one in their right mind, industrially speaking, would want to continue practices that produced lethal air pollution events, poisons the water, causing fatal diseases (Minimata) or allowed highly toxic materials to be buried, only to become a problem later.

 

[WaxMan]

So your solution to our poluting the planet is to stick your head in the sand.

Harry K

Step back, look at the universe, look how the stars and planets were formed. Explosions, gases ,violent, violent beginning. You need to understand how small you really are and except it. I don't think you Liberals want to grasp the reality that you can't stop or change the process to suit your Dream of a world with less. Your always worried about the next guy he may have more then you it bugs you to no end. Started with cell phones when they first came out and SUV's it just bugs the s*** out of you. Everyone should ride around in a two door spec, with their knees in their chest.

If oil was banned tomorrow and never used again anywhere in the world does your science suggest that would stop the problem? Cold turkey not one drop of oil used anywhere? Problem gone? Why not start your research there and work backwards. Before you ask us to pay more for energy and really suffer for a lot of people and the economies of the world. Figure it out first. Cutting back 10% or 50% is a joke when 100% won't do it.

Think about how booming the economy would be right now. If you Liberals had some sort of hobby or something else to do. Instead your guilty for living or something and need to repent and make sure everyone else does too. Find some sort of God to believe in maybe that will help you. Just keep your do as a I say what has to be done to yourself when it requires the world to go on without cheap affordable energy and I'm taking about the developing world too Don't you think they have a right to energy too. Especially when you know damm well not using any oil at all would NOT solve the problem. It's not your universe your just a tiny tiny tiny speck deal with it and stop worrying about what others have, enjoy life. I can really see your descendants trying to stop our sun from dying in the future.

 

[EE_Bota]

You do not repost outrageous crap from denier blogs so you are not on my dishonor role of deniers. Yes, everyone should be skeptical about believing anything until they have been assured that the data has been verified and repeated or confirmed in some other way. I am convinced by the preponderance of evidence that AGW is real but I remain skeptical regarding best policies to pursue to mitigate the effects. I don't subscribe to the notion that we cannot take any action until the science is irrefutable. That's just my background as a clinician who needs to take action regularly with less than ideal data. We make decisions with best available data.

You reminded me, and I would have forgot, but I received a letter from Duke Energy yesterday that was the first of its type I have seen. It compares my power consumption to 950 houses in my area of similar size and age. They consider "energy efficient" to be the bottom quartile in power consumption. My house was rated at "$52" compared to an efficient house being "$79" making mine one of the "most efficient" in our area. But what was neater was the graph of "all houses" in the group vs the "efficient" houses vs my house. My house is well below both other types but the graph has the same shape until Nov, where mine goes flat while others keep rising. And the shape of my graph only mimics the others again starting in March. This is my soapstone wood stove.

 

[tcreeley]

Some interesting charts from Global Climate Change Indicators show the Evidence - Climate Change - AccuWeather.com







Of course it is all lies and scheming GW stuff- somehow the dollars will do a rainbow arc from your pocket to mine- you must be a leprechaun denier!
_______________________________
Explaining the Hurricane and Climate change Link
September 07, 2012; 7:26 PM
"And because of that, as the temperature gets warmer and warmer, ironically it becomes more difficult to start a hurricane, even though once you start a hurricane, potentially it can become more intense, so you have these two contradictory things going on."
Explaining the Hurricane and Climate change Link - Climate Change - AccuWeather.com
_________________________________________________________
re Tornadoes:
"2. Significant severe weather (tornadoes and hail storms) depend more on wind shear (change in direction of strong winds with height) rather than a combination of heat and high humidity. Shear also determines the intensity of hail and tornadoes in the U.S. and Europe. Big tornado years have hail storms as the dominant secondary severe weather events (as opposed to just damaging winds).
3. Climate models projecting a future warmer world with C02 doubled show an increase in heat and humidity, but a decrease in shear (a decrease in equator to pole gradient).
4. These high heat/humidity & low shear environments result in little overall change in severe thunderstorms. However, there may be a slight decrease in tornadoes due to less shear and an increase in significant thunderstorm straight-line wind events due to an increase in heat and humidity."
Climate Change and Severe Thunderstorms - Climate Change - AccuWeather.com
___________________________________________
If the charts are too small after you click on them for PC- hold ctrl key down as you push the shift key and + key
-for mackbook- instead of the ctrl key use the command key

 

[/pine]

Working in a lab teaches you to think through experimental design, methods, and analysis as well as how to use the literature. You clearly don't have such skills. I don't know what field you were in but i bet there are analogous experiences and credentials that you looked for in colleagues or employees. A basis in scientific method is not learned off political blogs where most of you find your reading material. Moan and groan all you want about evil elitists and scientists at the trough but I would still prefer to hear and read their thoughts on the matter over a group of guys who last studied science in high school and probably weren't paying attention then. I would feel the same way about amateur self taught weldors versus schooled and certified weldors. There is a difference.

Yet again you prove not only your ignorance but your inability to do anything but stereotype and attempt to demean anyone you disagree with...

