Climate Change

[TJinPgh]

Each + sign on this map is an automated weather station that is part of the cooperative weather station network.

Understood. That, however, does not dictate that all of those data points are being used in climate models. In fact, the overwhelming majority of the 39,000+ monitoring stations around the world do not meet even the accepted criteria that exists within the field, flawed as it is, by virtue of accuracy issues as well as placement concerns. To date, there is only one study that uses all of them and has had no peer review on anything they've come up with.

Source for these accusations? My understanding of the climate models is they are now getting very good as they add more and more components.

They're all very good. Until they're not. Every year or two they end up tweaking the models to reflect variations in what they're seeing to what was predicted. The IPCC model from 2000 is already off by more than a degree from the 2010 data. I'm sure they've tweaked it since then to make it seem more correct.

I suggest you fact check your sources. Follow their funding sources. There are allot of groups that would be significantly economically harmed if public policy was made that forced reductions in CO2 emissions. As a group they are spending hundreds of millions a year to protect their investments and income sources.

I'm always amused by the notion that this is a one way street. As if there isn't just as much desire to transfer hundreds of billions to trillions in revenue from one government to another.

It was the entire purpose of the Kyoto Accord. A treaty so useless and destructive that even the most liberal of senators couldn't bring themselves to vote for it. Going down in defeat by a unanimous vote. Didn't stop those same senators who voted against it for criticizing the next administration when it kicked it to the curb.

Also this should be telling:

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[10][11] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions. There are also groups of individuals outside national or international organizations that have expressed their dissenting opinions and counterarguments in venues such as public petitions.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientifi ... ate_change

Yes, it is telling. Not one dissenting opinion, despite the fact that scientists who took part in those studies have come forth and said they disagree with the findings. Yet, not one record of dissent in all that work? Really?

All of this butts up against one big problem. The global temperature of the earth is not increasing. It's decreasing.

[DrCrash]

what about the thermometers that were placed above airconditioning condeser units ?

[TJinPgh]

This graph also causes me to ask questions.



Gus

Now, Bogo, you said something else must be in play because the graphs don't line up precisely. Might want to try adding this into the equation....



It's called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which is represented by that wave line you see in the middle of the graph. We see a 25-30 year cycle. More or less the northern Pacific version of El Nino

Incidentally, this is the IPCC model that is supposedly so accurate...



Ultimately, what we're looking at is cloud cover and how that plays against the solar cycles. Now, that is not to say that CO2 doesn't play a factor at all. It does, but to nowhere near the extent that IPCC would maintain.

Here is a graph that combines the PDO and CO2 emissions...



Now, it's interesting that every climate graph shows some kind of divergence around 1970, where they start splitting off from what is expected.

Here is where we start getting political, though. Even if you accept CO2 as a significant cause of global temperature changes, you have to ask yourself why the push to get the US on board vs. some other countries is so great.

Yes, the US previously had the highest CO2 output on the planet. But, that output has remained more or less consistent. Peaking in 2005 and leveling off (as did most countries). The major spike, however, comes not from the US but rather from China, which started it's spike in emissions back in the 1980s and hasn't stopped. It's emissions continue to increase annually, while virtually every other country on the planet has either plateaued or decreased.

The fact of the matter is that whatever minimal effect that CO2 is having on global temperatures, it's not the US that's at the heart of it and I feel pretty much no responsibility to anything more than we're already doing.

Start extorting money from China. See how far that gets you.

[Bear_Rider]

Slow, if you look at long-term temperature records like this one, you probably should keep your long johns handy:



We may very well be at the tail end of the current inter-glacial period. If so, I hope that our seed banks have been well maintained, because very few of our hybridized crops will thrive when the average temperature drops 5 degrees and the growing seasons shorten by weeks. This won't bother you or I, but our great-great-grandchildren may begin to feel the effects.

[TJinPgh]

Slow, if you look at long-term temperature records like this one, you probably should keep your long johns handy:

We may very well be at the tail end of the current inter-glacial period. If so, I hope that our seed banks have been well maintained, because very few of our hybridized crops will thrive when the average temperature drops 5 degrees and the growing seasons shorten by weeks. This won't bother you or I, but our great-great-grandchildren may begin to feel the effects.

I doubt it will be quite that soon.... they're estimating some point closer to a thousand years from now. We will probably see a slight cooling for the next few years, then it will warm a bit. Probably less than 10 degrees F over the next couple of centuries.

We still use more fuel in the winter than in the summer so, frankly, a little warming would probably be a good thing for those who are so concerned about CO2.

At the end of the day, though, nothing we do is going to have any meaningful impact on where the earth is heading, and that's into an ice age.

[Bear_Rider]

50, 100, or 1000 years from now. It's just an eye blink geologically speaking. The same crop principles will still apply, only more so if we continue our current trend towards specialized, even genetically-engineered crops tailored for this specific climate. When the climate changes, Darwin will come back to haunt us with a vengeance.

[Bogo]

when did you fellars say all that hot air was coming?

It's here. We had a record high, 69F in Des Moines, on the 3rd. We were over 30 degrees above the average high for this time of the year.

[TJinPgh]

We've been in the low 60s for the last couple of days. Certainly warm compared to what one would see as normal. The temp will drop down again, probably starting tomorrow.

Cross the pond and they've been seeing record colds for the last few years. We're lucky that olives haven't doubled in price. Then again, it's been a while since I bought any so maybe they have.

[Scooter]

Is it common knowledge in the US that it is the only developed country of the world in which climate change deniers are taken seriously at government level?

Makes me happy to see this comment. Because it affirms that, despite evidence to the contrary, we still have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Unlike the rest of the world, apparently.

[eamarquardt]

Makes me happy to see this comment. Because it affirms that, despite evidence to the contrary, we still have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Unlike the rest of the world, apparently.

Yeah, but who says it's working in the bests interests of the people?

Gus

[Scooter]

Makes me happy to see this comment. Because it affirms that, despite evidence to the contrary, we still have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Unlike the rest of the world, apparently.

Yeah, but who says it's working in the bests interests of the people?

Gus

Nobody. It's about self-determination as espoused by Jefferson and others. We get to determine what's in our best interest. Sometimes wer're right, sometimes we're wrong. Still, I prefer it to a government treating us like childen because we're too ignorant or incapable of taking care of ourselves.

And for goodness sakes, allowing a foreign government or governments to dictate domestic policy under the guise of climate treaties and so forth....no thanks!!

[eamarquardt]

Still, I prefer it to a government treating us like childen because we're too ignorant or incapable of taking care of ourselves.

Gee, I'd kinda gotten the impression that our governments (local, state, and federal) are treating us like children. We've been forced into programs against our individual wills for years. Social Security, Medicare, unemployment taxes, mandatory tax withholding, etc. Now, 60 percent of voters are opposed to Obamacare (to one degree or another) and it's still being forced upon us.

And for goodness sakes, allowing a foreign government or governments to dictate domestic policy under the guise of climate treaties and so forth....no thanks!!

But maybe they're smarter than the folks that have been elected and are running things here. Don't you think we ought to be treating the only rock we'll ever call home a bit nicer?

Gus

[Bogo]

The best interest of the people would be to have a plentiful cheap energy supply that isn't hostage to speculation and the whims of foreigners. We don't have that. Much of the research looking for alternatives to oil was gutted during the Reagan years when an oilman was VP. Look what we have now, an economy that is hostage to the price of energy from basically one small group of people. I can guarantee you that if our economy starts to take off again, the cost of gas will skyrocket, and the economy will stagger again.

[Scooter]

Still, I prefer it to a government treating us like childen because we're too ignorant or incapable of taking care of ourselves.

Gee, I'd kinda gotten the impression that our governments (local, state, and federal) are treating us like children. We've been forced into programs against our individual wills for years. Social Security, Medicare, unemployment taxes, mandatory tax withholding, etc. Now, 60 percent of voters are opposed to Obamacare (to one degree or another) and it's still being forced upon us.

And for goodness sakes, allowing a foreign government or governments to dictate domestic policy under the guise of climate treaties and so forth....no thanks!!

But maybe they're smarter than the folks that have been elected and are running things here. Don't you think we ought to be treating the only rock we'll ever call home a bit nicer?

Gus

Yes unfortunately our goverment has become way too parental for my taste. I was mainly addressing the reluctance of the US to bend to world opinion or defer to scientists instead of the voters who put them into office. And that reluctance is a good thing, IMO. It wouldn't take much to be smarter than our elected leaders, but at least we elected them and have the power to vote them back out. Except when the voters are stupid too, and we all have to pay for it.

[rando18]

When someone says climate change is a joke...
I tell them, people who beleive in climate change can afford to be wrong
People who don't can't.
They say that most of the damage is irreversible.
Time will tell.
I just turned 60.
Glad I got to see the country the way it was.
Keep it simple everyone!!!

Rando