Global Warming?

[RandyBell]

I'm sure NOT a scientist, but I wonder how much of Sandy and any extreme weather we may get before the end of the year could be due to the planets aligning this year. The magnetics of the planet are sure to be affected. I believe that the planet has gone through alot of changes in IT's lifetime and will go through alot more, weather we are here to see it or not. We have only been here a relatively short time so how can you say with any conviction that we caused all this. We weren't around to cause the last Iceage, weather runs in cycles we have extremely little control of what happens. With the billions of dollars that has been throw at all off this there has been no provable evidence, just that a few people have become extremely wealthy by people worring about something we have no control over.
just my 2 cents worth

Randy

 

[EE_Bota]

It is time we address and plan for global warming disasters- before the fact, not after they happen.


In a purely tractor world- we'd call that regular maintenance. If we actually addressed the causes of global warming - that would be preventative maintenance. Is this a radical concept- that is difficult to understand?:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:

You talk a lot, and laugh a lot too, so good for you. I maintain my own tractor, and so do you. You have not asked once how I maintain my tractors, so I presume you will likewise keep your nose out of my AGW preparations from here on out too. It that a radical concept- that is difficult to understand?:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:

It sounds snippy, but I am not mad at anyone. Sometimes the little laughing icons seem to be used to sideline or humiliate, or discourage comment from those who disagree, or to stimulate a pile-on response.

If the science were accepted and went into the engineering phases with the result being useful solutions that seem to relate to the actual stated problem, people would be less suspicious, and the scientific and engineering would be helped immensely. I for one am extremely sensitive to whether the stated solution matches the stated problem.

Continuing to allow half-baked political solutions to be brought forth only undercuts the credibility of the science and the scientists themselves. Some of the mouthy scientists who come out in popular publications sounding like politicians instead of scientists deserve the credibility loss. Most of the scientists surely do not deserve the crap they have received as a result of the politicians and the few mouthy scientists.

People need to believe that the agenda of science is to ascertain the facts of the physical world around us, not forward the political philosophy of any group. So long as those who support AGW science's current conclusions seem to hail predominantly from one political philosophy, things will go badly. It is important that people believe what they do enough to be able to conquer their own self-indulgence (watch their mouth for the good of their beliefs and the change they think is critical.) Leaders watch what they say all the time, and if some of you believe as strongly as you say, you may wish to behave more like a leader and forgo saying things not designed to enlist support.

 

[EE_Bota]

Re: @ robert Brown....???

You are an odd sort of scientist. We have come full circle. When I first cautioned you about confusing Maine's whether with AGW or GW, you said you weren't offering it as evidence, and you'd do what you want. I thought "fair enough." But now you are going outside of Maine (even though people disputed your observations of your own weather with official data) into tropical storms, all while keeping the same attitude.

You were the one who recently, in one of these threads, said "It's called the scientific method, look it up!" Well...
You present an issue for your fellows, who like you, are convinced of AGW. Will they, in view of all their claims of a desire to stick to science, allow you to skate by on things like this while only commenting negatively to those they disagree with? In other words, is the poor science you agree with proper science, but the poor science you disagree with improper science. Is this what's meant by "political science?"

As it turns out, no, they will not, but will stick up for the science of the matter. :thumbsup:

 

[tcreeley]

this BS of comparing hurricanes by the amount of damage is absurd, the houses in the 60's built on the barrier islands were tiny cottages many just sat on blocks or poles, now tremendous mansions are being built on the same shifting sand and far more are there to boot. a hurricane of the exact same magnitude will do hundreds of times more damage same as tornadoes and wildfire. And in the case of New Orleans the Army core of Engineers are to blame the levies are destroying the marshes so now the hurricanes hit with full force instead of being softened by extensive marsh land. I guess it makes good news propaganda to talk about how much more severe the storms are now.

Planning could be targetted to make coastal low lying areas off limits to development.