FYI...for 6 years I was the technical administrator of a large material testing lab...but according to your idiotic assumptions I "don't have the skills" to follow the often complex procedures set by the ASTM...
So guess again and blather on Oh toothless one...!

 

[tcreeley]

With global warming, the DoD looks at a different Artic strategy - Fort Lewis Blog - Northwest Military - Ft Lewis Ranger - Military News, Events & Community
The Defense Department has sent to Congress a report on its Arctic operations that leaders say will put the department in a good position to shape U.S. interests as the region undergoes dramatic climate and social changes.

The Report to Congress on Arctic Operations and the Northwest Passage, mandated by the fiscal 2011 National Defense Authorization Act, "was true value added" to U.S. policies on the Arctic, a DOD official speaking on background said June 3 when the report was sent to Congress.

The Arctic is warming on average twice as fast as the rest of the planet, resulting in more human activity in the area, a report summary says. The report assesses U.S. national security objectives in the region, and the capabilities and infrastructure needed to support them.

Not exactly the latest treehugger - this is the military planning for GW! What do they know you don't?

____________________________________________
World Bank worries about global warming
World Bank worries about global warming

 

[tcreeley]

All data is at some point rewritten and posted BY A HUMAN. That HUMAN may or may not have an agenda. So that in itself makes science not trust worthy. Takes nothing to change a 1 to a 2 or a 10 to a 100, to get results THAT HUMAN wants. If a HUMAN forces a certain number that HUMAN may get a grant to keep working for another 20 years. If the number is wrong he loses his job. What would you do. Put down one number and lose your job or put down another number and keep your job for 20 years.


Don't BS me every one of us would fudge a number to keep a job for 20 years.

That may be your world- I know many people that would not fudge a number- even if it meant their job. I think you'd be surprised at how many people would not be dishonest.

 

[houstonscott]

Step back, look at the universe, look how the stars and planets were formed. Explosions, gases ,violent, violent beginning. You need to understand how small you really are and except it. I don't think you Liberals want to grasp the reality that you can't stop or change the process to suit your Dream of a world with less. Your always worried about the next guy he may have more then you it bugs you to no end. Started with cell phones when they first came out and SUV's it just bugs the s*** out of you. Everyone should ride around in a two door spec, with their knees in their chest.

If oil was banned tomorrow and never used again anywhere in the world does your science suggest that would stop the problem? Cold turkey not one drop of oil used anywhere? Problem gone? Why not start your research there and work backwards. Before you ask us to pay more for energy and really suffer for a lot of people and the economies of the world. Figure it out first. Cutting back 10% or 50% is a joke when 100% won't do it.

Think about how booming the economy would be right now. If you Liberals had some sort of hobby or something else to do. Instead your guilty for living or something and need to repent and make sure everyone else does too. Find some sort of God to believe in maybe that will help you. Just keep your do as a I say what has to be done to yourself when it requires the world to go on without cheap affordable energy and I'm taking about the developing world too Don't you think they have a right to energy too. Especially when you know damm well not using any oil at all would NOT solve the problem. It's not your universe your just a tiny tiny tiny speck deal with it and stop worrying about what others have, enjoy life. I can really see your descendants trying to stop our sun from dying in the future.

Well said;

Liberals are not happy because they think they are the smartest people in the room and the system does't reward them in this monitory system for their smarts. They think they should have all the money for them (smarter then you) to tell you how to live your life. Problem is the capitalist system doesn't reward them you have to work and preform, not just sip coffee with the profs at the union and plan everyones lives because you are so smart. It's not different with global warming. Most of the reactions to facts about the cabal in man made global warming by islandtractor are almost straight from the handbook.

HS

 

[EE_Bota]

When you are so ignorant that you are denying Physics that is sinking to a real low point.
If you actually have a tractor, start it up and put your hand on the intake, it is cold put your hand on the fuel filter it is cold, then put you hand on the exhaust, leave your had on it for at least an minute, that is heat, it makes the engine run and have the ability to do work.
Then look at the exhaust it goes up that is hot air rising.
Tornadoes form along a line of cold air contacting warm moist air, if you watch the weather channel they explain it every time there is a threat.

You got off light. I only wrote "heat is power?" And someone even defended you, which was a kindness to you that you are now proving you did not deserve. I would not have even said anything if you were not talking down to the rest of us about physics, which is what you are repeating above. I don't really care that much whether you understand physics. I only care when you insult the rest of us about it.

But you are still wrong. Can you find your error, or will you substitute insult for even a cursory look at a physics text? If you have no physics texts, search through Google until you encounter Joule and Watt.

Answer these questions (to yourself):
What is an appropriate unit of heat in the SI system? (slight hint:Joule)
What is an appropriate unit of power in the SI system? (slight hint: Watt)
Do those units equal each other? (Slight hint: NO!)

Bonus questions:
What is the SI unit of energy (slight hint: Joule)
Can it be said that heat is energy? (Hint:Yes)
Can it be said that energy is power? (Hint: NO!)
Can you ignore these things and insult people about their understanding of physics anyway? (Your behavior yields the result:Apparently!)