What Happened To Global Warming, it's NOT!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by newest Sort by date
Wait 30 years and Global warming will back:suspicious: I'm waiting for that scientific expert from Hollywood, Ted Danson. before I decide who to believe. :laugh:
 
Viva La Migra said:
IT'S ALL MANKIND'S FAULT!!!

KILL ALL OF THE MOTHER EARTH DESTROYING HUMANS!
Click to expand...

I admire both your findings and the solution you've suggested.

The problem is: If we destroyed all the Earth destroying humans that would eliminate close to 94% of the human race.

I would suggest reducing the population by 82% instead. With the remaining 18% I would suggest a substantial portion be gay or bisexual; would recommend Islam, Muslim, Budda, Hindu religions first and then some of the others; ummmm (I'm trying to remember what else Birch told me) would make sure that China, Pakistan, Iran and Yemen get their numbers in first and then some from the rest.

OK -- I think we're finally making some head way !!!
 
Steadygain said:
I admire both your findings and the solution you've suggested.

The problem is: If we destroyed all the Earth destroying humans that would eliminate close to 94% of the human race.

I would suggest reducing the population by 82% instead. With the remaining 18% I would suggest a substantial portion be gay or bisexual; would recommend Islam, Muslim, Budda, Hindu religions first and then some of the others; ummmm (I'm trying to remember what else Birch told me) would make sure that China, Pakistan, Iran and Yemen get their numbers in first and then some from the rest.

OK -- I think we're finally making some head way !!!
Click to expand...
Reading between the lines! monky.gif
 
World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.
Click to expand...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1
 
It seems that the CAT is OUT of the BAG don't you think? These crooks were using the Global Warming thing like a BIG Sledge Hammer and with it and Cap and Trade would have attained their near trem GOAL!! Sorry Progressives it didn't work this time. Don't think for a minute that this is the end, NO it's not, they will never quit and expect another big push after they regroup.
I'm still WATCHING and Waiting, and I NEVER QUIT!devilavatar.gif
Hey Buster, this little devil would make you a fine Avatar!!:laugh:
 
Why are we always shocked and outraged when our government lies to us? It is the one constant through my life, anyway -- "We were eye to eye with the Russians and they blinked first!" "My fellow American, I come to you tonight with a heavy heart..." "Well, I am not a crook!" "This marine salutes and says yessir!" "I did not have sex with that woman." "We know Saddam has nuclear."

As a professional meteorologist I am very sure that any change in climate will be gradual and easily accomodated. Honesty is the first requirement, however, as I say below in a recent book review on Amazon:

Tim Flannery To The Rescue

"The Weather Makers: How Man Is Changing The Climate And What It Means For Life On Earth" Atlantic Monthly Press 2005

Mr Flannery is making quite a name for himself these days in the global change arena. He is a paleontologist and biologist by training so he is in a good position to know the score.

Unfortunately he skews and cherry picks the data to make his points. And why does he abandon the International System of units?

Being a meteorologist I just can't help myself! Take page 123: "...air at 104F can hold 470 times as much water vapor as air at -104F." I'm not questioning the factor of 470; my references are at the office not here at home. But AIR DOES NOT HOLD WATER. To ask how much water air can hold is the same as asking how much oxygen it can hold, or nitrogen. Saturation vapor pressure is a strong function of temperature, yes, but Dalton's Law of partial pressures always holds -- the constituent gasses are independant of one another and act as if the others did not exist. We've been through this here. If a scientist wants to lose my respect, just write as Flannery does here.

Page 132: "The drought conditions in the American west are frequently portrayed in the media as being part of a natural cycle." This is because they are, Tim. There is a regular 20-year cycle which became clear to me -- and would to any investigator -- when I did my thesis in 1977, "A Statistical Evaluation of 4 years Cloud Seeding in South Central Utah." It was dry in the 70s, the 50s, the 30s, the teens and so on back to the 1890s, 70s, etc. Just look at the gol' darned data fer chrissakes. And his use of the term "the media" is pejorative, seeking to discredit the conclusion by assigning it to this vague entity, the media. The media include just about every scholarly journal you can think of including LCD, local climate data published by NCDC. Did he bother to look?

