Over
at The Goreacle we have another opinion about what Superstorm Sandy means for the
future. Not surprisingly Al is warning us to convert to alternative
energy ASAP or face dire consequences. But then Al is known for his
alarmism. It has made him rich.
Scientists
tell us that by continually dumping 90 million tons of global warming
pollution into the atmosphere every single day, we are altering the
environment in which all storms develop.
No they don’t. They tell us that CO2 has little to no effect on climate. Scientists tell us that low atmospheric CO2 content could be deadly for life. They tell us that CO2 is unrelated to extreme weather events. You won’t hear The Goreacle quoting that study on his Nov 14-15 snoreathon.
As the oceans and atmosphere continue to warm, storms are becoming more energetic and powerful.
No they are not. Severe storms are not increasing. Accumulated Cyclone Energy is below normal for this year.
Other climate-related catastrophes around the world have carried the same message to hundreds of millions.
Not snowstorms or tornadoes or windstorms or hurricanes
What is he talking about? Is he ignorant or deliberately lying? Is he living on the same planet?
As the hurricane approached the East Coast, it gathered strength from abnormally warm coastal waters.
No
it didn’t. It went from a Category 1 hurricane to a tropical cyclone.
Read the accounts, Al. Can he get anything right? Apparently not. Look
at this.
At the same time, Sandy's storm surge was worsened by a century of sea level rise.
The
surge was worsened by the high tides at the full moon. Both natural
phenomenon last time I was in school. Isn’t the East coast still sinking
after the last ice age in isostatic rebound?
Scientists tell us that if we do not reduce our emissions, these problems will only grow worse.
So Al, to what level should we reduce our emissions of CO2?
According to Roger Pielke,
Jr.: In historical context, Sandy sits alongside Carol, Diane and
Hazel. One big difference however -- Carol, Diane and Hazel hit the US
Atlantic coast within a single 13 month period in 1954-1955. Imagine
that.
Al
seems to think we need to leave the oil, gas and coal in the ground so
we don’t burn it and add CO2 to the atmosphere. Is the presumption that
this will improve the climate?
Shall we reduce our CO2 levels to that of 1954-55? Would that be far enough into the past?
Should we go back to the levels of CO2 that were present in 1938 when the Long Island Express hurricane rolled through NYC? Lots of fires that year too(185,000). A lot fewer fires in 2012 so far.
Maybe we should reduce our CO2 concentrations to the levels present in 1900 when Galveston was flattened by a devastating hurricane. Lots of forest fires that year too.
Not back far enough? How about 1886
when the US was hit by 7 hurricanes - 2 of them of the major variety?
CO2 levels were a lot lower back then. Oil refining was in its infancy.
Tell me again, Al. What year and level of CO2 did you have in mind when the weather was to your liking?
Al ends with this warning.
Hurricane
Sandy is a disturbing sign of things to come. We must heed this warning
and act quickly to solve the climate crisis. Dirty energy makes dirty
weather.
Nonsense. There is no crisis except in Al’s deluded mind. See links above.
Late breaking: more nonsense
from Al on the Jennifer Granholm show. Now Al is claiming that hot
temperatures "are now 100 times more common than they were just thirty
years ago". Did he make that up? Even with all the record hot
temperatures experienced in the US in the summer of 2012 no state highs were set. If temperatures are increasing so much how come the State highs are not being broken 100 times more frequently?
Hot air rises, Al. Try as you might even you can’t overheat the planet.
Sandy may have been a Frankenstorm but as usual Al is talking Frankenpoop.
About Me
- JLS
- Copyright Notice © JLS and LensFocus, 2008-present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to JLS and LensFocus with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Well, George
George Lakoff
thinks Superstorm Sandy was due to global warming. From where I come
something must exist in order to be a cause. Since HADCRUT4 does not
report any global warming for the last 16 years then global warming cannot be the parent, systemic or otherwise of Frankenstorm Sandy. To imply such is Frankenpoop.
According to Roger Pielke, Jr.: In historical context, Sandy sits alongside Carol, Diane and Hazel. One big difference however -- Carol, Diane and Hazel hit the US Atlantic coast within a single 13 month period in 1954-1955. Imagine that.
George seems to think we need to leave the oil, gas and coal in the ground so we don’t burn it and add CO2 to the atmosphere. Is the presumption that this will improve the climate?
Shall we reduce our CO2 levels to that of 1954-55? Would that be far enough into the past?
Should we go back to the levels of CO2 that were present in 1938 when the Long Island Express hurricane rolled through NYC? Lots of fires that year too(185,000). A lot fewer fires in 2012 so far.
Maybe we should reduce our CO2 concentrations to the levels present in 1900 when Galveston was flattened by a devastating hurricane. Lots of forest fires that year too.
Not back far enough? How about 1886 when the US was hit by 7 hurricanes - 2 of them of the major variety? CO2 levels were a lot lower back then. Oil refining was in its infancy.
Tell me, George. What year and level of CO2 did you have in mind when the weather was to your liking?
George mentions “0.8 degrees Celsius so far” as the temperature rise over the last century or so. Most of Antarctica is known to be cooling. Antarctica is bigger than the US. If we had as many thermometers in Antarctica as there are in the official US network for as long what do you think would happen to that .8 George?
