Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 121 of 941 (750811)
02-22-2015 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by NoNukes
02-21-2015 2:02 AM


marc9000 writes:
What action do I propose to "do something" about my fear of a future financial crisis? And here's my answer - THE U.S. GOVERNMENT SHOULD STOP BORROWING MONEY. Do you have any answers to global warming that are that direct and simple?
In other words, you are not personally going to do anything about your fear of a future crisis.
I'm not personally able to control anything about U.S. spending, other than vote for politicians who seem most likely to better control it.
You want the government to fix the problem while you go on doing what you do
I don't borrow money without a concrete plan to pay it all back, with interest, in a prescribed amount of time.
On the other hand, you want people who are concerned about global warming to take on the problem strictly by taking personal actions.
If the burning of fossil fuels directly contributes to their way of life, heating their homes, delivering them food, powering their cars, it's much more related to what they object to, than my spending habits are to what I object to, government spending habits.
No, I don't have a solution for global climate change that involves a bunch of people sitting on their butts ranting about government spending all the while sucking off the government teat.
I'm on no government hand-out programs. I work and pay taxes. No teat for me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by NoNukes, posted 02-21-2015 2:02 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by NoNukes, posted 02-22-2015 9:31 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 122 of 941 (750812)
02-22-2015 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Pressie
02-21-2015 7:45 AM


I can give you examples from my country.
One way is to go the nuclear . The idea is to not only built new nuclear power stations, but also to replace existing coal fired power stations with nuclear stations at the end of their life-spans. This is not an ideal way, but it is a lot better as far as greenhouse gases are concerned.
I agree. But nuclear power is controversial, because of safety reasons. Chernobyl is the obvious example. There is always organized opposition to nuclear power any time it's proposed, usually from the same political left who objects to coal and other conventional methods. It's often their unreasonable safety demands and other obstructions that make nuclear power untenable, and actually increases the use of coal etc. that many of them also object to. But again I agree with you, I'm all for nuclear power!
While existing, proven technologies are utilised, a lot of research on alternative energies are being conducted. One of the major organisations involved is Sanedi. Solar farms, wind farms, etc. have been opened with the accompanying research in improving the technologies.
One of the units at the second largest coal fired power station in the country has already been converted to be fired by Underground Coal Gasification (UCG). Sasol has been running a pilot project utilising UCG on one of their major plants (converting UCG into chemicals). The major greenhouse gases get captured instead of being released into the atmosphere.
Futhermore, a lot of research and exploration is being done on shale gas and CBM.
If these things are done with private funding and investments, I love seeing it! But it shouldn't be done with public money IMO.
Actually, coal and oil would be targets for the simple reason that they are the main culprits. Coal is a lot more detrimental to the atmosphere than the gases extracted from the earth. Simple chemistry.
I agree of course. But the main reason so many of us have in objecting to government mandates to slow or stop it, is the nature of those mandates, which often result in infringement of liberty, and waste. About 5 years ago in the U.S., we had a "cash for clunkers" program. A dumb name, and a dumb program. Taxpayer money was used by the government to "buy" older cars and scrap them, "encouraging" people to buy newer, less polluting cars. I don't believe destroying useful products will ever benefit a society in the long run. I'm sure new car makers were happy to contribute millions in political contributions to get this done.
For the future, who knows? Will the government perform tests and determine that older cars, older lawn mowers, chain saws, farm equipment, construction equipment, etc. must all be confiscated and destroyed in the name of global warming? Current manufacturers of all those things would surely make political contributions to get this type of legislation passed. It's called corruption. Again, if it happens, it should be up to the people, not the scientific community.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Pressie, posted 02-21-2015 7:45 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Pressie, posted 02-22-2015 11:30 PM marc9000 has seen this message but not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 123 of 941 (750813)
02-22-2015 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by RAZD
02-21-2015 4:35 PM


Don't you even read and investigate your own sources? This site:
Is your "investment guru's" page of falsehoods about climate change
Yes. I just didn't realize that you think it's obvious that investment guys are always crooks, while believing all the Al Gore's of the world are just truthful, innocent guys.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2015 4:35 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 124 of 941 (750814)
02-22-2015 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by nwr
02-21-2015 9:44 PM