He starts talking about hurricanes and can hardly restrain himself. Page 136: "As the troposphere has warmed over the last decade, the world has seen...the first South Atlantic hurricane ever (2002)" Not true, it is merely the first recorded in modern times. We know nothing of what went on before the advent of satellite surveillance and the development of hurricane theory itself, with William Redfield in the 1840s and Herb Riehl in the 1940s. The word "ever" is totally unjustified here. In the very next sentence he says, "This...indicates that the potential for the new climate to generate extremes is already increasing." Well Tim, as you learned in math class if your assumptions are false then your conclusions are invalid. If you are going to dress up assumptions as data then how can I believe you?

He jumps into the world of modeling next. If you have read previous entries here you know how I feel about models. I've been taken down the garden path by the models too many times to place much faith in them. Faith is the operative word, too, and he acknowledges this when he refers to the Hadley Centre in England as a "cathedral of climate change research" on page 155. But he surrenders with statements like, "Computer models...at the Hadley Centre pass all...tests with a reasonable degree of accuracy..." What is reasonable, Tim? Would you care to define that? I guess not as the text is silent.

In fact, he skewers himself on the same page with, "As long as skepticism is based on a sound understanding of science, it is invaluable...But poor criticism can lead those who are unfamiliar with the science involved into doubting everything about climate change predictions." Where do you fall, Tim? How familiar are YOU with the science? What you imply is, throw out the data and the models are right. Voila!

The final nail in his coffin for me is the illustration on the facing page, "The weather for July 1, 1998." (Why he falls back 10 years to the 90s is not clear.) Chart A is the Hadley Centre's model output and below is chart B, the actual weather for that day. "The two images are similar." Well guess what? Chart A is the output of the UKMET operational forecast model and has nothing to do with any climate model. No climate model would ever have any such output. WHY ARE YOU LYING, TIM? Do you find it necessary to display false information in order to make your point? Why did you label that chart improperly?

And isn't it funny that he uses the Hadley Centre which has just been seriously indicted in the purloined e-mail controversy. Page 166: "Researchers at the Hadley Centre talk of a "physical commitment to climate change,"" citing an internal report from 2002. I'd say their "physical commitment" (whatever the heck that means, quotes in original) became a metaphysical commitment, clouding their judgement and just about erasing a decade of scientific progress when their true thoughts became public.

Flannery has fallen under their spell and drank their Kool Aid. He picks and chooses his data; he demonstrates no real understanding of atmospheric science (thinks air "holds water") and so relies on the opinions of others; prefers model output to hard data; tries to confuse the reader with his mis-labeled charts.

The fact is global warming is real; mankind may have partial responsibility. BUT LET'S BE HONEST. That is essential. There is no room whatsoever for falsification and dishonesty. This is the reason the e-mail controversy is so important. When you bend the data to fit your pre-existing conclusions you are doing religion, not science. The public has a right to be skeptical. No!, to be pissed off. This is a misuse of public funds.
 
Here is another recent book review:

Another Journalist Tries Science Writing

Seasick: Ocean Change And The Extinction Of Life On Earth, By Alanna Mitchell

November 17, 2009

The sea has its own ways. And while most everything the author states here is true, what is not said is also true. Calling it "sick" and in "crisis" is good journalism I suppose but unhelpful. It just adds to the cacophony.

For instance, dead zones were discovered only recently. How long have they been there? Are they natural? Well, take Florida. A similar dead zone existed long ago off the west coast of the state. We know this because we mine the dead bodies of the plankton in the form of phosphate for fertilizer. (See "The Geology of the Everglades and Adjacent Areas") So dead zones are not entirely a bad thing, are they? Clean water is good for us but bad for the microlife. This simple example illustrates the author's narrow vision.

This stems from an anthropocentric point of view: if it is bad for us, it must be bad for the environment. But Man is NOT the measure of all things, contrary to Socrates. Nor are we stewards of the planet, which can get by perfectly well without us. The ocean is not in a crisis, it is WE who are in a crisis. We need the ocean not vice versa. Nature could care less about dead zones or coral or humanity, would just as soon hurricane us out as give us a nice sunny day.