 

[tcreeley]

If I use TC's logic....it's been 7-10 degrees below normal for a week now here, quick, get out the Wooley Mamouth repellent! :laughing:

Others ; explain why global cooling, fairly dramatic cooling, between 1950-1972 was not the harbinger of an ice age, yet warming over roughly the same relative time is **** coming to earth? Why will the dire predictions all come true, when the violent hurricane seasons prediction has been such a flop, nobody is about to repopulate Greenland, there are no current plans for nudist beaches in Antarctica and they're still selling winter coats at Macey's?

Careful guys, the mutants created by the summer heat, even sounds weird to say, a hot summer, wow! Anyway, those heat monsters are coming or y-o-u! :laughing:

You need to buy a camp on some island in the Atlantic and ride out the next storm there! Our clemantis just bloomed today - November 2!- Nice purple flower.

You might be thinking of wooly aphids- they have been out and flying around the last few weeks- very pretty little creature. -- destroying hemlock.

 

[tcreeley]

Re: @ robert Brown....???

You are an odd sort of scientist. We have come full circle. When I first cautioned you about confusing Maine's whether with AGW or GW, you said you weren't offering it as evidence, and you'd do what you want. I thought "fair enough." But now you are going outside of Maine (even though people disputed your observations of your own weather with official data) into tropical storms, all while keeping the same attitude.

You were the one who recently, in one of these threads, said "It's called the scientific method, look it up!" Well...
You present an issue for your fellows, who like you, are convinced of AGW. Will they, in view of all their claims of a desire to stick to science, allow you to skate by on things like this while only commenting negatively to those they disagree with? In other words, is the poor science you agree with proper science, but the poor science you disagree with improper science. Is this what's meant by "political science?"

Semantics- the sand has dried now- ready for head insertion.

 

[tcreeley]

You talk a lot, and laugh a lot too, so good for you. I maintain my own tractor, and so do you. You have not asked once how I maintain my tractors, so I presume you will likewise keep your nose out of my AGW preparations from here on out too. It that a radical concept- that is difficult to understand?:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:

It sounds snippy, but I am not mad at anyone. Sometimes the little laughing icons seem to be used to sideline or humiliate, or discourage comment from those who disagree, or to stimulate a pile-on response.

If the science were accepted and went into the engineering phases with the result being useful solutions that seem to relate to the actual stated problem, people would be less suspicious, and the scientific and engineering would be helped immensely. I for one am extremely sensitive to whether the stated solution matches the stated problem.

Continuing to allow half-baked political solutions to be brought forth only undercuts the credibility of the science and the scientists themselves. Some of the mouthy scientists who come out in popular publications sounding like politicians instead of scientists deserve the credibility loss. Most of the scientists surely do not deserve the crap they have received as a result of the politicians and the few mouthy scientists.

People need to believe that the agenda of science is to ascertain the facts of the physical world around us, not forward the political philosophy of any group. So long as those who support AGW science's current conclusions seem to hail predominantly from one political philosophy, things will go badly. It is important that people believe what they do enough to be able to conquer their own self-indulgence (watch their mouth for the good of their beliefs and the change they think is critical.) Leaders watch what they say all the time, and if some of you believe as strongly as you say, you may wish to behave more like a leader and forgo saying things not designed to enlist support.

You are GOP, being GOP and sharing their blighted understanding of the world- from creationism to global warming- you are part of the impediment to improving this world. I can be ruthless when I choose, to improve things.

 

[Dustier]

Climate Change

Download This Report | Climate Change | US EPA

Climate Change Indicators in the United States

Greenhouse Gases - Energy from the sun drives the Earth's weather and climate. The Earth absorbs some of the energy it receives from the sun and radiates the rest back toward space. However, certain gases in the atmosphere, called greenhouse gases, absorb some of the energy radiated from the Earth and trap it in the atmosphere. These gases essentially act as a blanket, making the Earth痴 surface warmer than it would be otherwise.

