Posted on 04/17/2008 6:01:57 AM PDT by twntaipan
In the theoretical case of a threatening volcano with no clear indications of an inevitable volcanic eruption, my solution is NOT total evacuation, particularly with the accompanying economic disruption. The problem would be in determining if and when a total evacuation would be advisable.
Climate change carries with it the potential for catastrophic effects, though at this time there is no inevitability of catastrophe. It's the job of scientists to inform decision-makers as factually as possible what could happen. The decision makers have to actually decide what to do. The volcano problem (which is pretty similar to what happened at Clark AFB in the Phillipines when Pinatubo acted up) shows the difficulty of making decisions.
When we’re right in the middle of one of the coldest springs to ever hit the country, with many northern cities still getting snow in mid-April, it’s a tough time to sell global warming. Most of us would really like to see some global warming right about now, it’s a been a nasty cold wet winter that’s eating deep into spring. Try us again when it’s unseasonably hot, people might be willing to believe in it then.
Regarding me, you're incorrect. Regarding the "yours" -- not my problem and not my group.
I have never tried to "sell" global warming. And yes, La Nina and associated effects have made this a cold Northern Hemisphere winter and have lowered global temperatures a bit. But the assertion that there is a cooling trend this decade is inaccurate, and that's why I posted the graph. Because so far this decade has been warmer than the 1990s, there is a 25-year warming trend. The only reason there is confusion about "cooling" is because 1998 was abnormally warm. This is explained in further detail in my profile, point #4.
No you ALWAYS try to sell global warming. That’s all you ever seem to do, come on GW threads and insist that it’s happening, even though it clearly and plainly and obviously is not.
It’s funny how every time the data makes things inconvenient for global warming believers it’s always El Nino or La Nina. Which is of course always because the data never comes close to matching what the GW crowd predicts, not once, and it never will.
Seems colder to me, we’ve had two miserable cold wet nasty winters in a row. Cooling trend in Tucson, a most unwelcome cooling trend. At this point I’d pay money for global warming, I’d burn extra gas for some global warming, if only there was one single shred of actual evidence that burning gas actually caused global warming. But there is no such evidence because it just plain doesn’t happen.
Of course you and the other GW believers will be insisting that it’s happening even if things get to the point where you’re wearing parkas in July. It’s your religion, and a pretty sad one at that.
Pardon me, but I'm not.
According to your own FR page, you've a background in chemistry, geochemistry and IT/database management (now, how the heck you move at all in IT without the mathematical skills to get a PhD in chemistry is beyond me!). I see no educational credentials in the pseudo-science of climatology.
So, at best, you're a hobbyist - a weather buff, as it were, and you're posting graphs without the mathematical skills to discern the data flaws in their methodology.
Get off my wallet, hobbyist!
Puh-leeze!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Naomi_Oreskes
Of course, you have to hand it to cogitator for stones - he doesn't get to "revert" the discussions here at Free Republic, and has to put up with actual facts...
And of course the big miss there is La Nina is supposed to make the interior of the country warmer and dryer, and that’s where it’s freaking snowing.
There’s nothing wrong with being a weather buff, I’ve known a few and it is interesting. The problem comes in when they starting insisting on things unknown as already proven. We can’t predict the weather next week, we can’t figure out why major changes like El Nino and La Nina happen, we can’t predict when the Ninos and Ninas are going to happen, yet GW believers insist that 50 to 100 years from now it’s all going to be a lot hotter and really bad things are going to happen. They need to get a lot better at predicting the weather for the next 5 to 10 years before I’m going to start listening to their 50 to 100 year predictions.
you are trying to reason with someone who has swallowed the AGW Religion. It is astounding how the fools who believe in AGW can't see that at it's core, AGW is a mechanism to impose massive, intrusive socialism and condemn hundreds of millions of fellow humans to utter destruction (mostly in developing countries)
I pray to God that somehow this AGW fraud can be turned back and the followers of this evil movement defeated and humiliated.
Global temperatures 'to decrease'
Excerpts:
"Global temperatures for 2008 will be slightly cooler than last year as a result of the cold La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said." [La Nina isn't a current -- oh well]
...
"El Nino warms the planet when it happens; La Nina cools it. This year, the Pacific is in the grip of a powerful La Nina.
It has contributed to torrential rains in Australia and to some of the coldest temperatures in memory in snow-bound parts of China.
Mr Jarraud told the BBC that the effect was likely to continue into the summer, depressing temperatures globally by a fraction of a degree.
This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.
Lest someone get excited: "But Mr Jarraud insisted this was not the case and noted that 2008 temperatures would still be well above average for the century. "When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming. "
And that's what the pretty graph says.
Regarding my "credentials" -- yeah, I'm a hobbyist. Feel free to view me as beneath you; if that means you won't bother posting a reply to me because I'm just a hobbyist, I really won't mind.
But despite the fact that very few FReepers agree with me on this issue, several have stated that they appreciate my broad knowledge of the issue. If you don't, that's fine with me too.