Re: Climate change denial bought and paid for
He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers.
1.2 million? Hmmm, do scientific papers from global warming activists disclose the government money they get to research their findings?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by nwr, posted 02-21-2015 9:44 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-23-2015 12:44 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 941 (750815)
02-22-2015 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by marc9000
02-22-2015 8:51 PM


If the burning of fossil fuels directly contributes to their way of life, heating their homes, delivering them food, powering their cars, it's much more related to what they object to, than my spending habits are to what I object to, government spending habits.
Right. So let's look at home heating. We can stop heating our homes or we can provide home heating that does not burn or does so more efficiently fossil fuels. You seem to think that only the first option is viable.
Have you stopped using everything involving government spending? Or is it somehow only AGW that is a personal responsibility.
I don't borrow money without a concrete plan to pay it all back, with interest, in a prescribed amount of time.
Good for you. Now stop burning carbon without a plan to remove the 'ash' from the atmosphere. Let's get the government to do that too. And those holding government granted monopolies too.

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by marc9000, posted 02-22-2015 8:51 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 126 of 941 (750817)
02-22-2015 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by glowby
02-22-2015 5:57 PM


Are we to assume that you are now convinced that GW is real?
No I haven't changed my opinion, now I have to take the time to dissect your little trick, but it should just take a minute.
The earth has undergone natural warming and cooling cycles for thousands of years. There are now 7 billion people, up from under just 1 billion in only a couple of hundred years. If the scientific community can show their slight temperature increases here and there, I don't deny it's true. If humans cause it to keep warm, eat, you know, maintain a civilized way of life, I don't deny that either. But I deny that any human action to slow it or reverse it, even by the liberty destroying heavy hand of government, is going to change it enough to make a difference in it.
marc9000 writes:
What suggestions do you have?
I suggest that you use facts and evidence to decide whether GW is real, rather than blindly accepting the words of the politicians to whom you're devoted.
That's not what I was asking, and you know it.
marc9000 writes:
What steps should be taken to cut back their use? ... I'd like to see you list and justify actions to remedy it.
Summarized nicely by jar in Message 102 and Message 110, and Pressie in Message 108, and others.
I saw those lists of actions, but not much in the way of ways to justify them. From jar's message 106;
quote:
We will measure the success or failure based on the relative impact on US citizens over the next 100 years.
So we let the government and scientific community take actions that they see fit, with a promise that they will evaluate their successes in 100 years?? That comes up just a little short in the accountability department.
marc9000 writes:
Do any of your proposals NOT involve politics?
The main proposal I've made to you is to stop denying global warming exists. But in your case it involves only politics.
Other than the voluntary ones that some of the others listed which most seem to agree will accomplish very little, the "continue to legislate" ones ALL involve politics.
My proposal, if implemented, could be considered effective if you stop denying global warming. It could only be measured by some admission on your part that you're wrong.
So you won't specify what it is, and it's measurement would be successful if people like me would just stop questioning it and start trusting you?
No, best estimates will have to do.
That goes both ways. Best estimates that we are being scammed will have to do for myself, Charlie Daniels, and millions of other Americans.
We have reasonable estimates of fossil fuels consumed and CO2 generated by industry, transportation, etc, in every developed country, country by country.
How about a link to that? A country by country list, I haven't noticed one yet in this thread. Then we could explore some estimates on how much undeveloped countries have benefited from technologies from developed countries, and how much of the global warming condemnation they deserve.
Of course you don't. You deny that there is any problem. Any solution would seem more problematic. I don't see how dealing with it could possibly cause more problems than it solves.
When people are stripped of their liberties, with a promise that benefits from it will be measured in 100 years, problems happen.
It's a global problem, therefore it's an international problem.
Who makes that determination? 4 days ago, 100+ year old LOW temp records were being broken in my area, and other areas of the U.S. Different people have different ideas of what problems are.
Nations have governments. Governments have politics. It's naive and stupid to suppose that governments shouldn't get involved. They are charged with protecting the interests of their citizens and developing infrastructure. This issue demands that they do their jobs.
Except for nations with entrenched tyrants as their leaders, they should get involved with what a general consensus of their people say they should get involved with. Not giving any special priorities to certain special interest groups.
Actually the change was about 0.6 C (1 F) over 50 years.
I said 1 degree in 50 years. 0.6 C rounded off is one degree. 1 F is one degree. We see you struggling.
So, what is it you know? Are you talking 50 years US or metric?
Why don't you knock off with the "glowby" crap, Razd, and use just one name?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by glowby, posted 02-22-2015 5:57 PM glowby has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by glowby, posted 02-23-2015 10:36 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 133 by RAZD, posted 02-24-2015 4:56 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(2)
Message 127 of 941 (750823)
02-22-2015 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by marc9000
02-22-2015 9:16 PM