Weather and Climate - Climate is the average weather in a given place, usually over a period of more than 30 years. While the weather can change in just a few hours, climate changes occur over longer timeframes. Climate is defined not only by average temperature and precipitation, but also by the type, frequency, and intensity of weather events such as heat waves, cold waves, storms, floods, and droughts. Climate has natural year-to-year variations, and extremes in temperatures and weather events have occurred throughout history.

Oceans - Covering nearly 70 percent of the Earth's surface, the oceans store vast amounts of energy absorbed from the sun and move this energy around the globe through currents. As greenhouse gases trap more energy from the sun, the oceans will absorb more heat, resulting in an increase in sea surface temperatures, rising sea levels, and possible changes to ocean currents. These changes will very likely lead to alterations in climate patterns around the world. For example, warmer waters promote the development of more intense storms in the tropics, which can cause property damage or loss of life.

Snow and Ice - Snow and ice are an important part of the global climate system. Because snow and ice are highly reflective, much of the sunlight that hits these surfaces is reflected back into space instead of warming the Earth. The presence or absence of snow and ice affects heating and cooling over the Earth痴 surface, influencing the planet痴 energy balance.

Society and Ecosystems - The indicators in this report show that changes are occurring throughout the Earth's climate system, including increases in air and water temperatures, a rise in sea level, longer growing seasons, and longer ice-free periods on lakes and rivers. Changes such as these are expected to present a wide range of challenges to human society and natural ecosystems.

Our World is Changing: Looking Beyond 'the 2012' - Our World is Changing: Looking Beyond 'the 2012' - YouTube

Is there a schmientist in the house?:anyone:

 

[toppop52]

Global Average Temperature 1900 to 2100 | Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States 2009 Report

Loren

Well, according to that chart the first 75 years of the 20th century averaged below normal and the last 25 averaged above normal. So then we extrapolate that the 20th century would predict an ice age and so far the 21st is predicting Dante's. Inferno! Of course using tcreely's climate science, I see an ice age just around the corner because it's been below normal for going on 2 weeks now!

 

[tcreeley]

Well, according to that chart the first 75 years of the 20th century averaged below normal and the last 25 averaged above normal. So then we extrapolate that the 20th century would predict an ice age and so far the 21st is predicting Dante's. Inferno! Of course using tcreely's climate science, I see an ice age just around the corner because it's been below normal for going on 2 weeks now!

You are being funny again! Where is that hot spell- 1934- the one that was the high point of the century?
Toppop- just admit it, ....we are forgiving- return to the fold you lifelong democratic card carrying member....and we'll appoint you ambassador to the dark side...the republicans!

 

[IslandTractor]

If this was 1970 and Sandy came to shore,i would say yes, but when you look at all the weather changes total and compare those to the storms you remember growing up, then surmise your own answer. This year along we can reflect on record snowfalls in alaska, record droughts in the midwest, then combine those with the current hyperstorm we just had. I refrain from calling it global warming, extreme weather I have never experienced in my life, not in the time keeping of weather...all one after another. I feel something has changed.

I think it is more accurate to say that AGW makes events like Sandy more likely than to specifically attribute AGW as the cause of this particular weather event. It may seem like nit picking but will avoid distracting arguments regarding certainty of a causal association.

 

[toppop52]

You are being funny again! Where is that hot spell- 1934- the one that was the high point of the century?
Toppop- just admit it, ....we are forgiving- return to the fold you lifelong democratic card carrying member....and we'll appoint you ambassador to the dark side...the republicans!

I said averaged, you understand what that means, right?

 

[EE_Bota]

Re: @ robert Brown....???

Semantics- the sand has dried now- ready for head insertion.

Maine sand or all sand in the entire world?

 

[EE_Bota]

You are GOP, being GOP and sharing their blighted understanding of the world- from creationism to global warming- you are part of the impediment to improving this world. I can be ruthless when I choose, to improve things.

I am Independent. You sound deranged. I will work to thwart your misguided efforts.

 

[/pine]

I think it is more accurate to say that AGW makes events like Sandy more likely...