Very good point. They just think that the folks at realClimate (Soros backed fraud site) and others are "sincere" about "solving" this non-problem. What these fools that believe AGW can't see is that the solutions are destructive to the very thing they say they are concerned about -- fellow humans. Gore, etal could care less about fellow man. Gore is out for his own ego and gaining immense wealth through this fraudulent scheme. Others push AGW because they see it as a way to impose massive Socialism.
I watched over the last few years as my electric bill doubled while I halved my KWh usage, my garbage bill doubled, gasoline doubled, and my heating costs doubled. Much of these price increases could have been offset by cheap electricity generated by our country's coal supplies. But, NO! Coal is evil!
Oddly, my income didn't double in this time period - so the increases came right off the top.
Of course that’s not really how El Nino and La Nina work. El Nino warms the coasts and cools the interior, maybe the overall average on the global scale is warming but it has localized effects that vary. La Nina runs the opposite, cools the coasts and warms the interiors. And yet here we are supposedly in a La Nina which is supposed to be making the the mid west and south west warm and dry and yet here we are with snow and rain and cold and demonstrably NON-La Nina weather.
Funny that you’re little quote there says temps haven’t risen since 98 when El Nino warmed things up and yet we’ve supposedly had 3 El Ninos since then.
In the end there’s still no there there. And never will be. Global Warming is a myth.
I want to change the end of my sentence from.. long-term climate to... climate at all.
Do you not worry about the destruction of your fellow humans in the third world by the implementation of what the leaders of the AGW movement wish??? Are you so blinded by the AGW fraud that you can't see that the solution can be destructive to your children's future?
And NO, I don't believe man is changing climate, nor do I believe there will be run away GW or any other such baloney. The problem with you AGW freaks is that you are hell bent on destroying our way of life in the name of "solving this crisis"
I wish we could both be around in 50 years so I can meet you and laugh with you and share a beer over how seriously you believed this AGW garbage.
Read my profile, point #4. When GISS stated that the 1998 El Nino caused the global annual temperature that year to be 0.2 deg C above the trend line, that contained the essence of a prediction. My back-of-the-envelope calculation clarifies that unstated prediction. I.e., by approximately 2013, annual global temperatures should be about the same as the 1998 annual global temperature.
So I call your "never will" bet and raise it -- with two predictions (I've made these before): 1. The next year in which a normal to above-normal "size" El Nino occurs will set a new annual global temperature record, exceeding 1998. All three major groups calculating the average global temperature: NOAA, GISS, and Hadley Centre UK -- will be in agreement on this. 2. The average global temperature of the period 2010-2013 (4 years) will be as high, or higher, than the average annual global temperature of 1998.
I must state a caveat (I've done this before too). A couple of things could invalidate the prediction. One would be a major Pinatubo-class or larger volcanic eruption during that period. Two would be a substantial nuclear exchange (in which case I promise not to post about global warming). Three would be a major asteroid strike (if this happens, I also promise not to post about global warming). My prediction holds for any changes in solar activity and even if a La Nina occurs in any or all of the years 2010-2013 (it won't happen all four years, but there's a small possibility it could happen twice in that period).
Of course you and the other GW believers will be insisting that it’s happening even if things get to the point where you’re wearing parkas in July. It’s your religion, and a pretty sad one at that.
What's sad is that you think ridiculous statements like the above are meaningful.
It's quite clear from the chart that temperature closely correlates with solar wind, therefore CO2 must correlate to global temperature. Or perhaps you believe a rise in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase solar wind?
That wasn’t the essence of a prediction, predictions are about the future, that was an explanation of the past.
As for your predictions, #1 is a useless self fulfilling prophecy, you’re basically saying that the next time the weather conditions are like 1998 the weather conditions are going to be like 1998. And let’s not forget you’re not just a generalized GW believer, you’re a human caused GW person, but here your prediction is revolving around what we’re pretty sure is a NATURAL force, El Nino.
Now your #2 is at least a real prediction, but like every other global warming prediction it is doomed to complete and total failure. GW people are 0fer, always have been and always will be.
It is meaningful. The problem is the meaning goes counter to your psuedo-religious belief so you pretend it’s not there. How many GW alarmist speeches have been canceled in the last two years do to snow? And how come none of you guys realize that’s God making fun of you?
The Southeast has been very lucky that the precipitation there has not been what was expected from the La Nina influence.
NOAA: Coolest Winter Since 2001 for U.S., Globe (I'm sure the title is appealing to you)
"Winter precipitation was much above average from the Midwest to parts of the West, notably Kansas, Colorado and Utah. Although moderate-to-strong La Niña conditions were present in the equatorial Pacific the winter was unique for the above average rain and snowfall in the Southwest, where La Niña typically brings drier-than-average conditions."
"While some areas of the Southeast were wetter than average during the winter, overall precipitation for the region was near average. At the end of February, two-thirds of the Southeast remained in some stage of drought, with more than 25 percent in extreme-to- exceptional drought."
Me too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.