marc9000 writes:
But again I agree with you, I'm all for nuclear power!
Don't get me wrong. I'm not all for nuclear power. What I'm saying is that nuclear power is one of the solutions to a few problems we have:
1. We're running out of easily accessible coal therefore we have to get a technological proven alternative to coal.
2. Nuclear power will also help in the alleviation of our carbon footprint.
Unfortunately there ain't something like a free lunch. Nuclear power has got it's problems and should be tightly regulated.
The better solution would be green energies. But the reliable technologies are not there, yet.
marc9000 writes:
If these things are done with private funding and investments, I love seeing it! But it shouldn't be done with public money IMO.
Unfortunately private companies tend to be in the game for short term profits. They don't normally care much about the rest. If they don't make money, they just close up.
As it involves trying to provide answers to public problems, public money should definitely be involved. Providing all this new infrastructure would cost a huge amount of money. More than private companies can give all on their own. Therefore the government should be the main driver behind it.
As for your last paragraph, you seem to be very negative about governments. I don't think everything governments do can be classified as bad. Some governments actually do some good things, too.
Sometimes governments have to take leadership in dragging reluctant, kicking and screaming populations into the future. As is the case on the climate change issue.
The science has been settled. Something has to be done about our carbon footprint. Who better than governments to start the process?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by marc9000, posted 02-22-2015 9:16 PM marc9000 has seen this message but not replied

  
glowby
Member
Posts: 75
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010


(2)
Message 128 of 941 (750825)
02-23-2015 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by marc9000
02-22-2015 8:24 PM


marc9000 writes:
quote:
NASA GISS data show that the world warmed by 0.56C (1.01F) since 1979. That is 2.8x larger than the 0.36F figure that Luongo cites.
.56 degrees as opposed to Luongo's claim of .36???? WOW, what a shocking difference!!!!!!!
Marc, you really need to pay attention to your Cs and Fs. Read what you quoted. It's 1.01 F as opposed to 0.36 F. Yes, its shocking. It's dishonest too.
marc9000 writes:
quote:
he starts his graph at 1998 and ends at 2014, which is 16 years, not the 17 years he claims.
WHAT A HUGE DIFFERENCE!!!!! Hahahaha - thanks for the amusement!
Big lies, little lies. 280% lies, 6% lies. These lies and all his others have one clear purpose: to deceive.
So, is that all you got out of that article? That one of his lies seemed small? If your date told you she was 17 instead of 16, you'd might consider it a very big lie (in 16 states). Would you tell the judge, "Hahahaha - thanks for the amusement!"
marc9000 writes:
But I'm more amused at Al Gore's tactics over the years, or by the fact that so many liberals automatically accept it without question;
I'm amused and baffled why you complain about politics getting involved in the issue, but exclusively refer to political tabloids and bloggers rather than scientific sources. Why would it surprise you that many people accept GW without question. You deny it without question and are forced to go through all kinds of deceitful gymnastics to maintain your position. Virtually all climate scientists say it's so. It's reasonable to accept the consensus view on science.
quote:
Coleman says his side of the global-warming debate is being buried in mainstream media circles.
Maybe if he were some kind of expert on the matter or had some original research or something, John Coleman would get some attention. But he's just another wacko conspiracy theorist. It isn't just mainstream media that ignores him. Mainstream climate "skeptics" don't seem very interested in his spiel either.
Using just a piece of info that you yourself presented here (1.01 F change in global temps over 50 years), we can see that he has no idea what he's talking about...
quote:
"As you look at the atmosphere over the last 25 years, there's been perhaps a degree of warming, perhaps probably a whole lot less than that, and the last year has been so cold that that's been erased," he said.
Perhaps probably? Whether he's talking about a quarter or a full degree, there was never a single year with such a change!
You keep insisting we all address your questions. You haven't yet replied to these questions:
glowby writes:
Do you agree that Earth is warming more quickly that it naturally might?
and
Do you agree that man is contributing to this unnatural warming?
marc9000 writes:
I do not, as it was refuted in the year 2000, to a very comparable degree that Piltdown man was refuted in 1953.
You deny it's real.
marc9000 writes:
I don't deny that it's real, I deny that there's anything humans can do about it.
And in this latest reply you deny GW once again. What's your position now?
Message 21: Can you tell us what bias or subjectivity in particular was used in Muller's work?
Message 21: If you wanted to detect whether you are coming down with a fever today, would you need to see records from when you were an infant?
Message 48: First it was the atomic bomb, then the A bomb and H bomb, then a nuclear weapon, and then a weapon of mass destruction. Would any sane person point to these changes in terminology and infer that these things don't actually explode?
Message 93: Can you explain exactly where each of those $22 billion [global warming costs] comes from? Where each one goes? No? If not, doesn't that mean we should deny that any money has changed hands at all? Does it mean you can deny that taxes are collected and spent?
Message 48: Do you recognize that any of the arguments you've made here are illogical, deceptive, or fallacious?
Re: Message 21: Or are you just throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks?
Never mind. You've already answered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by marc9000, posted 02-22-2015 8:24 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 941 (750846)
02-23-2015 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by marc9000
02-22-2015 8:32 PM


I trust the advocates of small government over advocates of big government. I find rich people who advocate small government to be more accountable for their mistakes than rich people who advocate big government. Corruption of course, makes it all less cut and dried than I wish it was, but the general rule still applies IMO.
So you don't know if the scientists are lying or not, you just trust more the people who are saying that they are.
Then when I asked "How will the successes of all these increases in government be measured?" - in message 104, he said this in message 106;
quote:
I see no increases in government.
Do you think that is ignorance, or do you think it's lying?
I don't know exactly what an "increase in government" is.
At face value, I'd assume it was adding another department or more employees but not just passing additional legislation.
It looks like you meant to say that passing another law is an increase in government and that jar does not think that is what an increase in government is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by marc9000, posted 02-22-2015 8:32 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(6)
Message 130 of 941 (750868)
02-23-2015 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by marc9000
02-22-2015 9:24 PM


Re: Climate change denial bought and paid for
marc9000 writes:
1.2 million? Hmmm, do scientific papers from global warming activists disclose the government money they get to research their findings?
The scientific papers I have read and written all have an acknowledgement section that list people who have helped and funding sources. The grants usually have a grant number which is also listed in the acknowledgements and can often be looked up at the agency or organization website. I have never had a grant from the government, but I have been part of several research teams that applied for NSF grants.
Not disclosing the sources of your funding is deceptive and unethical and calls into question the integrety of your research. Dr. Soon's failure to disclose the source of his funding demonstrates a conflict of interest and shows that his research was blatently fraudulent.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by marc9000, posted 02-22-2015 9:24 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
glowby
Member
Posts: 75
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010


(2)
Message 131 of 941 (750888)
02-23-2015 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by marc9000
02-22-2015 10:12 PM


