Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 11001 - 11020 of total 27883 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 7, 2013 - 02:08am PT
Negative ED. Intermission and ammo resupply.

We'll be back. Stay tuned.

Combat nap time.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 7, 2013 - 09:00am PT
They DO Riley. They DO.


The following is a very recent letter that contains ONLY THE FACTS. Not any computer model assumptions nor exaggerated terms/verbiage or inflated data etc. Just THE FACTS. Oh, and he is a scientist that is an experienced and well informed EXPERT in climate and weather.


Aug 06, 2013
Art Horn Letter to Connecticut State Department of Agriculture


Steven Reviczky
State of Connecticut Department of Agriculture
165 Capital Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106

Art Horn, Meteorologist
185 Pine street # 308
Manchester, CT 06040

Saturday 8/3/13

Mr. Reviczky,

I am a meteorologist and climate researcher with 37 years of experience in the field. For twenty five of those years I worked as a television meteorologist with 13 of those years being at NBC30 in west Hartford.

One of the reasons we teach people about history is to give them ability to place current events into their proper context. The same can be said about weather history. Those who do not know the history of weather do not know how to place current events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, snowstorms, floods, droughts, heat waves, cold waves and all other types of weather phenomena into their proper context. If one does not know weather history than that person might think that all “unusual” weather is new and unprecedented.

In a July 30th, 2013 Associated Press story titled “Connecticut warns of dire climate change consequences” you were quoted as saying “You can see what’s happening”. You went on to say “The intensity of storms is pretty significant. The damage has been equally significant.” I would agree with both of those statements but I believe what you were trying to convey was that storms are becoming more severe and more frequent in Connecticut than in the past. I could be wrong.

Connecticut has experienced four tornadoes this summer. This is not unprecedented or unusual. Outbreaks of three or more tornadoes on a single day occurred in 1786, 1787, 1878, 1973, 1989, 1998 and 2001. In 1973 there were 8 tornadoes on 6 different days.

Connecticut averages about one tornado a year so they are not unknown or unusual here. In addition, our ability to detect tornadoes is significantly better than in the past. There has been no increase in the number of tornadoes nationally nor here in Connecticut. The long term trend in strong to violent tornadoes nationally is actually down since the 1970s.

The Associated Press story was written by Stephen Singer who wrote that Connecticut was struck by Tropical Storm Irene in August of 2011, a “freak” snow storm in late October of that year and “Super Storm” Sandy in late October of 2012. I believe he was trying to imply that there was something strange and unusual about these storms. He does not know weather history. Tropical Storm Irene was not a major storm by any measure used to evaluate these storms. It was a Tropical Storm with sustained winds below low lowest category of Hurricanes, a category one. It struck at the new moon high tide in some portions of Southern New England accentuating the storm surge in coastal areas. Connecticut had not been hit directly by a Tropical Storm or Hurricane since Hurricane Gloria in 1985 so we were inexperienced and vulnerable to the effects of a storm with Tropical Storm force winds when the trees were in leaf.

The snow storm of late October was unusual but not unprecedented. A snowstorm struck the Northeastern United States on October the 4th, 1987, nearly a month earlier. That storm dumped 9 to 20 inches of snow across portions of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York State and Vermont. Other notable October snow storms occurred on October 6th, 1836 and October 10th, 1925. A Tropical Storm combined with cold air produced large amounts of snow across interior Connecticut on October the 9th, 1804. These storms were all weeks earlier than what took place in 2011.

Hurricane Sandy was not a “Super Storm”. This label was assigned by the news media. Those who called Sandy a Super Storm did so because they liked the sound of “Super Storm.” Having worked in television news rooms for 25 years I am well acquainted with these exaggerations. The term “Super Storm Sandy” sounds much more dramatic than “Sandy is a category one Hurricane on a scale of one to five” which is what it was. Sandy had a wide circulation of Tropical Storm force winds of 39 to 73 miles per hour, partially due to a large high pressure area to the northeast of the storm and partially because it was being absorbed by a mid-latitude jet stream. Actually there were no sustained Hurricane force winds anywhere on the east coast of the United States from Sandy. The angle at which Sandy hit the coast at the full moon high tide in areas that had not been hit by a tropical storm in many years were three significant factors in causing so much damage not to mention building structures right up to the waters edge.
A true “Super Storm” did strike Connecticut seventy five years ago. The New England Hurricane of September 21st, 1938 was far, far worse than Sandy. This was a category three Hurricane traveling at sixty miles per hour. There are no wind measurements from the storm in Connecticut even though there was a sufficient network of anemometers across the state. The 1938 hurricane blew them all away when the winds reach 100 miles per hour. Estimates from barometer readings and computer simulations indicate this storm had maximum sustained winds of 120 miles per hour with gusts as high as 160, a true Super Storm. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were around 310 parts per million at the time of the 1938 storm. Today carbon dioxide levels are up to 400 parts per million. The amount of carbon dioxide in the air in 1938 had nothing to do with that Hurricane and the amount of carbon dioxide in the air today had nothing to do with Hurricane Sandy. Somehow reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the air to 1938 levels would not have prevented Hurricane Sandy.