What is wanted is a broad synthesis of current knowledge about the sea by a competent expert or group and then some engineering outlines. If eutrophication is the problem then our practices can be improved. Can coralline algae be genetically modified to withstand higher temperatures? Can fishing bans be enacted? Etc., etc., etc.

Efficiencies can be increased. Competing uses can be adjudicated. Cooperation can be enforced. But let's not kid ourselves and say it is for the good of the environment. It's for our own good derived from our own preferences.

"The Extinction Of Life On Earth"? Really?
 
Last edited:
Oh yes, I love to read and review climate change books:

Timberrr!

With Speed and Violence: why Scientists Fear Tipping Points In Climate Change By Fred Pearce July 13, 2008

Mr Pearce works for New Scientist and has published several books on this subject including Turning Up The Heat way back in 1989. Here he looks at all the Doomsday scenarios out there, the ones we have all heard about: Gulf Stream shutting down, Greenland melting suddenly, the Amazon drying up, etc.

To his credit has been around a while and knows the players -- Hansen, Broeker, et. al. This gives him access where others might not get it. He has also been around scientists long enough to develop their trait of hedging their conclusions with a lot of maybes, possiblies, this suggests.

To his discredit he has abandoned most of the restraints here. Maybe (heh) he feels he has to in order to make his point, that he has to scare us into action. This reveals his reason for writing the book. He is not here to teach us but to get us on board, to prod us into action. His final chapter is his list of things we must do:

Adopt efficient appliances; Improve automotive efficiency; Increase use of public transport; Effect a 50-fold increase in wind; A 50-fold increase in biofuels; A global program of insulating our buildings; Cover an area the size of New Jersey with solar panels; Effect a 4-fold increase in our use of natural gas for generating electricity; Capture and store 1,600 gW-worth of carbon; Halt deforestation; Double nuclear power capacity; Increase low-till/no-till agriculture times 10.

The few changes I would make to this list are to the nuclear part (bad idea for now) and the New Jersey part (why not just go ahead and cover New Jersey itself?) The rest make good sense in general terms. If we all use less we will experience an increase in efficiency which will give us room to grow without fouling our own nest. Our individual bills will go down, too.

One big problem I have with his text is his consistent conversion of square meters to square feet. The measurements are taken in the metric system and values of, say, solar output are quantified in terms of watts per square meter. Every time a square meter comes up, he writes it as 10.8 square feet. Is this because New Scientist is a British magazine? Then why not use BTU per square foot? It is because no one measures it that way. Moreover, a watt is a metric unit, one joule per second. A calorie will raise the temperature of 1 gram of water 1 degree centigrade, a BTU will raise the temperature of 1 pound of water 1 degree Fahrenheit. Thus, watt per square foot is a hybrid unit, like combining Greek and Latin into a phrase -- it just isn't done. His fear of writing the word "meter" in a book for the English-speaking world is misplaced. It makes him look silly and besides makes it more difficult for the reader, with his "watts per 10.8 square feet".

Another lesser problem is the hyperbolic language. I don't need or want to be scared. I am a practicing atmospheric scientist so I actually prefer the kind of understatement I find in the journals. they leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusion, they don't tell you what to think about what you've just read. I am not the typical audience.

Nonetheless I side with Carl Sandburg: we should take it easy on "that old anvil, the people." We The People are tossed this way and that by the experts, all wanting some kind of action on our part. "If you knew what I know, you'd feel like I do," seems to be behind the idea that "the public must be educated on this." For me, our ignorance outweighs our knowledge on this subject by about 10 to 1.

We are just starting to probe the truth. Let's wait until the facts are a little better-established before we go around saying the sky is falling. I'm not talking about where the carbon came from or how to decrease it. I'm talking about the climate. Yes, the carbon is there and, yes, we should reduce it simply for efficiency's sake. Waste is bad, this seems obvious to my engineering brain.

But I can guarantee that climate change will be neither speedy nor violent. Weather can be observed but climate had to be invented, sort of like motherhood and fatherhood. By definition climate is a long-term matter. You can't say it has changed until a long period of time has passed. Currently we use 30-year normals updated every 10 years. This is not speedy. Climate is never violent. Is an average temperature of 75F "violent?" How is an average annual rainfall of 35 inches "violent?" See what I'm saying? Climate is a statistical concept.

Rather, it is the weather that is often speedy and violent. This blending of weather and climate is becoming a real problem. They are not the same! This brings me to my final point. Any meteorologist knows all about models. Our models are vital for our business. Note I said "models" in plural. I consult half a dozen synoptic-scale models, a few regional- or meso-scale models as well as different conceptual models every day. Ordinarily they do not agree. One says the storm will go left, the other right. One calls for intensification, the other weakening. Every model has its weakenesses and biases.

One thing we all learn in this trade is not to "jump on it." If a model has something interesting on Day 6, just note it for now, there is plenty of time to wait and see if it is still there tomorrow for Day 5. When it gets to Day 3 we can start to mention it and adjust our probabilities, slowly at first, just nudge them in the right direction. The climate modelers need to learn this. Every graduate student seemingly has his own model these days and when he tweeks an interesting result, publishes. Soon it is in the news and the public is set up for another whipsaw when it turns out not to be true. This is called "yo-yoing" in our forecasts and we avoid it by being conservative.

A model is just a model. What good does it do to know that temperatures world-wide will increase by 3.5F? This is a meaningless statistic. What is needed is a plausible physical mechanism whereby that statistic is turned into actual weather on the ground. Here is an example: let the air temperature over the Gulf Stream in my front yard increase by 3.5F. Now what? Well, since e-sub-s has increased, relative saturation will decrease and net evaporation from the water surface will increase. This will tend to cool the surface waters to the wet-bulb temperature, which might increase by half the total amount, say 1.75F. So we have the air 3.5 warmer and the sea surface 1.75 warmer -- the air has warmed more than the sea surface. Therefore static stability in the column has increased over the water and hence we would expect to see less cloudiness at sea by day. At night when the air cools a little, stability will decrease and cloudiness will increase. All this is exactly as observed today. The cloud fraction is small over the sea during the day and is a maximum around surise when we also experience a slight but noticeable peak in our hourly rainfall. So my simple model predicts more sunny days and more sunrise showers, along with a temperature increase that is strongly moderated by the nearby water mass -- not 3.5F but 1.75F. why does no one talk this way? Where is the violence here?

These connections are mostly missing in the climate models. We need to know more before we can say what it means.

Enough! Read more on the topic, educate yourself, decide for yourself what is right and good. Take no one's word. The climate experts are guessing when it comes to the weather. ...................................................

Now we read it won't happen so fast, after all... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090716141142.htm
 
Weather maker. How The Earth Was Made, The History Channel.

The Sahara Desert has a large aquifer under it and it has as much fresh water as the Great Lakes.

How did it get there?

From the Earth's wobble. Every 20,000 years or so the Earth places the Sahara right in the path of major monsoons that turn it into a lush forest and grassland. The water drops right thought the sandstone and into the aquifer.

Now that is climate change. :D
 
Last edited:
You know, everytime I think I'm feeling a little warm,,,I'm not telling jimijr...:nuts: He'll actually prove I'm getting colder.:laugh:

jimijr, I need to buy you a drink.....SPOT ON ANALYSIS.

+1

Sincerely & honestly impressed,

Frixxxx
 
Last edited:
Frixxxx said:
You know, everytime I think I'm feeling a little warm,,,I'm not telling jimjr...:nuts: He'll actually prove I'm getting colder.:laugh:

jimjr, I need to buy you a drink.....SPOT ON ANALYSIS.

+1

Sincerely & honestly impressed,

Frixxxx
Click to expand...
I'm going to go with your response..as there was WAY TOO MUCH reading from Jimi:D:blink:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

FireWeatherMet
IFT Did Not Go Thru...Did This Ever Happen to You?
Replies
3
Views
125
tsptalk
tsptalk
tsptalk
  • Article Article
It's been a strong start to the new week, after Friday's positive reversal
Replies
0
Views
128
tsptalk
tsptalk
James48843
Retirement- keeping busy? Or making an impact?
Replies
8
Views
626
evilanne
evilanne
tsptalk
  • Article Article
Did we just just witness another Friday low - or not?
Replies
0
Views
136
tsptalk
tsptalk
tsptalk
  • Article Article
You're fired! Maybe not.
Replies
0
Views
242
tsptalk
tsptalk
Back
Top