marc9000 writes:
glowby writes:
I suggest that you use facts and evidence to decide whether GW is real, rather than blindly accepting the words of the politicians to whom you're devoted.
That's not what I was asking, and you know it.
You asked about my proposals. I have one: understand the science instead of simply denying it based on your politics.
The ideas about measuring success and remedial actions are by jar and others, to whom you should reply instead.
marc9000 writes:
Other than the voluntary ones that some of the others listed which most seem to agree will accomplish very little, the "continue to legislate" ones ALL involve politics.
That's right, and they necessarily involve politics for the reasons I mentioned. Don't like politics? OK. Go find someplace without a government. Good luck!
marc9000 writes:
glowby writes:
My proposal, if implemented, could be considered effective if you stop denying global warming. It could only be measured by some admission on your part that you're wrong.
So you won't specify what it is, and it's measurement would be successful if people like me would just stop questioning it and start trusting you?
I'm talking to you, marc. I'm suggesting to you that you understand the science instead of simply denying it based on your politics. Try employing your own powers of learning and reasoning instead of simply trusting your political party's spin on the issue. You hate politics? OK. Then stop taking politicians' words as gospel.
marc9000 writes:
glowby writes:
We have reasonable estimates of fossil fuels consumed and CO2 generated by industry, transportation, etc, in every developed country, country by country.
How about a link to that? A country by country list ...?
List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia
Fossil fuel energy consumption (% of total) | Data
There are many more corroborating sources, if you look.
Did it ever occur to you to do a search on "CO2 emissions by country" or "fossil fuel consumption by country"? I don't believe you're that helpless. Is there some kind of filter on your browser? Are you afraid to learn something contrary to what you believe? What's the deal, marc?
marc9000 writes:
4 days ago, 100+ year old LOW temp records were being broken in my area, and other areas of the U.S. Different people have different ideas of what problems are.
Indeed they do. And if any of them thinks the temp in their back yard is a good measure of the Earth's average temp, then they are just plain stupid. Do you suggest we base science and policy on the opinions of stupid people?
marc9000 writes:
I said 1 degree in 50 years. 0.6 C rounded off is one degree. 1 F is one degree.
Explain how rounding up from Celsius, adding 67% to its value, is a valid way to arrive at the equivalent Fahrenheit. You were pantsed, dude. At this point you're just bringing more attention to your naughty bits.
marc9000 writes:
Why don't you knock off with the "glowby" crap, Razd, and use just one name?
That's the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by marc9000, posted 02-22-2015 10:12 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by NoNukes, posted 02-23-2015 11:04 PM glowby has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 941 (750890)
02-23-2015 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by glowby
02-23-2015 10:36 PM


Explain how rounding up from Celsius, adding 67% to its value, is a valid way to arrive at the equivalent Fahrenheit.
Perhaps that's not an accurate description of the math. Nonetheless, an increase of 0.55 degrees C corresponds to approximately a 1 degree F increase in temperature. I have no idea if that is what marc9000 actually meant.

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by glowby, posted 02-23-2015 10:36 PM glowby has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by RAZD, posted 02-24-2015 9:46 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 133 of 941 (750957)
02-24-2015 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by marc9000
02-22-2015 10:12 PM


information
Why don't you knock off with the "glowby" crap, Razd, and use just one name?
LOL, sorry my paranoid friend it ain't so. While I am enjoying glowby's replies it isn't me. I just dropped in to show you a video on the sea ice (not ice cap):
Please feel free to compare that (temporary) high point at 2014 to ALL the low points before 2005 and get back to me on that expanding sea ice thingy.
and a bit on the jet stream:
quote:
A Melting Arctic And Weird Weather: The Plot Thickens
Wavier jet stream
One thing we do know is that the polar jet stream — a fast river of wind up where jets fly that circumnavigates the northern hemisphere — has been doing some odd things in recent years.
Rather than circling in a relatively straight path, the jet stream has meandered more in north-south waves. In the west, it’s been bulging northward, arguably since December 2013 — a pattern dubbed the Ridiculously Resilient Ridge by meteorologists. In the east, we’ve seen its southern-dipping counterpart, which I call the Terribly Tenacious Trough. (See picture, below.)
Slowing, drunken path
The jet stream is a dastardly complex creature, and figuring out what makes it tick has challenged atmospheric scientists since it was discovered about 75 years ago. Even more elusive is figuring out how climate change will affect it.
Jet streams exist because of differences in air temperature. In the case of the polar jet stream, which is responsible for most of the weather we experience around the middle-latitudes of the northern hemisphere, it’s the cold Arctic butting against warmer areas to the south that drives it. (A more in-depth explanation can be found here.) Anything that affects that temperature difference will affect the jet stream.
This is where climate change comes in: the Arctic is warming much faster than elsewhere. That Arctic/mid-latitude temperature difference, consequently, is getting smaller. And the smaller differential in temperatures is causing the west-to-east winds in the jet to weaken.
Strong jets tend to blow straight west to east; weaker jets tend to wander more in a drunken north/south path, increasing the likelihood of wavy patterns like the one we’ve seen almost non-stop since last winter.
When the jet stream’s waves grow larger, they tend to move eastward more slowly, which means the weather they generate also moves more slowly, creating more persistent weather patterns.
‘Stuck’ weather patterns
To study the effects of Arctic change on weather patterns, we have good measurements of atmospheric temperatures and winds going back to the late 1970s, when satellites started providing data, and pretty good measurements back to the late 1940s.
Our own new work, published last month in Environmental Research Letters, uses a variety of new metrics to show that the jet stream is becoming wavier and that rapid Arctic warming is playing a role. If these results are confirmed, then we’ll see our weather patterns become more persistent.
Would you not agree that changing the jet stream changes weather patterns around the globe? Some areas become hotter (and dryer) while others become colder (and wetter)?
Please note that the brown areas are significantly warmer than normal while the blue areas are significantly colder than normal. Which do you think is more pervasive -- hotter than normal or colder than normal?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by marc9000, posted 02-22-2015 10:12 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 134 of 941 (750968)
02-24-2015 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by NoNukes
02-23-2015 11:04 PM