The frequency and intensity of Hurricanes in the North Atlantic is principally determined by the long term cycle of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the short term occurrence of El Nino and La Nina and the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation. It has nothing to do with how much carbon dioxide is in the air, it never has and never will. The idea that we can control bad weather by reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the air is fantasy gone very wrong. Years from now people will look back on this era and say thing like “They actually thought they could control the weather and climate.”

As a percentage of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide has increased a total of 0.01% since 1850. History is full of terrible storms when carbon dioxide levels were much lower than today. Ice core temperature reconstructions from Greenland clearly show us that weather is much more extreme when the earth is colder, not warmer. It is the temperature contrast between the poles and the equator that makes weather. The bigger the temperature difference between the poles and the equator, the more extreme the weather is. The ice core data proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt. A warmer world would have less temperature contrast and therefore less extreme weather. The global warming crowd has it backwards. It’s advocacy not science.

When confronted by these facts many people have no ability to reply so they point to authority institutions such as NOAA, NCAR, NCDC, NASA, The National Science Foundation, The National Academy of Science, American Physical Society, The American Meteorological Society and many other government and academic institutions and societies. All of these organizations have issued proclamations that man made global warming is real and is caused by burning fossil fuels. Based on their unanimity we are therefore supposed to believe they are correct. Some people believe that large institutions are exempt from making mistakes. As an example, in 2006 NASA predicted sunspot cycle 24, the current cycle we’re in now, would be the strongest in 300 years. The reality is that it will be the weakest in 100 years. They could not have been more wrong.

The truth is that we really don’t know what these government agencies and other organizations and institutions think of global warming. The department heads of government agencies and the boards of directors of academic institutions and societies may claim that their respective organizations support the man made global warming theory. The problem is that they never asked the people who actually make up these government agencies or institutions what they think. For all I know 75% of all NASA employees may not believe in man made global warming, but nobody knows because nobody asked them. Just as President Obama does not speak for me and at least 57 million other Americans, The department heads and leaders of government agencies and other large institutions don’t necessarily speak for their membership.

I know this is long winded but I believe this subject is so important to the future of America that we need to address this issue seriously and objectively, especially due to it’s critical impact on our energy future and therefore our prosperity.

Art Horn, Meteorologist AMS

Art Horn
http://www.theartofweather.com/bio.html



But of course since his position is counter to the flow of the AGW Monster River, he will be discredited and demeaned. That is how the AGW Protocol roles.



It's costing us maybe trillions already.

There's that word again. "MAYBE", "IF" etc.


Science CAN NOT with a shadow of doubt, determine whether or not, as Mr. Horn and many other Climate Science Experts point out, if going the course in reducing C02 emissions, will in fact turn the tide of the current warming trend. It, science, only "hopes" it might.

Like everything we humans do, we think it might or will. Then down the road realize the consequences of our actions and of course our track record speaks for itself. But then the excuse prevails that we need to do something. Really. Like we are going to change our ways after all these centuries of being, what was the term.... pillagers.
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Aug 7, 2013 - 10:17am PT
NOAA State of the Climate - 2012
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2012.php

briefing slides:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/2012/sotc-2012-webinar-briefing-slides.pdf
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Aug 7, 2013 - 10:20am PT
if going the course in reducing C02 emissions, will in fact turn the tide of the current warming trend.

if going the course in reducing C02 emissions, will in fact turn the tide of the current warming trend.

You mean the one you asserted doesn't exist?

Lol. Whatever.

DMT
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 7, 2013 - 11:15am PT
You mean the one you asserted doesn't exist?