So you think that it's accurate to say that AGW is responsible for the timing and merging of ANY two (or more) distinctly different weather patterns of which singularly would not have near the impact (even on highly dense populations) ? And because AGW is responsible there will be more of such atypical weather "events" ?

 

[IslandTractor]

So you think that it's accurate to say that AGW is responsible for the timing and merging of ANY two (or more) distinctly different weather patterns of which singularly would not have near the impact (even on highly dense populations) ? And because AGW is responsible there will be more of such atypical weather "events" ?

No, AGW just changed baseline conditions such as water temp which increase the odds of larger more powerful storms. I am not convinced, nor have I seen any evidence other than speculation, that the fateful merger with a cold front was anything other than bad luck in this instance. I haven't really looked to see what the climatologists and storm scientists have concluded yet and I suspect they won't have consensus anytime real soon. The warmer water part of the equation does seem pretty well established though.

 

[tcreeley]

An accuweather blog I read said the frequency of hurricanes will decrease, but the violence of hurricanes will increase under global warming - fits our current season. It also noted that it was the size and rotation of Sandy that pulled the cold front down and to it- ie Sandy had more influence due to size, than our hurricanes of the past.

Weather events are data that are summed up in climate. Climate change is ultimately the result of the weather events that are being summed up into a new climate. It is not top driven. The labels are just that.
No one should ascribe causative effect to one weather data point. However it is possible to recognize that the weather data point is an example of climate change. When I speak of an autumn generally free of freezing- I am recognizing that these are examples of climate change that has already taken place- to the point that it is now predictable. For folks to the south like Toppop and their cooler weather-- under the climate of the past they would have had the warmth we are getting, and we would have had the cold they are getting (to even a greater degree). Climate change has occurred and shifted and changed the norms. Look at the anomaly maps I frequently post. Global warming has happened. However, due to the causes- I think there are more extremes to come. We will discover them as we go along.
My clematis has a second flower opening. In a normal year there would not be a single green leaf on it. They would all be dead, brown and mostly on the ground. The leaves are green and healthy. These observations don't make the weather or climate, they are observable examples of the climate change that has already taken place.

 

[Tollster]

Re: @ robert Brown....???

So do you believe this is typically weather? Just a brief freak oddity perhaps? Does it seems normal where you reside or is there a sort of difference in the frequency that seems other that you may recall?

Simple questions because I see you have many answers to various questions, but I see little input on your ideas. If its just like it was when you grew up,then so be it.

I see a change in frequency and amounts of precipitation, but don't claim to be a scientist. We can call it anything you wish, but I know somethig seems to have changed on mother earth, what it is I do not know, what we call it doesn't matter either.

 

[toppop52]

Before weather/ climate became so political I heard Neil Frank, say that the weather from the late19th century though about 1950 was much milder and calmer than was normal and that historical norms were huge temperature swings, severe storms and dramatic and rapid changes in precipitation rates. He also said such calm periods were common through history and were virtually always preceded and followed by a return to radical weather, which historically is the norm. Neil Frank is a very bright meteorologist and longest running head of the NHC, where he had a history of being the most accurate prognosticator ever there.

 

[IslandTractor]

Before weather/ climate became so political I heard Neil Frank, say that the weather from the late19th century though about 1950 was much milder and calmer than was normal and that historical norms were huge temperature swings, severe storms and dramatic and rapid changes in precipitation rates. He also said such calm periods were common through history and were virtually always preceded and followed by a return to radical weather, which historically is the norm. Neil Frank is a very bright meteorologist and longest running head of the NHC, where he had a history of being the most accurate prognosticator ever there.

I would imagine that Dr Frank has had plenty of opportunity to write up his observations and submit them for professional review. His name doesn't bring up any such publication in a simple Google search however. I also note that after leaving the NHC, that he seems to have left the scientific side of meteorology and spent the last 20 years of his career simply as a TV weatherman. Not someone who really seems to be a fully engaged critical thinker on the subject of climate change as best I can tell. If his pet theories have not been critically reviewed then they remain cocktail conversation rather than scientific hypotheses.