According to Roger Pielke, Jr.: In historical context, Sandy sits alongside Carol, Diane and Hazel. One big difference however -- Carol, Diane and Hazel hit the US Atlantic coast within a single 13 month period in 1954-1955. Imagine that.
George seems to think we need to leave the oil, gas and coal in the ground so we don’t burn it and add CO2 to the atmosphere. Is the presumption that this will improve the climate?
Shall we reduce our CO2 levels to that of 1954-55? Would that be far enough into the past?
Should we go back to the levels of CO2 that were present in 1938 when the Long Island Express hurricane rolled through NYC? Lots of fires that year too(185,000). A lot fewer fires in 2012 so far.
Maybe we should reduce our CO2 concentrations to the levels present in 1900 when Galveston was flattened by a devastating hurricane. Lots of forest fires that year too.
Not back far enough? How about 1886 when the US was hit by 7 hurricanes - 2 of them of the major variety? CO2 levels were a lot lower back then. Oil refining was in its infancy.
Tell me, George. What year and level of CO2 did you have in mind when the weather was to your liking?
George mentions “0.8 degrees Celsius so far” as the temperature rise over the last century or so. Most of Antarctica is known to be cooling. Antarctica is bigger than the US. If we had as many thermometers in Antarctica as there are in the official US network for as long what do you think would happen to that .8 George?
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Frankenpoop
Hurricane Sandy is approaching the US east coast on Oct 28, 2012. It has been dubbed 'Frankenstorm' because of its near Halloween arrival coupled with the appearance of the full moon which will add to the normal storm surge to be expected. The nearness of the US election for POTUS to the event has started speculation that the storm has been sent by the Deity to wake up US politicians for ignoring the issue of climate change during the televised debates. Frankenpoop!
Alarmists don't miss an opportunity to be, well, alarmist. Make no mistake Sandy has the potential to be a very destructive storm since it may linger over the US eastern seaboard because of a high pressure system to the north that may keep Sandy pinned down for a few days. Lots of rain, high winds and snow is expected for the areas that fall in its path. Storm surges may be exceptionally high due to the high tides enhanced by the pull of the full moon. Much property damage should be expected.
But Sandy is not unprecedented and while we wish people in its path the best possible outcome we should not lose sight of the context in which Sandy falls. There have been other hurricanes that have occurred in the fall of the year along the eastern seaboard. A list of them appears here. Hurricane Hazel, a category 4 1954 storm, that traveled a similar path to that projected for Sandy was very destructive and cost 95 lives. 1886 was a particularly bad year for hurricanes in the US when 7 landed, two of them of the 'major' variety. New England experienced a devastating hurricane in September of 1938. In September of 1944 a hurricane hit NYC and again in 1950. The NYC area does not usually receive storms that bring more than 6 inches of rain. The rainiest day was in 1954. When we look at Atlantic City, NJ we see that extreme precipitation events have been on the decline. All of these storms occurred when CO2 was at a much lower concentration in the atmosphere than it is today. Does this not suggest tat CO2 has nothing to do with fueling storms? The US has not been hit by a MAJOR hurricane in 7 years. Florida has not been hit with ANY hurricane in 7 years. Both periods of absence are records. President Obama has been in office for only two hurricanes and one of those has since been downgraded to a tropical storm. These facts do not support the view that hurricanes are becoming more frequent or severe. Their severity in terms of property damage is a result of the growth of human society.
Sandy, as with any hurricane, is to be feared and people should take steps to secure their safety. But hurricanes have happened before and will happen again. The records do NOT indicate that they are becoming more frequent or more severe. They may cause more damage to property which is to be expected given the growth of population in the areas affected. Sandy is not part of a new normal. To suggest that it is is Frankenpoop. Hurricanes, unwelcome as they are, will drop in on us from time to time. Even reducing our levels of atmospheric CO2 concentration to those present in 1886 will not prevent them. Seriously, doesn't this suggest to you that CO2 concentration has nothing to do with the severity of the weather? Time to reject Frankenpoop.
Alarmists rue the lack of coverage of climate change in the presidential debates. You can hear them almost hoping for a very destructive result for hurricane Sandy. Some have called it God's wrath. That is a vengeful God. My preference would be for one who keeps hurricanes at bay for 7 years or longer. Alarmists will try to use the appearance of Sandy to plead their case for CAGW. Armed with a little history and some scientific studies that rebut the association of CO2 with extreme weather we can ignore the hysteria and realize that CO2 is innocent of all charges. Sometimes we get bad weather and just have to endure it. May everyone in its path experience Sandy safely.
CO2 is a trace gas essential to life on Earth and has been exhaled during the creation of this post. No living thing was harmed. Some even liked it.
Alarmists don't miss an opportunity to be, well, alarmist. Make no mistake Sandy has the potential to be a very destructive storm since it may linger over the US eastern seaboard because of a high pressure system to the north that may keep Sandy pinned down for a few days. Lots of rain, high winds and snow is expected for the areas that fall in its path. Storm surges may be exceptionally high due to the high tides enhanced by the pull of the full moon. Much property damage should be expected.
But Sandy is not unprecedented and while we wish people in its path the best possible outcome we should not lose sight of the context in which Sandy falls. There have been other hurricanes that have occurred in the fall of the year along the eastern seaboard. A list of them appears here. Hurricane Hazel, a category 4 1954 storm, that traveled a similar path to that projected for Sandy was very destructive and cost 95 lives. 1886 was a particularly bad year for hurricanes in the US when 7 landed, two of them of the 'major' variety. New England experienced a devastating hurricane in September of 1938. In September of 1944 a hurricane hit NYC and again in 1950. The NYC area does not usually receive storms that bring more than 6 inches of rain. The rainiest day was in 1954. When we look at Atlantic City, NJ we see that extreme precipitation events have been on the decline. All of these storms occurred when CO2 was at a much lower concentration in the atmosphere than it is today. Does this not suggest tat CO2 has nothing to do with fueling storms? The US has not been hit by a MAJOR hurricane in 7 years. Florida has not been hit with ANY hurricane in 7 years. Both periods of absence are records. President Obama has been in office for only two hurricanes and one of those has since been downgraded to a tropical storm. These facts do not support the view that hurricanes are becoming more frequent or severe. Their severity in terms of property damage is a result of the growth of human society.
Sandy, as with any hurricane, is to be feared and people should take steps to secure their safety. But hurricanes have happened before and will happen again. The records do NOT indicate that they are becoming more frequent or more severe. They may cause more damage to property which is to be expected given the growth of population in the areas affected. Sandy is not part of a new normal. To suggest that it is is Frankenpoop. Hurricanes, unwelcome as they are, will drop in on us from time to time. Even reducing our levels of atmospheric CO2 concentration to those present in 1886 will not prevent them. Seriously, doesn't this suggest to you that CO2 concentration has nothing to do with the severity of the weather? Time to reject Frankenpoop.
Alarmists rue the lack of coverage of climate change in the presidential debates. You can hear them almost hoping for a very destructive result for hurricane Sandy. Some have called it God's wrath. That is a vengeful God. My preference would be for one who keeps hurricanes at bay for 7 years or longer. Alarmists will try to use the appearance of Sandy to plead their case for CAGW. Armed with a little history and some scientific studies that rebut the association of CO2 with extreme weather we can ignore the hysteria and realize that CO2 is innocent of all charges. Sometimes we get bad weather and just have to endure it. May everyone in its path experience Sandy safely.
CO2 is a trace gas essential to life on Earth and has been exhaled during the creation of this post. No living thing was harmed. Some even liked it.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
CAGW: rich man's lolly; poor man's folly
Even though CO2 has continued to accumulate in our atmosphere temperatures have not followed suit. Severe weather has not become more frequent or more extreme. So CAGW is a sham.
The CAGW scare is manufactured by rich people for rich people.
It will harm poor people.
Should we be surprised?
We live in a crony capitalist state where astute business people have learned how to work the government for their own benefit. They know where the power is. Lawyers, not known for their appearances in the soup kitchen, draft the laws and tip them in their favor. Rich people do not like a level playing field. They like any excuse to use the police power of the state to enforce financial rules to benefit their own markets.
When the state commands the economy and can interfere in it, business people must be on the defensive or take the offensive to direct government cash into the service of their markets.
Example: if it comes to be believed that humans are altering the climate in nefarious ways the smart entrepreneur will launch businesses to capitalize on this belief. They will petition government to pass laws that disadvantage their competition like having coal powered electricity generation phased out. This will result in more government dependence on natural gas. Good for the natural gas companies. Other entrepreneurs will jump on the biofuel, wind and solar power generation technologies and line up for subsidies offered by gullible government because those methods of power generation are too inefficient and expensive to compete with lower cost coal, natural gas and oil. Taxes go up to pay for higher priced energy - a double whammy. This is good for poor people (/sarc) and is not noticed by the 1%. Smart investors see where the money is going and buy stock in subsidized industries and hope they sell out before the inevitable crash when the subsidies run out.
Reliance on alternative fuels is built into the fight global warming crusade and results in an increase in the cost of energy. This is appreciated by poor people who are only too happy to shiver and sweat or die for the environment. Those getting rich in the alternative fuels industry can continue their wasteful ways and assuage their conscience with the purchase of carbon offsets. Others are impoverished.
Food prices go up as we grow food like corn to turn into ethanol to burn in our vehicles. What a brainy idea and the poor thank-you with all their heart.
Let's get less fuel efficient older vehicles off the road with a Cash for Clunkers program. This will drive up the price of used cars as their supply is diminished by this original program and the poor, who are the prime purchasers of used cars will thank you with all their heart.
Green organizations benefit from increased donations from both individuals and corporations that want to curry favor with the public. We are all familiar with Coca-Cola's association with the World Wildlife Fund. CEO's of green organizations are not among the poor. They can even be used as front men for nefarious corporate attacks against rival industries as Natural Gas did with the coal industry.
CFL bulb makers will petition the state to outlaw the competition of incandescent bulb makers for there is a higher markup in CFL bulbs. Again the poor person is disadvantaged. But they can take solace in the fact that they are helping to defeat climate change. Yeah!
Plastic bags are disadvantaged by requiring merchants to charge customers for them in an attempt to discourage their use. Makers of cloth bags like this policy. Again poor people have their beleaguered budgets bludgeoned. Yeah!
We must learn to separate the economy from the State in order to retain our liberty and keep our country great. No subsidies, tax breaks, grants or favorable loans or laws to any business big or small. End corporate welfare. Let's return to a free market and not a stacked market. Crony capitalism must die.
And when renewables turn out to be folly, subsidized companies will disappear and the taxpayer will be left holding the cloth bag. "Spanish renewable-energy companies that once got Europe’s biggest subsidies are deserting the nation after the government shut off aid, pushing project developers and equipment-makers to work abroad or perish." Folly will follow the renewable energy businesses around the world as governments already in the red realize the true cost of intermittent wind and solar. Think sailboat: what does it need when the wind isn't blowing?
Let's cheer for the higher taxes that will be paid by the 99% to cover the rich man's subsidies (lolly) which are never recovered. Rich people are like Little Miss Helpful without the good intentions. They are looking out for number one. And the poor man 's folly is to pay for the rich man's lolly. The last linked article ends with this quote from Andrew Jackson:
“It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes,” President Andrew Jackson wrote in 1832. “[W]hen the laws undertake to add . . . artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society — the farmers, mechanics, and laborers — who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government.”
The problem has been with us for a long time. Crony capitalism must die.
CAGW really stands for: Conning A Gullible World. (h/t to Mac the Knife, a commenter at the blog Watts Up With That for the accurate acronym.)
Sadly, CAGW has casualties who are misled true believers. Jay McGinley will pay with his life if he keeps up his own starvation and for what? His death will be on the climate alarmists who refused to open their eyes. (Update: Fortunately he ended his hunger strike)
Time for another way. Will Romney take up the gauntlet? Not holding my breath.
The CAGW scare is manufactured by rich people for rich people.
It will harm poor people.
Should we be surprised?
We live in a crony capitalist state where astute business people have learned how to work the government for their own benefit. They know where the power is. Lawyers, not known for their appearances in the soup kitchen, draft the laws and tip them in their favor. Rich people do not like a level playing field. They like any excuse to use the police power of the state to enforce financial rules to benefit their own markets.
When the state commands the economy and can interfere in it, business people must be on the defensive or take the offensive to direct government cash into the service of their markets.
Example: if it comes to be believed that humans are altering the climate in nefarious ways the smart entrepreneur will launch businesses to capitalize on this belief. They will petition government to pass laws that disadvantage their competition like having coal powered electricity generation phased out. This will result in more government dependence on natural gas. Good for the natural gas companies. Other entrepreneurs will jump on the biofuel, wind and solar power generation technologies and line up for subsidies offered by gullible government because those methods of power generation are too inefficient and expensive to compete with lower cost coal, natural gas and oil. Taxes go up to pay for higher priced energy - a double whammy. This is good for poor people (/sarc) and is not noticed by the 1%. Smart investors see where the money is going and buy stock in subsidized industries and hope they sell out before the inevitable crash when the subsidies run out.
Reliance on alternative fuels is built into the fight global warming crusade and results in an increase in the cost of energy. This is appreciated by poor people who are only too happy to shiver and sweat or die for the environment. Those getting rich in the alternative fuels industry can continue their wasteful ways and assuage their conscience with the purchase of carbon offsets. Others are impoverished.
Food prices go up as we grow food like corn to turn into ethanol to burn in our vehicles. What a brainy idea and the poor thank-you with all their heart.
Let's get less fuel efficient older vehicles off the road with a Cash for Clunkers program. This will drive up the price of used cars as their supply is diminished by this original program and the poor, who are the prime purchasers of used cars will thank you with all their heart.
Green organizations benefit from increased donations from both individuals and corporations that want to curry favor with the public. We are all familiar with Coca-Cola's association with the World Wildlife Fund. CEO's of green organizations are not among the poor. They can even be used as front men for nefarious corporate attacks against rival industries as Natural Gas did with the coal industry.
CFL bulb makers will petition the state to outlaw the competition of incandescent bulb makers for there is a higher markup in CFL bulbs. Again the poor person is disadvantaged. But they can take solace in the fact that they are helping to defeat climate change. Yeah!
Plastic bags are disadvantaged by requiring merchants to charge customers for them in an attempt to discourage their use. Makers of cloth bags like this policy. Again poor people have their beleaguered budgets bludgeoned. Yeah!
We must learn to separate the economy from the State in order to retain our liberty and keep our country great. No subsidies, tax breaks, grants or favorable loans or laws to any business big or small. End corporate welfare. Let's return to a free market and not a stacked market. Crony capitalism must die.
And when renewables turn out to be folly, subsidized companies will disappear and the taxpayer will be left holding the cloth bag. "Spanish renewable-energy companies that once got Europe’s biggest subsidies are deserting the nation after the government shut off aid, pushing project developers and equipment-makers to work abroad or perish." Folly will follow the renewable energy businesses around the world as governments already in the red realize the true cost of intermittent wind and solar. Think sailboat: what does it need when the wind isn't blowing?
Let's cheer for the higher taxes that will be paid by the 99% to cover the rich man's subsidies (lolly) which are never recovered. Rich people are like Little Miss Helpful without the good intentions. They are looking out for number one. And the poor man 's folly is to pay for the rich man's lolly. The last linked article ends with this quote from Andrew Jackson:
“It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes,” President Andrew Jackson wrote in 1832. “[W]hen the laws undertake to add . . . artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society — the farmers, mechanics, and laborers — who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government.”
The problem has been with us for a long time. Crony capitalism must die.
CAGW really stands for: Conning A Gullible World. (h/t to Mac the Knife, a commenter at the blog Watts Up With That for the accurate acronym.)