You have been eating too much cake there Dingus.

Please do POST up where I "asserted" it was NOT occurring????

Please.


As usual, your assumptions & perceptions clearly come out. Blinded by all that icing that is supposedly all over the cake.





PS: Never stated it WAS NOT HAPPENING. Never! Dig deep Dingus. My position is that this has occurred throughout the planets physical history and is not all MAN MADE nor anything NEW as you all fatalistically claim it to be. That is and has been my POSITION. You best start digging to debunk that.


My contention is that you and your side of the coin states it is all man made thus man can reverse it via all the bullshet ideological economic and socially based mitigation proposals to do so. That is the only way we can fix this supposed impending global disaster. That is ALL a crock of complete dogmatic liberal utopian tax the living shet outta of us in order to have the gov't fix it and take care of us all wanna-be propagnda shet.

Seriously appears that you too Dingus should pick up a copy of and read old Emerson's Masterpiece "Self-Reliance". Here, my gift to you. Don't ever say I never gave you anything:

http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~doyle/docs/self/self.pdf

That may not work so here:

http://www.emersoncentral.com/selfreliance.htm

A little taste of his wisdom:

Society never advances. It recedes as fast on one side as it gains on the other. It undergoes continual changes; it is barbarous, it is civilized, it is christianized, it is rich, it is scientific; but this change is not amelioration. For every thing that is given, something is taken. Society acquires new arts, and loses old instincts. What a contrast between the well-clad, reading, writing, thinking American, with a watch, a pencil, and a bill of exchange in his pocket, and the naked New Zealander, whose property is a club, a spear, a mat, and an undivided twentieth of a shed to sleep under! But compare the health of the two men, and you shall see that the white man has lost his aboriginal strength. If the traveller tell us truly, strike the savage with a broad axe, and in a day or two the flesh shall unite and heal as if you struck the blow into soft pitch, and the same blow shall send the white to his grave.

The civilized man has built a coach, but has lost the use of his feet. He is supported on crutches, but lacks so much support of muscle. He has a fine Geneva watch, but he fails of the skill to tell the hour by the sun. A Greenwich nautical almanac he has, and so being sure of the information when he wants it, the man in the street does not know a star in the sky. The solstice he does not observe; the equinox he knows as little; and the whole bright calendar of the year is without a dial in his mind. His note-books impair his memory; his libraries overload his wit; the insurance-office increases the number of accidents; and it may be a question whether machinery does not encumber; whether we have not lost by refinement some energy, by a Christianity entrenched in establishments and forms, some vigor of wild virtue. For every Stoic was a Stoic; but in Christendom where is the Christian?




Of course modern science and the political ideology that goes with it, will tell us that is all jibberish and can be completely debunked. That in the name of survival we must depend on it, science and our political establishment, regardless their ineptness, to take care of us.

That Dingus is where I call Bullshet.


NOAA State of the Climate - 2012

The RAT insisting it deserves to be fed. Give me more. I need more to tell you how bad it all might be.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 7, 2013 - 01:00pm PT
With the exception of rapid atmospheric changes triggered by major volcanic events, asteroid impacts and methane release, which led to the great mass extinction of species [1], the current rate of CO2 rise (2005-08: 1.66-2.55 ppm/year) is unprecedented in the recent history of the Earth, driving polar ice melt and sea level rise rates in excess of IPCC projections.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-change-the-current-rate-of-co2-rise-is-unprecedented-in-the-recent-history-of-the-earth/16226

Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Aug 7, 2013 - 01:14pm PT
My contention is that you and your side of the coin states

I don't state anything, for the most part. Other than poking fun at moronic arguments. I don't have a side. Don't need one, my opinion of global warming is completely irrelevant, anyway. I don't form an opinion and then go seek out those who agree with my opinion.

I didn't decide... 'global warming is bullshit' and then go trawling the internet for supporting material. I didn't decide 'global warming is manmade and mankind can do something about it' and then go looking for the Eds and Cholies of the world to suck up to, either. In fact, even in the course of this thread I have demonstrated one specific attribute that is, sadly, lacking in, well, your perspective, for example...

an open mind.

Its such a liberating policy! I don't need to side with anyone and I can change my mind (and do) at will.

At WILL. Its my mind and I own it. Why would I set my mind in concrete? I wouldn't need it anymore, if I did that...