what difference can a degree make?
Perhaps that's not an accurate description of the math. Nonetheless, an increase of 0.55 degrees C corresponds to approximately a 1 degree F increase in temperature. I have no idea if that is what marc9000 actually meant.
So how much difference can a degree of warming make? In the N American arctic permafrost is melting ...
There are deposits of Methane Clathrate in the arctic (N. America and Siberia) and in deep ocean just off the continental shelf ...
quote:
Methane Clathrate
Methane clathrate (CH4•5.75H2O), also called methane hydrate, hydromethane, methane ice, fire ice, natural gas hydrate, or gas hydrate, is a solid clathrate compound (more specifically, a clathrate hydrate) in which a large amount of methane is trapped within a crystal structure of water, forming a solid similar to ice.[1] Originally thought to occur only in the outer regions of the Solar System, where temperatures are low and water ice is common, significant deposits of methane clathrate have been found under sediments on the ocean floors of the Earth.[2]
and
quote:
Scientists Demand Investigation After More Mysterious Holes Appear In Siberia
We know now of seven craters in the Arctic area. Five are directly on the Yamal peninsula, one in Yamal Autonomous district, and one is on the north of the Krasnoyarsk region, near the Taimyr peninsula," Bogoyavlensky told Anna Liesowska of The Siberian Times. We have exact locations for only four of them. The other three were spotted by reindeer herders. But I am sure that there are more craters on Yamal, we just need to search for them. ...
One crater was thoroughly explored last November, and preliminary results seem to suggest that gas emissions were responsible for creating these holes. It is likely that pockets of natural gas that had been trapped in the soil due to permafrost began to increase in pressure as the ground thawed. At a certain point, there is an explosion of soil that releases that pressure. While this wouldn't be much of a problem in a remote area, this could be extremely disastrous if one occurred under a school or other populated region.
High bad thing potential ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by NoNukes, posted 02-23-2015 11:04 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2015 9:31 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 135 of 941 (751293)
03-02-2015 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by RAZD
02-24-2015 9:46 PM


snoballs and polar vortexation
quote:
Sen. Jim Inhofe Throws Snowball on Senate Floor in Attempt to Debunk Climate Change
Sen. Jim Inhofe, a devoted climate change denier, tossed a snowball at someone on the Senate floor today as he tried to debunk climate change.
In case we had forgotten because we keep hearing that 2014 has been the warmest year on record, I ask the chair: You know what this is? It's a snowball and that just from outside here so it's very, very cold out. Very unseasonal, he said.
So, Mr. President, catch this, Inhofe, R-Okla., said on the Senate floor, tossing the snowball to someone off-screen as he tried to suppress a smile.
We hear the perpetual headline that 2014 has been the warmest year on record but now the script has flipped and I think it's important since we hear it over and over and over, Inhofe, 80, said. As we can see with the snowball out there, this is today. This is reality.
Ah yes a local anomaly debunks reality ...
quote:
350.org's Photos
Yes, the East Coast of the U.S. is super cold right now (I'm typing this from frozen NYC), but the reality is that January was the 2nd hottest on record.
The rest of the world is still heating up way too fast: http://bit.ly/1LkCByc
That purple spot is where Senator Inhofe chose to make his snowball -- clearly not an average condition on earth ...
quote:
After Senator James Inhofe trolled the entire Senate with his snowball on Thursday, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse stepped up to the mic with his fact snowplow to clear away the mess.
So much win.
There's a transcript of Sheldon's little fact slam if you are interested. (That's my senator)
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by RAZD, posted 02-24-2015 9:46 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2015 11:02 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024