Sadly, CAGW has casualties who are misled true believers. Jay McGinley will pay with his life if he keeps up his own starvation and for what? His death will be on the climate alarmists who refused to open their eyes. (Update: Fortunately he ended his hunger strike)
Time for another way. Will Romney take up the gauntlet? Not holding my breath.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Some Kind of Wonderful
In case you guys missed the memo: Glass half full
Don’t Worry, Be Happy say 68 scientists
The warming has stopped for 16 years.
Despite many city record highs set in summer of 2012 no State record highs were set in 2012.
CO2 is not the thermostat of the climate.
Severe weather is not increasing.
CO2 does not cause severe weather increase
National Interagency Fire Center says forest fires are trending down
Strong tornadoes were more frequent in the past
New record: 7 years since Florida hit by a hurricane
New record: 7 years since US hit by a major hurricane
No increase in severe floods due to warming
Warming does not cause increase in droughts
CO2 is a trace gas essential to life on Earth. Plants take it in and in exchange slip us some oxygen of which we have become rather fond. CO2 is green. We need more of it. It is not a pollutant.
Isn’t that great news? No need for the fear and guilt we have endured for the last twenty years of the climate crisis that wasn’t. We seem to enjoy scaring ourselves.
Unfortunately, no need for all the policies aimed to cure a non-existent problem. Much money wasted. Many crony capitalists made out like bandits.
We owe CO2 an apology for conduct demeaning to an essential gas.
Take a deep breath. Relax. Chill. Things are better than we think.
We can go back to using more than the one sheet that Sheryl Crow advises.
Reduce your energy use to save money not the planet.
Bad stuff happens but our rambunctious planet is fine. Your kids and mine will be fine.
CO2 was exhaled during the creation of this post. No living thing was harmed. Some even liked it.
Don’t Worry, Be Happy say 68 scientists
The warming has stopped for 16 years.
Despite many city record highs set in summer of 2012 no State record highs were set in 2012.
CO2 is not the thermostat of the climate.
Severe weather is not increasing.
CO2 does not cause severe weather increase
National Interagency Fire Center says forest fires are trending down
Strong tornadoes were more frequent in the past
New record: 7 years since Florida hit by a hurricane
New record: 7 years since US hit by a major hurricane
No increase in severe floods due to warming
Warming does not cause increase in droughts
CO2 is a trace gas essential to life on Earth. Plants take it in and in exchange slip us some oxygen of which we have become rather fond. CO2 is green. We need more of it. It is not a pollutant.
Isn’t that great news? No need for the fear and guilt we have endured for the last twenty years of the climate crisis that wasn’t. We seem to enjoy scaring ourselves.
Unfortunately, no need for all the policies aimed to cure a non-existent problem. Much money wasted. Many crony capitalists made out like bandits.
We owe CO2 an apology for conduct demeaning to an essential gas.
Take a deep breath. Relax. Chill. Things are better than we think.
We can go back to using more than the one sheet that Sheryl Crow advises.
Reduce your energy use to save money not the planet.
Bad stuff happens but our rambunctious planet is fine. Your kids and mine will be fine.
CO2 was exhaled during the creation of this post. No living thing was harmed. Some even liked it.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Heat Trapping Gas Making Snow in October
What is going on with the weather? Have we fallen down the rabbit hole and emerged in Wonderland?
It is snowing in Australia in October! That is their spring. It is a once in a 100 year event!
Must be our fault!
Can't you see the headlines now? Heat Trapping Gas Causes Snow in Australia! How does CO2 do that?
And not only in Oz. Alaska has winter trouble already in October.
And CONUS (CONtinental US) is experiencing record low temps for this time of year (October 2012).
With early snow in Wyoming and West Virginia.
The world has gone crackers. Alice will appear any time now.
And all this after we learn that Antarctica has more ice around it than at any time since records began. Wow! CO2 traps heat which expands the ice sheet around the South Pole's continent. Must be that new kind of heat - cold heat! It's dat fast freeze heat what done it!
It is snowing in Australia in October! That is their spring. It is a once in a 100 year event!
Must be our fault!
Can't you see the headlines now? Heat Trapping Gas Causes Snow in Australia! How does CO2 do that?
And not only in Oz. Alaska has winter trouble already in October.
And CONUS (CONtinental US) is experiencing record low temps for this time of year (October 2012).
With early snow in Wyoming and West Virginia.
The world has gone crackers. Alice will appear any time now.
And all this after we learn that Antarctica has more ice around it than at any time since records began. Wow! CO2 traps heat which expands the ice sheet around the South Pole's continent. Must be that new kind of heat - cold heat! It's dat fast freeze heat what done it!
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Why The Public has trouble accepting CAGW
In the news (MSM) we see reports about glacier drainage that relate "Fast-flowing and narrow glaciers have the potential to trigger massive
changes in the Antarctic ice sheet and contribute to rapid ice-sheet
decay and sea-level rise, a new study has found."
But climate realists are also aware of studies that indicate that conclusions about the Antarctic ice sheet melt are all wet. Antarctica is gaining ice mass according to GRACE.
So how is it possible to conclude that the science is settled when there are conflicting reports about the state of the Antarctic ice sheet? Excuse us our skepticism but conflicting reports about the same phenomenon is evidence of disagreement among scientists. The science is not settled. It is in flux as people try to sort out what is really going on.
We see a similar Armageddon approach to the record low ice melt in the Arctic in the summer of 2012. Proof positive that global warming via human CO2 emissions is happening. Predictions of an ice-free Arctic by summer 2015 and ice free year round by 2030 have followed.
Where have we heard these kind of predictions before? Similar concerns about Arctic warming were on the minds of people back in the 1920s, 30s and 40s. We are still waiting for the arrival of an ice free Arctic.
"We are in a planetary emergency," said Hansen, decrying "the gap between what is understood by scientific community and what is known by the public."
And yet others say 'Don't Panic' and present evidence that Arctic ice melt is nothing to get excited about because it has happened before and is due to natural causes.
What is a layperson to do? Who to believe?
And to make it worse some people claim the reduced Arctic ice will cause Northern Hemisphere winters to become worse while others decry the loss of the world's 'air-conditioner' and fear it is a harbinger of even greater global warming. Yet another study says N. Hemisphere winters may not get worse. Warmer winters; colder winters. Which is it? How about snowy winters?
Meanwhile at the south end of the planet Antarctic sea ice is at a maximum in direct contradiction to the direction predicted by astute climate models. That heat trapping gas, CO2, seems to act preferentially in the Northern Hemisphere. Maybe it is too cold for it in the South. And it is getting colder in Antarctica.
Warm in the Arctic; cold in the Antarctic.
Hot here; cold there.
Heat distribution not so rare.
Could it be that the atmosphere adjusts to warming in one area by inducing cold elsewhere?
And what are we to make of a Snow and Ice expert like Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, who can't keep his story straight on what is going on in the Arctic.Click the link for an overview of his confusion.
There were 11 snowfall records set in the US state of Nevada on Sept 17, 2012 and yet we are told by global warming alarmists that snow is a thing of the past.
Then we get reports that say the sea ice volume in the Arctic is decreasing both slower and faster than the sea ice extent.
There is this bit of 'settled science' about American Crows reported at Tom Nelson's blog. Someone reports that crows are a threatened species and someone else can't stand the stench of their deposits as thousands of them converge on the town.
So what are people to think about what the experts 'know' when we are given such conflicting opinions? The state of climate science is reminiscent of the caffeine is good/bad for you studies and the latest man-made chemical that can cause cancer. People soon tune out and conclude that the 'experts' don't know what they are talking about. Conflicting media reports spawn skepticism and this is bad for science. Scientists need to come to the media and the public with their stories straight if they expect us to take them seriously. Otherwise, they enter the category of entertainment rather than providing the good guidance we would like to receive from our scientists.
But scientists have a vested interest in manufacturing and exaggerating scares because it keeps the funding coming. Conflicting results mean more studies are required. The MSM loves a good scare as it is good for advertising revenues. More viewers mean better ratings. And politicians rush to get on the bandwagon of the latest scare so they are seen to be taking the moral high road. This is good for their re-election prospects.
Meanwhile the truth gets lost until scientists finally sort it out. And since we are still here all previous 'end times' scares have turned out to be bogus or politicians claim that the actions they took were successful whether those actions were necessary or not.
To an interested public climate science is hopelessly confused.
Here is another example of muddled thinking on climate change. Some excerpts below, emphasis added.
"Heat waves. Drought. Flooding. Cold spells. Wildfires. The climate system is changing before our very eyes, and there is no more glaring proof than the record-shattering loss of Arctic sea ice this summer.
...It now appears, however, that a gradual warming may not be the primary concern, as the gases may also fuel extreme weather around the world.
...
The weather we experience at mid-latitudes is largely dictated by these waves in the jet stream. The slower the waves move, the longer the weather associated with them will persist. Essentially, “hot,” “dry,” “cold,” and “rainy” are all terms to describe very normal weather conditions. It’s only when those conditions persist in one area for too long that they are dubbed with the names of their extreme alter egos: heat waves, drought, cold spells, and floods. And these kinds of extreme events are precisely what we’ve seen more of in recent years.
Global warming now has a face and a fingerprint that directly touch each of our lives. Rather than just a gradual increase in temperature, we can recognize its influence in a shift toward more extreme weather events. A warmer atmosphere also means a moister atmosphere, so any given storm will have more moisture and energy to work with, increasing the chances of flooding or heavy snows."
Jennifer admits to a gradual warming that is responsible for both heat waves and cold spells. The warming may not be the most important result of GHG gases as they lead to more extreme weather. The warming atmosphere may also be responsible for heavy snows. So warm produces cold? It must be cold to be cold but somehow that nasty heat trapping CO2 manages to generate heavy snow and cold spells? It would be interesting to know the mechanism by which that takes place. Do the CO2 molecules congregate in the warm areas thus reducing CO2 in cold places? Is that why they are cold? How do CO2 molecules decide where to hold their convention of warmth? Did they pick the US Midwest in the summer of 2012 and leave Britain and Sweden without sufficient protection so they had cold summers? Jennifer might like to re-check her info on the prevalence of extreme weather in our recent history. It has been on the decrease.Can we conclude that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere leads to less severe weather?
The pundits are parroting the conventional wisdom uncritically because it fits with their view of the world. It is getting warmer and humans are at fault. Pogo science. Those who know have a responsibility to educate and for their efforts they are called deniers which adds credence to the view that the issue of climate change is all about a political agenda and has nothing to do with the truth. The Club of Rome has said as much.
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose."
One invented for the purpose.... kind of says it all. And misanthropic Pogo science drives it.
But climate realists are also aware of studies that indicate that conclusions about the Antarctic ice sheet melt are all wet. Antarctica is gaining ice mass according to GRACE.
So how is it possible to conclude that the science is settled when there are conflicting reports about the state of the Antarctic ice sheet? Excuse us our skepticism but conflicting reports about the same phenomenon is evidence of disagreement among scientists. The science is not settled. It is in flux as people try to sort out what is really going on.
We see a similar Armageddon approach to the record low ice melt in the Arctic in the summer of 2012. Proof positive that global warming via human CO2 emissions is happening. Predictions of an ice-free Arctic by summer 2015 and ice free year round by 2030 have followed.
Where have we heard these kind of predictions before? Similar concerns about Arctic warming were on the minds of people back in the 1920s, 30s and 40s. We are still waiting for the arrival of an ice free Arctic.
"We are in a planetary emergency," said Hansen, decrying "the gap between what is understood by scientific community and what is known by the public."
And yet others say 'Don't Panic' and present evidence that Arctic ice melt is nothing to get excited about because it has happened before and is due to natural causes.
What is a layperson to do? Who to believe?
And to make it worse some people claim the reduced Arctic ice will cause Northern Hemisphere winters to become worse while others decry the loss of the world's 'air-conditioner' and fear it is a harbinger of even greater global warming. Yet another study says N. Hemisphere winters may not get worse. Warmer winters; colder winters. Which is it? How about snowy winters?
Meanwhile at the south end of the planet Antarctic sea ice is at a maximum in direct contradiction to the direction predicted by astute climate models. That heat trapping gas, CO2, seems to act preferentially in the Northern Hemisphere. Maybe it is too cold for it in the South. And it is getting colder in Antarctica.
Warm in the Arctic; cold in the Antarctic.
Hot here; cold there.
Heat distribution not so rare.
Could it be that the atmosphere adjusts to warming in one area by inducing cold elsewhere?
And what are we to make of a Snow and Ice expert like Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, who can't keep his story straight on what is going on in the Arctic.Click the link for an overview of his confusion.
There were 11 snowfall records set in the US state of Nevada on Sept 17, 2012 and yet we are told by global warming alarmists that snow is a thing of the past.
Then we get reports that say the sea ice volume in the Arctic is decreasing both slower and faster than the sea ice extent.
There is this bit of 'settled science' about American Crows reported at Tom Nelson's blog. Someone reports that crows are a threatened species and someone else can't stand the stench of their deposits as thousands of them converge on the town.
So what are people to think about what the experts 'know' when we are given such conflicting opinions? The state of climate science is reminiscent of the caffeine is good/bad for you studies and the latest man-made chemical that can cause cancer. People soon tune out and conclude that the 'experts' don't know what they are talking about. Conflicting media reports spawn skepticism and this is bad for science. Scientists need to come to the media and the public with their stories straight if they expect us to take them seriously. Otherwise, they enter the category of entertainment rather than providing the good guidance we would like to receive from our scientists.
But scientists have a vested interest in manufacturing and exaggerating scares because it keeps the funding coming. Conflicting results mean more studies are required. The MSM loves a good scare as it is good for advertising revenues. More viewers mean better ratings. And politicians rush to get on the bandwagon of the latest scare so they are seen to be taking the moral high road. This is good for their re-election prospects.
Meanwhile the truth gets lost until scientists finally sort it out. And since we are still here all previous 'end times' scares have turned out to be bogus or politicians claim that the actions they took were successful whether those actions were necessary or not.
To an interested public climate science is hopelessly confused.
Here is another example of muddled thinking on climate change. Some excerpts below, emphasis added.
"Heat waves. Drought. Flooding. Cold spells. Wildfires. The climate system is changing before our very eyes, and there is no more glaring proof than the record-shattering loss of Arctic sea ice this summer.
...It now appears, however, that a gradual warming may not be the primary concern, as the gases may also fuel extreme weather around the world.
...
The weather we experience at mid-latitudes is largely dictated by these waves in the jet stream. The slower the waves move, the longer the weather associated with them will persist. Essentially, “hot,” “dry,” “cold,” and “rainy” are all terms to describe very normal weather conditions. It’s only when those conditions persist in one area for too long that they are dubbed with the names of their extreme alter egos: heat waves, drought, cold spells, and floods. And these kinds of extreme events are precisely what we’ve seen more of in recent years.
Global warming now has a face and a fingerprint that directly touch each of our lives. Rather than just a gradual increase in temperature, we can recognize its influence in a shift toward more extreme weather events. A warmer atmosphere also means a moister atmosphere, so any given storm will have more moisture and energy to work with, increasing the chances of flooding or heavy snows."
Jennifer admits to a gradual warming that is responsible for both heat waves and cold spells. The warming may not be the most important result of GHG gases as they lead to more extreme weather. The warming atmosphere may also be responsible for heavy snows. So warm produces cold? It must be cold to be cold but somehow that nasty heat trapping CO2 manages to generate heavy snow and cold spells? It would be interesting to know the mechanism by which that takes place. Do the CO2 molecules congregate in the warm areas thus reducing CO2 in cold places? Is that why they are cold? How do CO2 molecules decide where to hold their convention of warmth? Did they pick the US Midwest in the summer of 2012 and leave Britain and Sweden without sufficient protection so they had cold summers? Jennifer might like to re-check her info on the prevalence of extreme weather in our recent history. It has been on the decrease.Can we conclude that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere leads to less severe weather?
The pundits are parroting the conventional wisdom uncritically because it fits with their view of the world. It is getting warmer and humans are at fault. Pogo science. Those who know have a responsibility to educate and for their efforts they are called deniers which adds credence to the view that the issue of climate change is all about a political agenda and has nothing to do with the truth. The Club of Rome has said as much.
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose."
One invented for the purpose.... kind of says it all. And misanthropic Pogo science drives it.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Tunnel Vision
CAGW believers like to report instances of the climate that confirm their bias. They are not interested in educating the public but in pursuing a political agenda. If the weather supports the cause the alarm is raised in the press. Contrary evidence s ignored, downplayed or explained away. Mother Nature likes to make fools out of those who think they know her. The public is no fool. That leaves....
If the Arctic sea ice extent melts to a record low this is reported.
If the Antarctic sets a sea ice extent maximum record this is ignored or downplayed because it contradicts the climate model predictions. It seems ludicrous to try to make the connection between record high Antarctic ice extent and a warming world.
Back in 1975 some scientists wanted to melt the Arctic to deal the global cooling. Since we do not know what we are doing perhaps it is better to leave Mother Nature alone.
In the summer of 2012 temperatures in the mid west and eastern US were setting records. This was reported as confirmation of global warming.
Now that the tables are turned and in early October 2012 cold temperature records are being set we have silence from the MSM. It seems ludicrous to try to make the connection between record cold temperatures and a warming world.
When something unusual happens like the derecho in the US on June 29, 2012 alarmists are all over it pretending that it is another example of weather caused by CAGW and predicting apocalypse. As Lester Brown asked: Derecho. I mean, there we were, who knew what a Derecho was until it happened?
And yet a little research shows that a derecho has occurred many times in the past. It is easy to forget the past when we were not previously concerned about the phenomenon as an example of CAGW.
With a burst of tornadoes in 2011 the press exploded with dire predictions of climate doom if humans did not immediately cut their emissions of CO2. Some research showed that the frequency of severe tornadoes is on the decrease.
And so it goes with other instances of severe weather. An atmosphere with today's higher levels of CO2 seems to be a calmer place. This goes unreported. It seems ludicrous to try and make the case for increasing severe weather when the graphs slope downwards.
Making unsupported claims to instil fear is disingenuous and will be discovered by the public. The reputations of alarmist scientists and that of science itself will be tarnished and jokes will make the rounds when the next great apocalyptic fear is generated by the press. CAGW is a perfect real world example of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. This is a dangerous. Scientists should be among our most trusted people and not the butt of jokes. Caveat emptor applies to the scientific world as well as commercial markets.
While tunnel vision is a real disease it can also show up as a mind filter that allows in confirming evidence of personal beliefs and excludes contrary indications that disrupt a fervently held opinion. In view of the evidence above CAGW is a willful example of self-delusion. Is it deliberate? You be the judge.
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose." ~ Club of Rome
"That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have." ~ Stephen Schneider, environmentalist
“No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” ~ Christine Stewart, former Minister of Environment, Canada
If the Arctic sea ice extent melts to a record low this is reported.
If the Antarctic sets a sea ice extent maximum record this is ignored or downplayed because it contradicts the climate model predictions. It seems ludicrous to try to make the connection between record high Antarctic ice extent and a warming world.
Back in 1975 some scientists wanted to melt the Arctic to deal the global cooling. Since we do not know what we are doing perhaps it is better to leave Mother Nature alone.
In the summer of 2012 temperatures in the mid west and eastern US were setting records. This was reported as confirmation of global warming.
Now that the tables are turned and in early October 2012 cold temperature records are being set we have silence from the MSM. It seems ludicrous to try to make the connection between record cold temperatures and a warming world.
When something unusual happens like the derecho in the US on June 29, 2012 alarmists are all over it pretending that it is another example of weather caused by CAGW and predicting apocalypse. As Lester Brown asked: Derecho. I mean, there we were, who knew what a Derecho was until it happened?
And yet a little research shows that a derecho has occurred many times in the past. It is easy to forget the past when we were not previously concerned about the phenomenon as an example of CAGW.
With a burst of tornadoes in 2011 the press exploded with dire predictions of climate doom if humans did not immediately cut their emissions of CO2. Some research showed that the frequency of severe tornadoes is on the decrease.
And so it goes with other instances of severe weather. An atmosphere with today's higher levels of CO2 seems to be a calmer place. This goes unreported. It seems ludicrous to try and make the case for increasing severe weather when the graphs slope downwards.
Making unsupported claims to instil fear is disingenuous and will be discovered by the public. The reputations of alarmist scientists and that of science itself will be tarnished and jokes will make the rounds when the next great apocalyptic fear is generated by the press. CAGW is a perfect real world example of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. This is a dangerous. Scientists should be among our most trusted people and not the butt of jokes. Caveat emptor applies to the scientific world as well as commercial markets.
While tunnel vision is a real disease it can also show up as a mind filter that allows in confirming evidence of personal beliefs and excludes contrary indications that disrupt a fervently held opinion. In view of the evidence above CAGW is a willful example of self-delusion. Is it deliberate? You be the judge.
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose." ~ Club of Rome
"That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have." ~ Stephen Schneider, environmentalist
“No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” ~ Christine Stewart, former Minister of Environment, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