DMT
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 7, 2013 - 02:09pm PT
Then why are you even posting here, Dingus? My Bad. I forgot. Gotta due the Tribal show of force Duty gig. Got it.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Aug 7, 2013 - 02:19pm PT
Yep ,us,socialist,hippie,commie,college educated,live in the woods,make an honest living,against fossil fuel,LIBERALS, yeah we have closed minds.

I have a side,and ,i will stay there ,thanks.My days of walking a fence are way over.
I do not need confirmation from anybody at this point.The topic of this thread is CC denial,most have pointed out where they are with this.

Their arguments are as weak ,as their ideology.

But man,they are right ,they are right ,they are always RIGHT.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 7, 2013 - 02:31pm PT
Why are you even posting here The Chief, asks Ed. Well let's see, since mass media, directed by big government and big business, has substituted any brain matter the true believers had with a steaming, stinking pile of mush it seems to me that The Chief is retrying to retrieve lost minds. That he does it with the best sense of humor exhibited on any thread of this forum is miraculous. All hail The Chief!
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 7, 2013 - 02:38pm PT
You are absolutely right ED. You all do need somewhere to your own to boil your stew and then eat it. Cus you all sure ain't gonna see neck or hide of your Utopian Fantasy come true in "The Real World".

Just the constant "noise" that is being disseminated periodically through the media. i.e, NOAA's Climate Report etc.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 7, 2013 - 02:47pm PT
How about this EDH:

While devastating to humans, it most assuredly has happened in the past "naturally."Why attempt to change what is natural?
Ed Hartouni on the "Fires, Fuels and our Forests" thread just minutes ago.





Sorry, but this truly and seriously applies here. Unfkingbelievable ED.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 7, 2013 - 02:56pm PT
Too Heavy. Sent em back and got these instead. Topnotch and far superior than the Matrix's. They are 48 grams lighter than the Matrix's, each.


I figured the cubicle was to polite. But, the constraining part to embarrassing. Trying to be nice these days actually.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 7, 2013 - 03:00pm PT
You won't snap em. You don't weigh enough. Unless you gained some 200 lbs on the skinny runts ass 160 pole stick frame you had last winter, supposedly.

EDIT:
They are CE'd to 600+lbs.
http://www.grivel.com/products/ice/ice_axes/54-quantum_tech



BTW: My ice days are done. Knees are both toast and doc says no more or else.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 7, 2013 - 03:07pm PT
They are CE'd to 600+lbs.
http://www.grivel.com/products/ice/ice_axes/54-quantum_tech

Years of hauling 100+ lb Pigs up and then down etc. That is according to the Doc.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 7, 2013 - 03:08pm PT
The goldilocks zone and time that we inhabit vacated the fossilized venusians some three billion years ago. Venus has a longer day than year, it is also the only planet in our solar system to revolve clockwise. The combination and causes of the planets revolution slowdown and unique direction of rotation, given it's close proximity to the sun, have huge and so far undocumented severe tidal effects (affecting the planet and atmosphere) which unleashed crustal carbonates through levels of volcanism far beyond earths.

Still formulating questions. Lord Monckton has an excellent rewrite of the AGU statement release-you should read it.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Aug 7, 2013 - 03:39pm PT
Lord Monkton! I knew you must have a mentor. You couldn't possibly have acquired that fine mix of calm self assured smug aloofness by hanging out in Wasilla. Monkton is like royalty in the denier community.

Here he is defending his title:

Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Aug 7, 2013 - 03:53pm PT
I should have made the connection earlier. Listen to this and compare it to the presentations of Rick sumner that we are so familiar with. Its spooky how the mannerisms, inflections, insinuations and dusty dry attempts at humor are so freakily similar. and the assertions are identical:



Did he hand you your degree in person rick?
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Aug 7, 2013 - 04:22pm PT
The only real difference I can see is that Lord Monckton - who apparently is fraudulently claiming the title of a British Lord but I digress - does in fact have the confidence and gumption to reveal and articulate his true motives and ideological imperatives, unlike Rick. Perhaps this is because Rick is still a mere disciple and has not yet been granted that honor... that comes from granting oneself peerage.

Anyway, perhaps Rick could at least comment on wether the Good Lord is barking up the right tree here....

Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Aug 7, 2013 - 04:28pm PT
Or here........


Messages 11001 - 11020 of total 27883 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews