Romney: We Need International Agreements to Deal with Climate Change
It’s a matter of record that he believes climate change is real and that humans contribute to it, although some of you may have forgotten that. The part about needing international agreements to deal with it seems to be new, though. Here’s a quote from an AP story that was excerpted at Hot Air:
While hitting familiar Republican points criticizing the size of the federal debt, Romney at times sounded like a Democrat, calling for President Barack Obama and other leaders in Washington to act on common liberal priorities such as climate change, poverty and education.
“I’m one of those Republicans who thinks we are getting warmer and that we contribute to that,” he said of climate change, charging that federal leaders have failed to enact global agreements needed to tackle the problem…
“Let’s deal with poverty,” he said Wednesday night. “Have we done it? No. Let’s do it.”…
Romney had previously acknowledged that climate change is real, noting in his 2010 book that “human activity is a contributing factor.” But he questioned the extent to which man was contributing to the warming of the planet and said throughout his 2012 campaign that America shouldn’t spend significant resources combating the problem — particularly with major polluters like China doing little.
The AP has apparently changed the story since Hot Air quoted the above passages, but remnants of it remain findable (see here, for example).
My own position is probably familiarly infuriating to long-time readers: I think the planet is warming (although there has been an odd “pause” in the data), and I think it stands to reason that humans might be contributing to that — but (and this part is very important) I don’t have a clue how much that contribution is, and I don’t think the “scientists” do either.
Increasingly, climate change “science” seems to bear a greater resemblance to a field like economics than it does to actual hard sciences like chemistry and physics. Look at the similarities. Both constitute a human effort to describe and predict systems that are so complex that prediction seems impossible. Both have become so partisan that one simply can’t trust the messengers to accurately describe the data, much less provide meaningful conclusions from that data. And both have lefty priests whose pronouncements lead to government actions that cost us billions that we can’t afford.
This, seemingly, was Romney’s position last time around as well. But now it seems that he has “evolved” to the point where (unlike me) he wants international agreements to address this horrible issue that he previously said he doesn’t know whether we contribute to or not.
(Plus, he seems to want to “deal with poverty” — and I am concerned that he is talking about using the government to do so, rather than getting government out of the way so that the free market can address the problem. What is he talking about there? We already know he wants to raise the minimum wage, a stupid idea that will increase unemployment. What other “poverty-fighting” programs might he propose to trash our economy further?)
So, you Romney supporters who are far more skeptical of global warming than I am . . . how do you like him now?
This should be interesting…
Patterico (9c670f) — 1/23/2015 @ 7:47 amMy belief is that he is going to essentially become a Democrat as penance for being rich.
An utter disaster in the making.
Patterico (9c670f) — 1/23/2015 @ 7:49 amof course, this why they are touting him, because they couldn’t wrangle Huntsman for another try,
narciso (ee1f88) — 1/23/2015 @ 7:51 amRomney: Squish, squish, squish.
Bleech.
Hey, Argentina, France and Greece, how’s the weather your way?!
Mark (c160ec) — 1/23/2015 @ 7:53 amHow about we internationally agree to nuke the Gaza Strip?
The Gazans had their last chance for unconditional surrender. Now we should unconditionally destroy them to save the world.
Michael Ejercito (45f52b) — 1/23/2015 @ 7:53 amMany “sciences”, including climate and economics, are ignorant of the natural laws that govern them and believe that they can enact, alter, or influence those laws with their systems. There are several words for that — voodoo is a good one.
Romney is too old and too soft to be President. He can believe that the Kaiser is out to steal his buttered toast for all I care. He has already lost my vote.
nk (dbc370) — 1/23/2015 @ 7:58 amI do not know that global warming is true, though I suspect that yes, the climate is getting very slightly warmer; I do know that it is well within the range of earth’s climate variations for as far back in human history as we think we know.
But what I am not willing to do is to impoverish everybody — except our political masters, of course, and the elitists who just know so much better than we do about how we ought to behave — to try to change things. If the climate changes, we will adapt, because that is what human beings do. We have managed to live and thrive from the Arctic wastes to the bone-dry deserts to the steaming rain forests, and if the climate warms a couple of degrees, we’ll still survive it.
And I’ll tell you what: it’s damned hard to take the climate change elitists seriously when they don’t do one damned thing to change their own lifestyles in any way which would persuade people that they actually believe what they say. Don’t try to tell me how to live my life if you aren’t willing to take your own advice; don’t ask me to sacrifice my family’s and my own well-being if you aren’t willing to do the same thing yourself.
The environmental scientist Dana (f6a568) — 1/23/2015 @ 7:59 amI don’t have a clue how much that contribution is, and I don’t think the “scientists” do either.
Never forget the supposed experts, certainly in the field of health and medicine, for the longest time kept claiming that fat instead of sugar was largely responsible for obesity, much less other ailments such as diabetes. Even today their supplicants in the food industry still tout “low fat!” or “non-fat!,” while the same concept rarely applies to food loaded with sugar.
We is stupid.
Mark (c160ec) — 1/23/2015 @ 8:02 amre #7: they had a convention of climate mongers in the past week or so.
Did they do so remotely? Nope, they met in Davros.
Did the attendees come by public transport? Nope, over 150 private jets were used.
Since this is tax season, to me this is reason #16 to not vote for Romney.
seeRpea (1d44c7) — 1/23/2015 @ 8:03 ammillionaire mitt romney
wrong for seniors
wrong for illinois
happyfeet (a037ad) — 1/23/2015 @ 8:05 amhow many huntsmans do we need exactly I was happy with just the one
happy as an effing clam with a new puppy
happyfeet (a037ad) — 1/23/2015 @ 8:09 amMy own position is probably familiarly infuriating to long-time readers: I think the planet is warming (although there has been an odd “pause” in the data), and I think it stands to reason that humans might be contributing to that — but (and this part is very important) I don’t have a clue how much that contribution is, and I don’t think the “scientists” do either.
My experience is in hard science (physics degree from Harvey Mudd) and a lifetime of work as an engineer. My position is a bit fluid, tending more towards the AGW camp as time goes on.
I’ve been quite skeptical over the years, due to 1) the politically-driven “science” on the part of a good number of advocates; 2) the denial of grant money to the skeptics (I despise default judgements, they make me ornery); and 3) the glee at which the socialists have accepted the need to control the means of production.
However … blindly increasing atmospheric CO2 is not a conservative position. Particularly when you are reaching extremes not seen in geological time. One should expect that bad things will begin to happen at some point. Kind of like what happens when you keep spending in deficit, but I digress.
The most appealing counter argument to AGW has been “it’s natural warming caused by increased solar output.” Considering that the period 1950-2000 had been one of the hotter solar-output eras recorded, this was plausible. But the last decade has seen a solar minimum and temperatures are not abating; instead they seem to be increasing somewhat. To me this makes the counter-argument weaker, and hinging on “there’s a lag.” Of course they could also be lying, but the best the skeptics have is “the heating isn’t quite as much as they say.”
So, I am coming to the position that 1) there is some warming, and 2) human production of greenhouse gases is responsible for enough of it that their reduction is necessary.
That does not mean, however, that I’ll sign on with Al Gore’s City Rebuilders. And I will point out that of all leaders and all countries, the most effective reduction of greenhouse gas production has occurred in the United States at the direction of the Bush administration. But they can’t say that, can they?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/23/2015 @ 8:11 amcould go on either thread:
http://conservativebyte.com/2015/01/sarah-palin-new-gop-majority-not-just-new-england-patriots-dealing-deflated-balls/
narciso (ee1f88) — 1/23/2015 @ 8:12 amWhere the 2016 GOP contenders stand on climate change
proven and tested governor scott walker
right for seniors
right for illinois
happyfeet (a037ad) — 1/23/2015 @ 8:12 amMaybe it is penance. Or maybe Romney is staking out his position on the issues early, either to get them out of the way or to come clean on what he really thinks. I don’t know what his motives are but this makes him look inconsistent, and inconsistency hurts his competency narrative — the best part of his campaign. It’s sad to see this happen to him.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2015 @ 8:17 amDaenerys Targaryan
Wrong for dragons
Wrong for the Realm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao4HVlV7wZU
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/23/2015 @ 8:17 am#14: Recycling is conservative, in all meanings of the word.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/23/2015 @ 8:18 amwell taking the Journal sentinel’s word on something, is as smart as relying on the Dog Trainer,
narciso (ee1f88) — 1/23/2015 @ 8:22 amspecially when you have a former Clinton speechwriter, filtering it,
narciso (ee1f88) — 1/23/2015 @ 8:29 amObama-blessed with IDIOTS for opponents, twice.
Human activity has almost certainly causing some warning. Whether it’s a bad thing or a big deal remains to be seen. And remains is doubt we can change much, especially so if developing countries like India, China and Brazil won’t agree.
Bugg (3a2abd) — 1/23/2015 @ 8:33 amthis makes him look inconsistent
This is a subject where information changes and one can indeed evolve. I have, others have. I prefer a politician who can adapt than one who refuses to do so (as we have now). Not everything is a principle.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/23/2015 @ 8:34 amActually it is, principles inform policy, the fable of AGW has left Europe one step from freezing with it’s windmills,
narciso (ee1f88) — 1/23/2015 @ 8:36 amso if developing countries like India, China and Brazil won’t agree.
Agreed. We should make efforts where we can, and avoid carelessness and waste. But until China and India and Germany are willing to give up massive reliance on coal, we should not spend too much money of fixing something we cannot fix alone.
If Romney wanted to win GOP hearts and minds, he’d couple his statements with a call for thorium reactor pilot plants or some such.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/23/2015 @ 8:39 amnarciso,
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/23/2015 @ 8:42 amEurope’sGermany’s problem is that they are shutting down all their well-run nuclear plants BECAUSE of mindless “principle” on the part of the Greens. Apparently, they are worried about earthquakes and tsunamis in a place that has never seen either. Instead they are burning more coal. And no, I don’t know how they justify that; it must be hard.Because they believe Pachauri’s traveling medicine wagon, they abandon reality,
narciso (ee1f88) — 1/23/2015 @ 8:45 amKevin M,
What new information or facts have come to light since 2012 that make man-made global warming appear more likely?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2015 @ 8:46 amMitt, do us all a favor and go fishing.
askeptic (efcf22) — 1/23/2015 @ 8:47 amIt’s obvious Romney is sending out trial balloons, most of them left-wing, in an effort to shore up the beating he took the last time out in the MSM. I voted for him last time while holding my nose, as I did for GWB II- the second time he ran. Hopefully, the R’s will wise up and nominate Walker or someone other than Romney or Bush III. I am essentially with Patterico on AGW. I have a hard time believing that 7 billion people don’t effect the climate and atmosphere but damned if I know how much.
As always, Obama is My God, Obama is My Soul, Obama Will Care For Me As I Would Care For Me and He Will Care For You Too-Racist!!!!
Ipso Fatso (10964d) — 1/23/2015 @ 8:49 amIf anything, we’re seeing more skepticism about climate change, so are you evolving or joining the cult?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2015 @ 8:50 amI completely understand your statement and completely disagree. I do not necessarily believe the planet is warming. I believe the climate is in a constant state of change, just like everything and everyone else is. Even that “pause” you noted is some type of change. And even though it does stand to reason that humans might be contributing I believe there is no reason to think we aren’t contributing as much as any other plant, animal or bacteria that shares our environment. I also do not know, along with you and the “scientists” to what degree we contribute or even if it is bad or good for the planet. Sine neither you, me, the “scientists nor anyone else understands these dynamics I think it’s both foolish and arrogant to believe pouring trillions into the idea will change a damn thing. Other than the prosperity of our people and the magnification of the overwhelming power of our government. I don’t believe trading the Liberty under our Republic for an up to now unprovable theory is smart.
Hoagie (4dfb34) — 1/23/2015 @ 8:50 amyes, that’s what he did last time as well, how did that turn out, rhetorical question,
narciso (ee1f88) — 1/23/2015 @ 8:51 am“So, you Romney supporters who are far more skeptical of global warming than I am . . . how do you like him now?”
Patterico – I have not seen anybody here come out in support for Romney in 2016 so I don’t know who you are trying to bait. I’m already on record as saying I don’t think he should run.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/23/2015 @ 8:52 am20. Bugg (3a2abd) — 1/23/2015 @ 8:33 am
That’s actually par for the course, in more than half of recent presidential elections, and whatever candidate looks like less of an idiot usually wins.
Examples of major party candidates who looked like idiots:
1964: Goldwater
1972: McGovern
1980: President Jimmy Carter
1984: Mondale
1988: Dukakis. Possibly Bush as well, but his positions on the issues were less idioticv.
1992: President George Bush the first. Also Perot at the end.
2004: John Kerry
2008: McCain, with respect to the financial crisis.
2012: Romney.
Sammy Finkelman (e806a6) — 1/23/2015 @ 8:59 amdaleyrocks @32. I’ve been saying there are very few Romney supporters, and people were voting for anybody but Romney, (except, I can add, that everybody but Romney turned out to be an idiot, or wasn’t able to answer charges) but somebody argued back that he got more than half the votes cast in Republican primaries in 2012.
Sammy Finkelman (e806a6) — 1/23/2015 @ 9:04 amMy position on global warming: I’m in favor of it. Warm is good. Ice ages are terrible for humanity. If our activities contribute to warming (which is not yet established, even if it “stands to reason”), then that’s great. The warming should be beneficial to us, and most other species on earth that flourish in warm climates.
Bud Norton (29550d) — 1/23/2015 @ 9:07 amThe global warming mongers started claiming 2014 as the WARMEST YEAR EVER!!! in January of last year.
Now after the year is in the book they are 38% sure (that 2014 is the HOTTEST YEAR EVER!!!) by 0.02 degrees when their over/under margine for measurement is 0.5 degrees.
If that ain’t a clue for you how fraudy, manipulative, and political, the global warming debacle is there’s probably no hope, and I should be trying to sell you time shares on the Golden Gate bridge.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/23/2015 @ 9:15 am35. Bud Norton (29550d) — 1/23/2015 @ 9:07 am
You never hear one counterargument made against what you have just written. It’s just predictions of various ways more warmth could be terribly harmful. (they’ve also shifted to “climate change” indicating now the real villain is the droughts and hurricanes and the rise of the oceans which are supposed to be the result of increased CO2.)
Indeed all this doom mongering amounts to a belief that the climate in the mid-Twentieth century was the best that could possibly be.
And furthermore, if global warming is bad, it is probably possible to counteract it, in a easily reversible way so if it turns out that is a mistake, it could be stopped (if you didn’t have a stupid government in charge of course).
Two examples of this geo-engineering would be spewing sulfer dioxide over the Arctic and fertilizing the southern Pacific Ocean with iron.
Sammy Finkelman (e806a6) — 1/23/2015 @ 9:17 amMore co2 in the atmosphere is a net positive good, benefiting all of humanity with robust increases in the primary plant production of the entire planet. That’s provable, unlike the piddling 0.6 degree supposed warming, which is most likely an artifact of data diddling by activists pretending to be authorities.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/23/2015 @ 9:20 amRomney just phoned in that he’s voting for Hillary.
Wippee
papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/23/2015 @ 9:25 amI need not comment.
mg (31009b) — 1/23/2015 @ 9:26 amWe still need to drastically reduce the human scourge.
This will be messy.
DNF (6ed5be) — 1/23/2015 @ 9:26 amDid Obama announce the end to the War on Poverty in the SOTU ?
Neo (d1c681) — 1/23/2015 @ 9:30 amI agree with Bud. Texas could have used some of that warming this week.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2015 @ 9:37 amAGW is just another manifestation of our generation’s hubris. The data has been cooked. NASA lends its (declining) credibility to the idea that the world is warming, but on what basis? Do they use the results of satellite measurements that uniformly and comprehensively scan the earth’s surface when making this claim? No. They use a couple of hundred surface measurements that are cherry picked by the folks who brought us climategate. One measurement for Australia, or thereabouts. And after assembling, weighting, and averaging these measurements they conclude that 2014 might have been 0.01C warmer than some other similar cooked estimates. Meanwhile, the satellite data, which is where NASA’s expertise used to lie, says otherwise. And historical data, written records from Europe dealing with glaciers, rivers that freeze, area of Greenland that supported agriculture, and so on, are dismissed. The half life of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 8 years. The mass balance analyses are very approximate. The amount of CO2 that is generated from the burning of fossil fuels is within the error bounds of the estimated flux between the oceans, soil, and the atmosphere. Oh, and CO2 is not a pollutant, nor are our currently levels unusual when compared to geological times. I personally think that a large part of the increase in CO2 may be due to releases from the surface layer of the Pacific, which has a cycle time of about 1000 years from surface to deep and back to the surface. So we might be seeing a delayed signal from the medieval warm period. But then, if you are a believer in current AGW propaganda, this warm period was a microcosm that affected only Europe and so this can’t be the explanation.
And recycling is fine, if it is economical. In Seattle they separate paper for recycling from a mixed stream of materials. The paper-like-stuff they extract and send to be turned back into paper is of a very low quality. A few years ago, 20% had to be sent to a landfill by the processing plant and at considerable expense. It might make the fools who live in Seattle happy to think that they are “doing their part”, but the reality suggests otherwise.
And our idea of economics is little more than cargo cult arm waving. It’s been noticed that in times of high employment inflation often becomes a problem. This is no mystery, more people have money and they bid the prices of all sorts of stuff up. But the economists who guide government policy get it backwards, they think that inflation caused the high employment. Beginning with Japan in the early 1990’s, almost every developed country in the world has bought into this mumbo jumbo. it is hilarious to read the explanations for the ECB new dip into “quantitative easing”. It always come back to the need to create inflation so that employment will increase. And nothing will change these fools’ minds.
bobathome whoisalsoaMudder (f208b6) — 1/23/2015 @ 9:38 amSantorum/Huckabee 2016
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/23/2015 @ 9:39 amHaving said all that in response to some previous comments, I will say that I deeply regret having donated thousands of dollars to Romney’s campaign in 2012. Not because he lost, but because I really misread the man. I would have voted for him anyway, I did not misread Obola, but the money could have been used better by other candidates.
bobathome (f208b6) — 1/23/2015 @ 9:41 amYour incredulity is not an argument.
Personal incredulity
Another form, the argument from personal incredulity, takes the form “I can’t believe P, therefore not-P.”
You and me both. He even speaks Mandarin, just like the Facebook guy.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 1/23/2015 @ 9:49 amNONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONO.
AMartel (a99e2c) — 1/23/2015 @ 9:55 amNO ROMNEYBUSH CONSERVAPROGRESSIVE HALF-ASSED LIARS. Amnesty, Global Warming, God knows what else. Why shouldn’t we just elect Hillary!?
NO HUCKABEESANTORUM CHURCHSPAZZES. Give it up; America is not going to elect a preacher and I don’t fucking blame us for that.
GODDAMIT, WE MUST COME UP WITH SOMETHING BETTER.
“Your incredulity is not an argument.
Personal incredulity
Another form, the argument from personal incredulity, takes the form “I can’t believe P, therefore not-P.””
carlitos – Those incredulity arguments look familiar. Hasn’t somebody used them around here? Categorically dismissing scientists and websites for example?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/23/2015 @ 9:56 amNo.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 1/23/2015 @ 10:06 amI should mention that “they” is actually just Gavin Schmidt, Jim Hansen’s hand picked imported from Europe successor, who is disdainfully refered to as the press secretary by the actual NASA scientists.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/23/2015 @ 10:09 amSame guy who made Real Climate the severely shrunken hive of socialist group think that it is today.
If global warming were the Planet of the Apes, Gavin would be Dr. Zauis, the Minister of Science and chief Defender of the Faith!
Sammy Finkelman (e806a6) — 1/23/2015 @ 8:59 am
At least two of those “idiots” were later proven to be correct all along.
askeptic (efcf22) — 1/23/2015 @ 10:10 amDRJ, it’s obvious that TX needs to strike out on a nuclear-energy development program as it lacks sufficient fossil-energy resources to deal with adverse temperature events.
askeptic (efcf22) — 1/23/2015 @ 10:13 amPerhaps a cooperative effort with Iran????
askeptic (efcf22) — 1/23/2015 @ 10:10 am
Which two?
You surely don’t mean, or shouldn’t mean, Goldwater. Reagan was no Goldwater.
Sammy Finkelman (e806a6) — 1/23/2015 @ 10:16 amhttp://earthsky.org/earth/2014-warmest-year-on-record
carlitos (c24ed5) — 1/23/2015 @ 10:21 amIt doesn’t matter. Romney is not going to be our guy this time. I’m not going to have to vote for him again. We should all just ignore him, just like Jonah Goldberg asked people to do regarding Michael Moore and his disgusting sniper tweets.
Georganne (e37667) — 1/23/2015 @ 10:30 amOh, carlitos. At least have a little sense of humor, even if you don’t have any self-awareness.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2015 @ 10:33 amNo.
carlitos – LOL! ROFLCOPTER!!!!!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/23/2015 @ 10:41 amPutting a price on carbon emissions from energy generating sources is fine with me. Putting a price on stationary carbon emitters is not fine with me. Not really interested in an international binding agreement though, and no other politician seriously is.
g (f85a02) — 1/23/2015 @ 10:45 amcarlitos at 54 – Here is what they confirmed:
When you put out a meaningless, weak sauce, statement like that everybody knows you are reaching. What the hell does it mean? 2014 was above a 130 year average that included cold years and warm years. BFD. How warm was it? They don’t want to say. It turns out it was not statistically significantly warmer than 2005 or 2010 and nobody can say with scientific confidence it was the hottest year since 1880, but they want to hide that information. Typical alarmists.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/23/2015 @ 10:53 am47. Arguments from authority are classically fallacious.
Here we have a ‘know nothing’ who can not argue anything at all from first principles because he is an artless ignoramus.
DNF (8647d9) — 1/23/2015 @ 11:22 amRead more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html#ixzz3Pfr5b9fK
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/23/2015 @ 11:23 amFollow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Both RSS and UAH agree that 2014 ranks as only sixth in the past 18 years, and that there has been no upward trend in world temperatures since 1997.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/23/2015 @ 11:24 amHere you go carlititos, azzhat:
http://www.nist.gov/data/PDFfiles/jpcrd427.pdf
DNF (8647d9) — 1/23/2015 @ 11:29 ama lot of people ask me they say happy, how can i make more carbon dioxide molecules?
and i tell them two words…
bird seed!
yup just feed feed feed the little birdies and you will help increase the bird population of America, which is part of Earth
the average bird inhales and exhales 7,000 times a minute, and each exhalation is chock-full of beneficial carbon dioxides!
and don’t worry about if you run out
if the little birdies don’t get enough bird seed later on their tiny little corpses will fall to the ground where they will decompose harmlessly into water, feathers, and – you guessed it! – carbon dioxides!
Do your part!
happyfeet (a037ad) — 1/23/2015 @ 11:32 amGavin Schmidt, Defender of the Faith, wealder of the mighty Ban Hammer at the goracle website Real Climate.
Prepare to submit or he’ll give you a vicious shunning.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/23/2015 @ 11:33 amFWIW,
Fact:
there has been no increase in the satellite measurements for over 18 years, and we know the raw data as it is public knowledge
Fact:
some claim that it was “the hottest year on record”, but there is strong indication the data has been tampered with
along with the questions about urban warm pockets that some say have been corrected for but how can you correct for what you don’t know?
Fact:
the claim for hottest year was well within the margin of error
hey all you scientists and engineers
I’m thinking that if I told my sophomore high school chemistry teacher that a difference of 0.02 was meaningful when the error bar was 0.5, or even 0.05
he would tell me I was wrong
and he would have been correct
or are there new statistical methods that allow you to prove what you want no matter what the data says?
Is 2+2 still 4?
There is a whole lot I don’t know,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/23/2015 @ 11:35 ambut when people, who should know better, feed me stuff I know is wrong
then I don’t trust them
and I know there is a Latin legal term for that
But this is actually very helpful
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/23/2015 @ 11:36 amI will never even consider supporting Romney.
62. Not that global averages of temperature averages tells us much.
Total heat integrals, especially of ocean content, and differentials of global heat evolution or absorption would be more telling.
DNF (8647d9) — 1/23/2015 @ 11:39 amMD @66, the best term of art I know is not Latin, but is not suitable for polite company. It may be paraphrased as producers of bovine excrement.
kishnevi (3719b7) — 1/23/2015 @ 11:42 amYou might think I was exagerating a little calling Gavin Schmidt the Dr. Zaius of global warming.
NOT EVEN ONE LITTLE BIT.
Here’s a youtube of Dr. Zauis… oops I mean Schmidt, debating a real climate scientist on John Stossel’s show.
Note how he exits the room rather than hear a discouraging word about his precious.
Note the similarity between behaviors. court scene from Planet of the Apes jpg
papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/23/2015 @ 11:48 am“Not that global averages of temperature averages tells us much.”
DNF – Not that anybody has demonstrated warming from today’s temperatures would be bad if indeed that were the case, given that significant portions of the earths history were during higher temperature periods.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/23/2015 @ 11:52 amMD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/23/2015 @ 11:35 am
The very small difference of 0.02 is consistent with the idea that somebody has been fiddling with the data.
And fiddled with the numbers just enough to bring 2014 over the top.
Because maybe 2014 really was not very close to the record.
When you hear of competitive elections that have been won by fraud, it’s usually not by a landslide.
According to the satellite data, where does 2014 rank? (among the years fir which thwere is satellite data) The satellite data may be somewhat unreliable, I don’t know, but it should parallel real changes.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 1/23/2015 @ 11:53 ampapertiger – The Alarmists have no interest in debating the Holocaust Deniers.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/23/2015 @ 11:53 amRomney just wants to be president. He want’s it so badly he’d do a Vampire’s Kiss cockroach gobble if that was all it took. He’d eat whatever soupbowl of grotesqerie Joe Rogan dished out. And therein lies the problem. Somebody who’d gallop headlong to the left to get a job is a squishy as piss on a hill. It’s going to follow the path of least resistance, and who wants that for president?
Jack (ff1ca8) — 1/23/2015 @ 11:54 amkishnevi-
bovinus excremetus
but there is something official that means something like “unreliable in one part, unreliable in the whole”
I think nk told us what it is once
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/23/2015 @ 11:57 amdaleyrocks – grifters always pack their three card monty, and run away when the cop shows up.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/23/2015 @ 11:58 am#66: Doc, The use of the 3000 surface stations is the real scandal. This sounds like a lot, but with 149,000,000 sq km of land (and 361,000,000 sq km water) this works out to one station per 50,000 sq km of land, or one station every 700 km, and none on water. Most of these stations are located in cities where they are corrupted by the urban heat bubble. The characteristic of these stations that makes them desirable for “climate” studies is that their records sometimes go back to the mid 1800s. Of course, the stations have often been moved from one spot to another over that period of time, but they probably would share the same zip code. Less than a 1000 are in “ideal” locations, and this means “ideal” for measuring the surface temperature at that spot. Whether any of these locations represent the temperatures experienced in the remaining 49,999.9 sq kms is the question. I have a number of wireless temperature sensors around my properties, and they rarely agree within 1F, and this is over distances of 10m, and in comparable locations (none are in “ideal” locations, but that isn’t my point.)
NASA has data for the entire earth from its satellites, and yet the AGW cultists insist on using these surface stations. If you follow the critical analysis of the processing of the data from these stations, you will be shocked by the “corrections” the Climategaters apply to the raw data.
bobathome (f208b6) — 1/23/2015 @ 12:02 pmMD, that would be “falsus in unum, falsus in totium”
kishnevi (294553) — 1/23/2015 @ 12:13 pmExcept my Latin is horrible, so I may have the case endings screwed up.
Doc, I think you mean this:
falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
It was in the link you left here
felipe (b5e0f4) — 1/23/2015 @ 12:13 pmKish you bastardo! You beat me by a hair! well done, sir.
felipe (b5e0f4) — 1/23/2015 @ 12:14 pmFound Google’s version.
kishnevi (294553) — 1/23/2015 @ 12:16 pmFalsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
It’s kinda like, from the movie The Seven Little Foys:
George M. Cohan (James Cagney)dancing: You like these moves sonny?
Eddie Foy (Bob Hope) watching: Of course I do! I did’em first!
George (still dancing): Yeah, but I did’em right!
felipe (b5e0f4) — 1/23/2015 @ 12:22 pmGoogle, schmoogle!
felipe (b5e0f4) — 1/23/2015 @ 12:25 pmhah you rhymered it!
happyfeet (a037ad) — 1/23/2015 @ 12:25 pmNeither is falsely labeling my argument as incredulity.
You think scientists have a good handle on how much humans contribute to warming? Let’s hear your argument in support of that proposition. Once you have made it, tell me who predicted the pause in warming and how they explained it.
Fair warning, though: your disappearance (which is what you consistently do when asked tough pointed questions, and if you care to dispute this, I will provide multiple specifics) is not an argument. Your ignoring the question is not an argument. Your generalized reference to a consensus is not an argument. Your lazy link to a giant document is not an argument. And your hand-waving is not an argument. And any flouncing (which I hope does not happen) is not an argument.
Patterico (b7c54e) — 1/23/2015 @ 12:37 pmwas 2014 one of the coldest years?
redc1c4 (b340a6) — 1/23/2015 @ 12:40 pmor just one of the most dishonest?
redc1c4 (b340a6) — 1/23/2015 @ 12:41 pmMittens was never acceptable to me, but i held my nose in 2012 anyway.
i’m never doing that again.
redc1c4 (b340a6) — 1/23/2015 @ 12:42 pmcarlitos – Those incredulity arguments look familiar. Hasn’t somebody used them around here? Categorically dismissing scientists and websites for example?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/23/2015 @ 9:56 am
No.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 1/23/2015 @ 10:06 am
HAHAHAHAHAHA! Precious.
felipe (b5e0f4) — 1/23/2015 @ 12:46 pm44.bobathome whoisalsoaMudder (f208b6) — 1/23/2015 @ 9:38 am
Where does 2014 fit in? What years outrank it?
I thought it was more like 50 – at least I read it would take about that length of time – we’re almost there yet – for Carbon 14 levels to drop by half from their peak in the early 1960s.
I think that might actually be estimated, for years before 1945, by the proportion of Carbon-12 in the atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suess_effect
Sammy Finkelman (e806a6) — 1/23/2015 @ 12:53 pm44.
The United States Supreme Court has determined otherwise.
US Supreme Court decides CO2 is a pollutant
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1120.ZS.html
It was a 5-4 decision. Justice Stevens wrote the opinion, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer.
Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Scalia, Thomas, Alito dissented. Justice Scalia also wrote a separate dissenting opinion in which the other 3 joined. So there were two dissenting opinions, signed by the same identical 4 justices!!
Sammy Finkelman (e806a6) — 1/23/2015 @ 12:54 pmAnd the tomato is a vegetable.
Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893) (botanically, it is a fruit)
Sammy Finkelman (e806a6) — 1/23/2015 @ 12:56 pmsometimes when you take a contrary view you get so many comments and questions and challenges it’s hard to answer them both
it can be overwhelming in fact
but incredulity was really what I felt upon encountering the name and logo of this eatery which will be opening soon here in the city of those particular shoulders that are broad
http://chicago.eater.com/2014/12/24/7446935/take-a-look-at-velvet-tacos-chicago-menu
god bless america
oh my goodness
some days there just aren’t enough bread bags to keep the muck and slosh off your lil toesies
happyfeet (a037ad) — 1/23/2015 @ 1:00 pmSammy – a travesty of Justice unequaled in history. Worse than the pre civil war affirmations of slavery.
This SC effectively ruled life itself, in all it’s many forms, as under the discretion of government.
Like to see them try and enforce that.
Next they’ll be outlawing water.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/23/2015 @ 1:02 pmOne key test would be what happened to CO2 levels during the Great Depression.
http://www.cotf.edu/ete/images/modules/climate/GCcarbon1PICT2.gif
The ice core records aren’t really good enough to tell.
I think the idea they have is taht deflation prevents investment and prevents employment from rising.
Thus, the goal of 2% a year inflation.
Sammy Finkelman (e806a6) — 1/23/2015 @ 1:03 pmMitty the Kitty purring at the ankles of Carbon Tax Al Gore.
cedars rebellion (e529b4) — 1/23/2015 @ 1:04 pmbobathome (f208b6) — 1/23/2015 @ 12:02 pm
Thank you for the more explicit description of what I only alluded to.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/23/2015 @ 1:05 pmI know that I have seen some AGW proponents say that they successfully adjusted for the urban heat effect and that such an argument is a non-issue
but I don’t believe that
As Crichton said to Gell-Mann,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/23/2015 @ 1:06 pm“Wet sidewalks cause rain”.
For Papertiger
kishnevi (3719b7) — 1/23/2015 @ 1:06 pmhttp://dhmo.org/
Mr. Feets…the V…a Triangle?!
kishnevi (a5d1b9) — 1/23/2015 @ 1:08 pm(Previous attempts including the full word seem to trigger the spam filter.
yeah that’s a different thing altogether
ended up there once a few years ago with NG
lol she faceplanted that night
happyfeet (a037ad) — 1/23/2015 @ 1:11 pmclimate reporting is a hot mess
redc1c4 (b340a6) — 1/23/2015 @ 1:12 pm15. DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2015 @ 8:17 am
I never thought Romney was competent, back to 2007, when he waa using that I was a businessman therefore I am competent argument.
Powerline blog was impressed. I wrote something but I don;’t think I sent it.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 1/23/2015 @ 1:22 pm8. Mark (c160ec) — 1/23/2015 @ 8:02 am
Sugar is also wrong.
It’s carbohydrates, and basically, too much insulin folllowed by insulin resistance.
The key factor how much time you seond between meals:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/a-12-hour-window-for-a-healthy-weight/?_r=0
The study this is based on:
http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131%2814%2900498-7
It’s not the only thing saying that.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 1/23/2015 @ 1:26 pmI was a big Romney supporter, but his statement on climate change turns me off. So far, various efforts and proposals to reduce CO2 emissinos make no sense. If the IPCC models are wrong, these efforts are a waste. If the IPCC models are correct, these efforts are utterly inadequate.
David in Cal (a4b47c) — 1/23/2015 @ 1:27 pm102. This is the Wall Street Journal article I mentioned, but did not link to, in the otehr thread.
2014 beat 2005 and 2010 by the slimmest margin.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 1/23/2015 @ 1:28 pmWhat new information or facts have come to light since 2012 that make man-made global warming appear more likely?
Primarily the stubborn refusal of the warming trend to abate in the face of a continuous solar minimum. The real question is not global warming — that is a matter of measuring and not conjecture — bu what is causing it, humans or perverse nature? It is looking more like humans now.
There are no bright line tests, but the evidence for AGW is increasing and other alternatives seem weaker. At some point minds can change.
The other question, of course is “so? what if anything do we do about it?” and on that there is no agreement at all. Me, I favor a mass building of modern, safe, thorium reactors. Al Gore wants to run everyone’s lives for their own good. Plenty of room for other solutions, too.
Kevin M (56aae1) — 1/23/2015 @ 1:29 pm105. And what really makes no sense is trying to reduce CO2 on the retail level, unless you are really trying to find a more acceptable tax.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 1/23/2015 @ 1:29 pmLet the Iranians work on a thorium bomb. Good idea. It’s never been tried. They won’t invent it.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 1/23/2015 @ 1:31 pmpapertiger (c2d6da) — 1/23/2015 @ 1:02 pm
That’s the most powerful greenhouse gas of all!
Sammy Finkelman (e806a6) — 1/23/2015 @ 1:39 pmSign my petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide!!
Beasts of England (b88f50) — 1/23/2015 @ 1:47 pm#95: Sammy, inflation and unemployment are simply related only if you believe we have the exact same conditions that faced Keynes in the mid-30s. Today, people expect hyperinflation when confronted with central bank “easing”, and they adjust their behavior. Consider the following two people and how they would respond.
1. Joe Brawny is a talented carpenter, adequate backhoe operator, capable of some plumbing and wiring. He’s been working full time at $35/hour and his boss wants him to put in another 200 hours at time-and-half to get another project back on schedule. He also spends weekends doing off the book projects for friends and neighbors. He’s making about $80K that the IRS knows about and another $20K from weekend stuff. He’s feeling good about himself and last year he bought (on time) a F250 4×4. This year he’s looking at a new aluminum outboard fishing boat. Life is good. And there are 120 million other Joe’s who are also buying trucks and boats. Life is good for a lot of people. They work hard and believe that the future will continue to be bright. They are also all bidding against each other for all those little goodies that make that hard work worth while. Inflation happens, and Joe responds by wanting to buy more stuff sooner since the price keeps going up. Life gets even better for boat salesmen. A responsible Federal Reserve starts to crank up interest rates to keep things in hand. If interest rates are set too high, no one will want to buy that boat, and things might contract. If the interest rate is set close to right, some boats will continue to be sold, and the economy will prosper. Economist note that employment and inflation seem to be linked.
2. Mitt Parasite is a go along to get along kind of guy, he’s been on employment for about a year, he’s got food stamps, and he’s thinking about contacting that lawyer who advertises on late night TV promising to get him disability benefits if he’s ever worked with his hands. He can see his future, and it isn’t very bright, but as long as he pretends to look for work, he will be able to keep getting assistance. The Fed wants to get Mitt off his fat butt and out working, so they inflate the currency. Mitt gets an extension for his unemployment benefits, the EBT card stipend has been bumped up a bit, and life is good. But he knows that his welfare is completely controlled by others, and he is reluctant to buy that used car he’d like to have. And he couldn’t anyway since no one in his right mind would extend credit to Mitt. The Fed keeps creating money, but for some reason the economy doesn’t respond. Instead, the ranks of those no longer looking for work grows even larger. Mitt now has a group of friends and they share rides to the race track, hoping for a big score. Economists are puzzled that all that extra money isn’t creating inflation, and worse yet, employment isn’t improving.
We now have 120 million people working and paying taxes, 92 million have given up looking for work, and about 8 million are looking for work. There are 10 million on disability, and about 50 million getting food stamps. All of these people are responding to the facts on the ground as they see them. The only ones who aren’t are the economists who keep cranking out more dollars hoping to create inflation which they think will result in better employment prospects. Instead they should be trying to create a situation where Mitt wants to become a regular Joe again and get back to work. Diddling with the currency just creates uncertainty, and Obola keeps sticking his fingers in everyone’s business making them less likely to think the future is bright and worth investing in. The invisible hand works, but being invisible you can only see what it’s done by what has happened. The invisible hand is clasped in prayer hoping we get through the next two years without a nuclear surprise.
bobathome (f208b6) — 1/23/2015 @ 1:53 pmI like Romney just fine, Patterico. I like a lot of folks that I don’t agree with on all issues.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 1/23/2015 @ 2:14 pmI disagree with his socialism and his wealthy-scion-of-a-political-dynastyism
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 1/23/2015 @ 2:17 pmbesides, the science is settled… http://t.co/xKXucLzMHx
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 1/23/2015 @ 2:18 pmIf only there were some natural mechanism by which to explain variations in global temperature. It would have to be massive, though. On the scale of our own Sun.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/23/2015 @ 2:25 pmYou may be on to something daleyrocks! I see the trusty Old Farmer’s Almanac has quite a bit of information about sunspots, sunspot cycles, solar flares, coronal mass ejections, solar wind streams, and solar cycles–and how they affect the earth.
http://www.almanac.com/sunspotupdate
elissa (eae9cf) — 1/23/2015 @ 2:41 pm#116: Daley, you may be on to something. Kauai installed a solar panel system to augment their power system. The sun shines very nicely on Kauai, and when the sun shines on the solar panels, they pump out a lot power. Unfortunately, Kauai also has clouds that the trade winds blow over the solar panel site, shading the solar panels. When this happens, the output drops rapidly by 70% or so. They expected this, so they stored energy in lead-acid batteries to cover the output swing. Regrettably they didn’t anticipate just how often the batteries would be needed. So the first batch wore out in a year. They are now trying some lithium batteries. Meanwhile, fossil fuel fired backup systems must be kept online and ready for instant use. So the sun does contribute, but those nasty clouds seem to have something to say about how much. Perhaps the sun and the clouds have some bearing on climate?
Oh, did I mention, the computer models used to “confirm” AGW are not capable of predicting when clouds will be formed, etc. A minor oversight?
bobathome (f208b6) — 1/23/2015 @ 2:51 pmi reject this Mitt Romney and his false choices
happyfeet (a037ad) — 1/23/2015 @ 3:18 pmYour incredulity is not an argument.
Personal incredulity
Another form, the argument from personal incredulity, takes the form “I can’t believe P, therefore not-P.”
And the obverse of that is science by consensus. “Enough of us believe it therefore it must be so.”
nk (dbc370) — 1/23/2015 @ 3:23 pm#107: Kevin,
The real question is not global warming — that is a matter of measuring and not conjecture —
While one would think that measuring would resolve the question of global warming, that has not been tried. The surface station results are likely fabrications. And not very good ones at that.
bobathome whoisalsoaMudderbutabitolder (f208b6) — 1/23/2015 @ 3:50 pmThey never stop. State Dept Official gets bright idea use Disney “Frozen” franchise for global warming propaganda.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/state-dept-official-asked-disney-about-using-frozen-to-teach-climate/
elissa (eae9cf) — 1/23/2015 @ 4:12 pmMitt, stop. This is just embarrassing you as a man, as a Repub .
Sure, there might be warming; there’s always warming or cooling going on. Sure, it’s important to be relatively clean. BUT it’s not worth destroying the economy now, destroying our vistas with huge wind turbines, banning production of oil. In short, it’s not worth austerity with no predictable gain and lots of misery in the present. Unless you are Tom Steyer or Al Gore, of course, then your gain is millions and billions of filthy government-enabled lucre.
Patricia (5fc097) — 1/23/2015 @ 4:30 pmIt really incredibly dishonest what they did with the world climate network. See they use to use dozens of thermometers spread out over California. One in Tahoe, one in Weaverville, one in Marysville another in Barstow, one near Orland. Spread over mountains, valleys, deserts, cities and steppes.
Now they use four. One in downtown Los Angeles, one in downtown San Fran, one in San Diego, and one in Santa Maria. It’s a monoculture designed with the one intent, to highlight and augment the urban heat island effect.
That way every year the population grows, every little building additio or new barbie pit added, means they get to pretend the temperature of the planet went up.
Don’t buy into it. It’s a potemkin village scam from square one. Top to bottom. Stem to stern.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/23/2015 @ 4:42 pmPick an amendment that doesn’t step on. According to the SC if you’re breathing you’re a criminal.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/23/2015 @ 4:50 pmHere is a nice article about U. S. surface stations including pictures and graphs. Even without the cherry picking papertiger reported, the established stations aren’t much to talk about. They might be the best that we have that goes back a century or so, but they aren’t good. And the AGW community doesn’t use these in their raw form, they apply “corrections” that always end up supporting their claim.
And the idea that we are “warming” has an implicit assumption. Namely that were aren’t recovering from a period of unusually cold global temperatures. The Thames froze over repeatedly during the late 18th and early 19th century. Not so much recently. So the AGW “warming” might just as well be considered a return to the more pleasant climate experienced during the medieval warming. Which is to say, it should be of no concern.
bobathome (f208b6) — 1/23/2015 @ 5:01 pmThanks Bob.
My position over the years has evolved. I use to look forward to endless summers. Then I figured the scam out.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/23/2015 @ 5:20 pmKevin M et al
In the way back when, as a mere sprout, I was taught a simple one-word term for Climate Change – it is called Weather … you show me man-made Weather that is predictable and repeatable, and I’ll consider the possibility of man-made Climate Change …
Kevin M #12 – ” Particularly when you are reaching extremes not seen in geological time. “ – to what numbers are you making reference ? In various geological eras, such as the that of the Great Ferns, CO2 levels were over 2000, I believe … and the levels of Life on the planet were very high …
Given a choice between developing adaptation (most likely technologically) to increased CO2 and reverting to 18th century technology to bring CO2 down, my vote continues to express confidence in our species to develop the adaptation …
And, yes, Thorium reactors make sense to me, too …
Alastor (2e7f9f) — 1/23/2015 @ 5:28 pmAlastor, I’ve been meaning to ask, are you a Percy B. fan or a Jack Vance fan?
nk (dbc370) — 1/23/2015 @ 5:42 pmdid it even occur to you people that maybe your beloved Mitt Romney is wrong on this issue?
Did it? Be honest.
happyfeet (831175) — 1/23/2015 @ 6:25 pmcite?
because, awkward…
redc1c4 (269d8e) — 1/23/2015 @ 6:37 pmAnd the obverse of that is science by consensus. “Enough of us believe it therefore it must be so.”
nk (dbc370) — 1/23/2015 @ 3:23 pm
I wish I had said that.
thanks for the link, bob
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/23/2015 @ 6:47 pmgood to see some details
According to satellite data they are not increasing at all.
Gerald A (d65c67) — 1/23/2015 @ 6:52 pmAccording to satellite data they are not increasing at all.
As I said, the best the skeptics have come up with of late is “slower warming.” They say “No, this is not the warmest year on record, only the 3rd warmest” and that is not a convincing retort.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/23/2015 @ 7:05 pmthe point of this exercise, is a massive trillion dollar scam like the one Manbearpig was promoting, re the other thread,
narciso (ee1f88) — 1/23/2015 @ 7:12 pmBobtheMudder:
Some of the data, particularly the East Anglia data is suspect. But it cannot all be. Some of the pronouncements are ludicrous (like the UN saying that the Himalayas would be ice-free by whenever). But there are places I would not buy property if I though there would be a 1 foot rise in sea levels in my lifetime (e.g. Balboa, large parts of Florida).
Sure, climates change and have always changed, but lots of places and quickly is a problem. Los Angeles has seen a noticeable rise in summer humidity and a general lack of rainfall over the last decade or two. Not the end of the world, but making the climate here less of a reason to put up with the rest of it.
There will be consequences to global rises in greenhouse gases. It is hard to argue otherwise. Let them rise high enough and the consequences will not favor the current placement of the human population, agriculture and infrastructure.
It annoys me that some of these political “scientists” will be right despite their asshattery, but it is looking more and more that way to me. To me, science isn’t a political thing, so all my politics informs is what I think we should do about it (mostly “do no harm”).
On that other matter, ’76.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/23/2015 @ 7:16 pmThe best answer may be Warmer is Better.
kishnevi (a5d1b9) — 1/23/2015 @ 7:23 pmWarmer means food can be grown at higher altitudes, at higher longitudes, and with longer growing periods. That means more food. More food means people prosper.
Late medieval Europe was more violent, more turbulent, and less prosperous overall than early medieval Europe. The change took place at about the time the Little Ice Age replaced the Medieval Warm Period. The correlation may not be coincidental. People had to work harder, longer, with greater risk of failure, to produce food. The Viking colonies on Greenland completely failed. And note that when Greenland was warmer, glaciers may have gotten smaller, but seas did not rise appreciably, nor did the polar bears seem to have trouble surviving.
And higher CO2 should make plants grow better. it’s like fertilizer in the air.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/23/2015 @ 7:25 pmwell the plague did occur in the medieval warming period, but that had more do with Italian colonies in the crimea,
narciso (ee1f88) — 1/23/2015 @ 7:28 pmIn various geological eras, such as the that of the Great Ferns, CO2 levels were over 2000, I believe … and the levels of Life on the planet were very high …
Oh, the last million years will do. Until, oh, 1900, CO2 was under 300ppm (~270ppm mostly). Now it’s over 400ppm and climbing. The Mauna Loa numbers are pretty clear and probably not fudged. There will be a point before we get back to the Cenozoic’s 600-700ppm that bad things start to happen.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/23/2015 @ 7:33 pmAssuming that you are willing for the entire human population to rearrange itself, its agriculture and infrastructure, not to mention political boundaries, then yes, warming is maybe good. If you’re cold now. If you are already warm, then maybe not.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/23/2015 @ 7:37 pmLos Angeles has seen a noticeable rise in summer humidity and a general lack of rainfall over the last decade or two.
As reported by whom, where? I ask because a similar phenomena has been manufactured by the local paper here in Sacramento.
First they cut out 100 years or so of rainfall history, then they plugged in it’s place rainfall data from the Weather Channel. Only the last thirty years worth – which is specific due to the IPCC ruling that less than thirty years is just weather, more is climate. So the paper took the barest minimum which includes the flood years of the 80’s, and suddenly Sacramento’s average “normal” annual rainfall total jumped by three inches, from 17.44″ to 20.24″. This has all sort of policy implications.
INstead of the Democrats taking their justly deserved lumps for failing the public with regard to increasing water storage in step with a growing population, they get to claim a year like 2011 with it’s 17.5″ of rainfall a drought year.
I’m betting something very much like that happened in Los Angeles also.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/23/2015 @ 7:37 pmNo that is not what they say.
Gerald A (d65c67) — 1/23/2015 @ 7:42 pmAlso the third warmest or the sixth warmest since 1979 does not equate to the third warmest or the sixth warmest on record.
Gerald A (d65c67) — 1/23/2015 @ 7:45 pmWith respect to Romney I preferred him in 2012 after Perry and Pawlenty flamed out early, but this time around definitely not.
Gerald A (d65c67) — 1/23/2015 @ 7:49 pmWith every passing hour our solar system comes forty-three thousand miles closer to globular cluster M13 in the constellation Hercules, according to Kurt Vonnegut. Is anybody doing anything about it before we collide?
nk (dbc370) — 1/23/2015 @ 8:01 pmKevin, not that it matters, but ’67. Were you a participant in the Oxfam Feast. I stopped donating to the school (except for a scholarship in honor of a classmate) following that fiasco. I can tell you for a fact that if in my time the administration had decided force the student body to fast for a day and then to apportion their evening meal with 1/3 getting a feast, 1/3 sandwiches, and 1/3 famine, there would have been a riot. And not a bloodless one. We honored our contracts in those days, and we weren’t into lawyers and law suits.
I remember the Jr. and Sr. class barricading the manager of food services (and I still remember his name, but I will forego exposing him as he may have gone on to better things) in his office with trays from the cafeteria loaded with sludge (that they wanted us to consume) pilled to the ceiling in front of his door. The hope was that he would try to eat his way out jail. But I think he just called security and they dumped the slop into garbage bins where it belonged. I think he found a new position at another school within a week. I seem to recall placards over the dorm toilets encouraging us to flush twice as it was 200 yards to the cafeteria (Green Room?) Ah the good old days.
And LA is not a desert because of the inversion layer which protects the ground dwellers from the Mohave climate. In fact, it would be about 10F hotter in LA than in Lancaster if the desert air could penetrate the inversion due to the rise in pressure as the air descends to sea level (or 1000ft, depending.) This inversion is filled with marine air which, not surprisingly, is loaded with water vapor, hence cool and dense. But rainfall is determined by conditions in the Pacific Ocean. Currently, California’s rain is falling on Washington and British Columbia. This is one of my favorite websites. It suggest what sort of pattern recognition studies NASA could be doing if it wasn’t tasked with leading the muslim nations into the 19th century. And this evening (Friday, Jan. 23, 2015) it clearly shows what we call the pineapple express, but it is about 400 miles north of its course when California gets deluged.
bobathome (f208b6) — 1/23/2015 @ 8:45 pmR.I.P. Ernie Banks, Chicago Cubs Hall-of-Famer
Icy (85c3ee) — 1/23/2015 @ 10:00 pmnk # 129 – I know and enjoy Jack Vance – tho I don’t recognise Percy B … what has he written ?
I use “Alastor” because it is a pretty close homophone for my name – it has been my gamer/character name of choice until certain authors made the name popular …
“Alastor” is also a male personification of Nemesis, Goddess of Rewards and Punishments … (grin)
OK – so Google connected Percy B – I’ll have to read the poem …
Amazing what one learns here !
Alastor (2e7f9f) — 1/23/2015 @ 10:03 pmHonestly, isn’t everyone tired of this climate change crap? If it is happening, what are we going to do? Hide in a hole? Force everybody to hide in a hole until it all blows over?
What are you going to do?
Let’s assume climate change is the most important crisis of our time. What do we do? Give up our homes? Live without electricity? Walk to work? Sit around and wait for a cure from science?
There is one thing I do know. Redistribution of wealth is not the answer because nature doesn’t give a crap.
Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 1/23/2015 @ 10:11 pmThe climate may be warming. It’s a chaotic system so it’s hard to predict where it will go tomorrow. And the further out the predictions go the less accurate they become. Go far enough out and predicting their trend becomes iffy.
It certainly is possible we are contributing to the climate change. But, we do not have good accurate unmassaged data going back a few thousand years, the scale on which “climate” really means something. If it is uncertain whether we contributed it’s ridiculous to think we can “anti-contribute” in some way to correct it. Even the Anthropic Global Warming weenies agree that any change we can make in a hurry will be a small fraction of the contribution we’ve gone through already.
On the basis of the first point it’s stupid for humans to try to do much of anything to reduce the climate change we may have made since we’re not sure where the basic climate would be going today and which direction of change we’d have to make. On the basis of the second point it is an equally ridiculous exercise of hubris to think we can make a significant change to a volume of contribution well beyond one year’s single contribution.
So rather than worry what we can do about GW or AGW or GCC (Global Climate Change) in the sense of making the change smaller we should instead figure out what we can do about it in the sense of coping with it. If Romney has “cope with it” in mind then I’d applaud him. It’s what should be done. Draw up battle plans. Perhaps the climate is moving up as people say it is now. What can we do to cope with it? On the chance that the climate is really moving down and we’re masking it with faulty data taking or our AGW contribution we must also make plans for significant moves in the other direction. Both are doing something about a real or phantom AGW problem in a thoroughly laudable manner. Do we build a massive set of dykes around Florida and some Pacific islands? Do we simply move the people out and let the waves lap over the shores? Do we plan for selling (or denying sale on the grounds that down may be transitory) the extra land global cooling may expose? Yes, we should PLAN to do something about it, in the sense of cope. Thinking we can do anything about it asks the basic question, what new effect do we need to create? It also risks exposing ourselves to the folly of thinking we gods who can at will create massive climate effects when we cannot even make it rain when and where we need it.
{^_^}
JDow (770dee) — 1/23/2015 @ 10:38 pmKevin M #140 – I *think* you are old enough to remember the 1970s – when the threat was Global Cooling and the impending Ice Age if we didn’t mend our ways …
My own take on the CO2 levels is partially from my own reading and partially as a response to the folk who are True Believers in AGW, then Catastrophic Climate Change … By repeated observations over the past 50+ years, the seas have not been rising catastrophically (and when Senator Gore buys sea-front property, that doesn’t exactly suggest that *he* believes what he preaches about sea levels, either) …
I have lived in the same home since 1984 (in the LA area since 1979) and I have watched the changes – and the past couple of summers have *not* been record warm summers – two summers ago, my grape vine harvest was in late September … last summer, it was a bit earlier, yet still later than the prior few years …
The gradually-increasing CO2 levels are suggestive and interesting – and the timing with the Industrial Revolution does suggest that it is beyond correlation, and has moved into plausible cause and effect … which brings me back to my point that this *planet* has been remarkably fertile and hospitable to life during more than one period when CO2 levels were over 2000 …
As far as I can tell, Nature does not tend to deal well with ungoverned positive-feedback mechanisms … the Cultists proclaim that CO2 is going to have a catastrophic positive-feedback result making the planet uninhabitable in the comparatively-near future … except that, for the past 15+ years, we do not seem to be able to find convincing planetary warming …
Then I take a look at the data sources for the warming – and I see a bunch of temperature measurement stations in urban areas which do not conform to supposed standards … I take a look at the demonising of increasing CO2 levels while the single best and most effective source of minimal-CO2-producing power plants (aka nuclear) is also demonised … and I see some remarkably-privileged 1st-worlders preaching the need to restrain CO2 production while *not* restricting their *own* CO2 production …
So – I ask for scientific corroboration, with the data for the studies freely available for anyone to work with, for anyone to test – and, until that happens, the Cultists’ beliefs are just poorly-written, poorly-reasoning, poorly-plotted science fiction …
Am I wrong in my perception ?
Alastor (2e7f9f) — 1/23/2015 @ 10:39 pm“With every passing hour our solar system comes forty-three thousand miles closer to globular cluster M13 in the constellation Hercules, according to Kurt Vonnegut. Is anybody doing anything about it before we collide.”
– nk
Yeah… well played, sir.
Leviticus (c1d138) — 1/23/2015 @ 10:54 pmAwesome. Is there anyone here who thinks he should run?
Patterico (9c670f) — 1/23/2015 @ 11:36 pm“Awesome. Is there anyone here who thinks he should run?”
Patterico – I have not seen anybody fess up, but let the bashing continue.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/23/2015 @ 11:38 pmOle mitty needs to relocate to the democratic party.
mg (31009b) — 1/23/2015 @ 11:46 pmdamn sure a whole bunch of people have told me to shut and vote for him (or Jeb) as the nominee, or else it’s all my fault.
redc1c4 (b340a6) — 1/24/2015 @ 12:31 amIs there anyone here who thinks he should run?
I think he should be a candidate. I don’t think he will get the nomination, but he has a role to play, if not just keeping Jeb from wrapping it up before anyone votes.
But if Cruz, Rand, Walker, etc, can’t get their ducks lined up, we could do worse (e.g. Santorum, Huckabee, Christie). And I’d rather run Romney than a third Bush.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/24/2015 @ 12:54 amdamn sure a whole bunch of people have told me to shut and vote for him (or Jeb) as the nominee, or else it’s all my fault.
That would be me. IF he gets the nomination. But I will point out that he tossed his hat in the ring just as Jeb was trying to close all the money guys. IF Jeb is not the nominee, you should be thanking Mitt.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/24/2015 @ 12:56 amthank mitt, for what, obamacare..
mg (31009b) — 1/24/2015 @ 3:14 amI most definitely am not in your tent, Kevin M. And never will be.
90. A half-life of CO2 residence in the Atmosphere of 8 years is an upper limit of a value for which there is no general agreement.
CO2 is heavier than air and assumptions such as ‘it is well mixed’ or that of the Wiki, that radiocarbon’s production “varies little over time” were speculative when originated and now known demonstrably false.
Even Suess’ assumption that the source of fossil carbon apart from coal is vegetation is now dubious.
Radiocarbon dating itself is problematic in that a lab-generated date bears with it no analysis of the carbon fraction from which it is derived.
Climatology relies on much heuristic ‘science’ that has been long deprecated, e.g., bobathome’s UHI effect.
The inescapable conclusion is that the ‘Science’ as a discipline is a thoroughgoing sham.
DNF (2ea9e1) — 1/24/2015 @ 4:48 am160. Republicans, the Party of Stupid.
DNF (2ea9e1) — 1/24/2015 @ 4:59 amIf Romney gets the GOP nomination, I’d hold my nose and vote for him again, but let’s face it, this time around he’s already well on his way to making himself an even bigger disappointment. I’m afraid his nomination would all but guarantee Hillary’s apotheosis.
Obama was vulnerable, he was on the ropes, voters rejected Obama’s policies just as overwhelmingly as they rejected Democrats in general, yet they rejected Romney too. (That’s a key point.) The lines were drawn, the voters were ready to send Obama packing, but victory slipped away because the GOP’s champion wouldn’t stand up and fight like a man.
Consider the choice voters would have to make: Hillary in a pants suit, or Romney in a dress.
ropelight (497392) — 1/24/2015 @ 5:47 amIf Romney gets the GOP nomination, I’d hold my nose and vote for him again, but let’s face it, this time around he’s already well on his way to making himself an even bigger disappointment. I’m afraid his nomination would all but guarantee Hillary’s apotheosis.
Obama was vulnerable, he was on the ropes, voters rejected Obama’s policies just as overwhelmingly as they rejected Democrats in general, yet they rejected Romney too. (That’s a key point.) The lines were drawn, the voters were ready to send Obama packing, but victory slipped away because the GOP’s champion wouldn’t stand up and fight like a man.
Consider the choice voters would have to make: Hillary in a pants suit, or Romney in a dress.
ropelight (497392) — 1/24/2015 @ 5:47 amGood grief. “Climate Change” – I’m almost to the point of being a single issue voter, at least in the R primaries. Is there Climate Change – Of course, when hasn’t there been? Does human activity contribute to some climate change? I believe to a very small degree, yes. For example, the urban heat island effect certainly affects that area’s climate, and the temperatures shown on thermometers measuring their temperatures. Does man’s activity in bringing more CO2 in the atmosphere cause climate change? There, I’m not so sure. Certainly not as much as the predictions of all the models upon which the elites base their policy proposals for a gigantic wealth redistribution. It’s also plant food.
Walter Cronanty (f48cd5) — 1/24/2015 @ 5:50 amAnd while we’re at it – what is the optimum temperature for the earth? When did we reach it? Why did it change? All of these “global agreements” that federal officials have failed to enact, which are simply granting central control to UN-type officials and stealing our money to give to others, never even ask, let alone answer, those questions. For years I’ve been asking these questions to warmists, and have never gotten an answer.
From human history, it would appear that warmer is better.
I’m almost hoping he runs just to watch some heads explode…
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 1/24/2015 @ 8:05 am#165, not to worry, Walter, the Earth has already survived the unbelievably devastating universally galactic irreversible GOP-caused geo-cidal consequences of both Global Cooling and Global Warming, and if our luck holds, the Earth’ll survive the deadly effects of Climate Change too.
However, the same world renowned climate scientists who were hailed and applauded, wined and dined, not to mention handsomely compensated, for predicting certain global doom (but were proved dead wrong), are suspected of having recently completed a secret set of rigorously peer reviewed scientifically shaky reevaluations of their previously discredited delusional machinations which if viewed from pre-established assumptions just might tend to indicate without a scintilla of doubt the Earth is surely absolutely doomed if vote seeking recently failed presidential candidates don’t advocate using US military and economic power to coerce industrially mature capitalist democratic nations into handing over greater and greater proportions of their national wealth to the grasping dictators and tyrants of more numerous and least ethical member states and NGOs of the United Nations in order to fight the greatest threat the Earth has ever faced: Global Climate Stability. (Don’t laugh, climate stability is real threat and can be shown to have reached an alarmingly advanced condition.)
The environmentally advantaged, socially privileged, and intellectually challenged are encouraged to assuage their guilty consciences by making obscenely large fair-share cash donations to the UN’s fund for the Well-being of Climate Scientists, Associated Charlatans, and Opportunistic Flunkies, Toadies, and Bottom Feeders.
ropelight (497392) — 1/24/2015 @ 8:43 am“thank mitt, for what, obamacare..”
mg – Mitt didn’t pass Obamacare you moron and if you don’t understand the differences by now you are too stupid to think unassisted.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/24/2015 @ 9:03 am“Obama was vulnerable, he was on the ropes, voters rejected Obama’s policies just as overwhelmingly as they rejected Democrats in general, yet they rejected Romney too. (That’s a key point.)”
ropelight – In 2012 Republican voters rejected all the candidates running against Mitt before he got the nomination (That’s a key point). Complaining about 2012 is just a load of sour grapes and butt hurt.
I don’t believe there is any way to prove as Patterico suggests that if Romney were elected in 2012 he would be saying the things people object to now.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/24/2015 @ 9:09 amIf it’s not a governor but a senator who will win the nomination, I’ll take Senator Mike Lee.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 1/24/2015 @ 9:20 amThe aspect of “Climate Change” that worries me is that it is another manifestation of the cultural trend away from individualism. The supporters of carbon offsets and other hugely expensive “therapies” argue not from personal knowledge or understanding, but rather from a sense of consensus, a submission to some collective authority that they presume is kind and beneficial. Mark Steyn’s The [Un]documented Mark Steyn addresses this problem in the introductory essay (“Me and My Little Black Dress”) to his book. He argues that our culture is proceeding headlong down a path charted by [our failed] schools and [our atrocious] movies to some fantastical destination that is beyond any politician’s knowledge. The progressives, being without an external compass (say some knowledge of history,) find it easier to change course and dash to the front of the parade to “lead” us to this unknown destination. If you order a copy of the book from the link, Mark will autograph it with a suitable inscription (of your creation,) and your expenditure will help Mark pay for his court battle with the fellow who dreamed up the hockey stick as a means of dismissing much of the written record bearing on climate over the past two millennia. This fellow thinks that because the EPA has accepted his work, it is not permissible to criticize him or his methods. He would like everyone who doesn’t agree there is a consensus to be silenced by the government. Mark writes some great stuff. We can laugh all the way to the gallows.
bobathome (f208b6) — 1/24/2015 @ 9:36 amHistory – global warming was snuck passed a month before the re-election of Arnold. Kept very quiet and on the down low. The Schwartz agreed to it because someone on the D side showed him the oppo research, and he didn’t want it to become common knowledge that he’d been diddling his Mexican housekeeper. Now we’re all paying for his f*ck up.
Further history – Meg Whitman is taken on an all expence paid by the enviro lobby pleasure cruise to Alaska where the bird head is shown a couple glaciers calving where she is convinced, unbeknownst even to herself, that the government must take drastic action to curb Schwarzeneggar’s penis.
And so we end up with a fourth term of Jerry Brown.
Current events is Mitt Romney phones in that international action must be taken to curb Schwarzeneggar’s penis, and that if he is elected steps will be taken to regulate that troublesome trowser snake.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/24/2015 @ 10:09 amI wonder if Romney has a Mexican housekeeper too?
papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/24/2015 @ 10:10 amThat’s a “sister wife”, papertiger.
nk (dbc370) — 1/24/2015 @ 10:14 amOy. Romney’s a good man. And so is Pope Francis. It’s just that neither is a President man.
nk (dbc370) — 1/24/2015 @ 10:16 amNO, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no! Romney is not a good man.
Refer to link.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/24/2015 @ 10:28 amsay it ain’t so! http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/01/24/palin-say-shes-seriously-interested-in-2016-campaign/
if – by some strange twist in a strange world – she should win the nomination, I will hold my nose, but vote for her.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 1/24/2015 @ 10:53 amI’d breathe a deep sigh of relief and vote for her.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/24/2015 @ 10:56 amScratch that. I’d move to a close call state, set up residence, and then vote for her.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 1/24/2015 @ 10:59 amI think Palin has an important place in the world,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/24/2015 @ 11:07 ambut I don’t think being a presidential candidate is it.
if this world was any stranger, it would be in another star system, Zeta Reticulii I think,
narciso (ee1f88) — 1/24/2015 @ 11:16 amhttp://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/01/fruit_loop_obamas_peculiar_priorities.html
narciso (ee1f88) — 1/24/2015 @ 11:24 amropelight (497392) — 1/24/2015 @ 8:43 am
I’m afraid that it won’t just be the “environmentally advantage, socially privileged, and intellectually challenged” who will be “encouraged” to donate. And I’m even more afraid that the encouragement will be the wrong end of a gun.
Walter Cronanty (f48cd5) — 1/24/2015 @ 1:57 pmIt looks like Scott Walker is in. I’m glad about that. He’s my second choice.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/24/2015 @ 2:30 pm140. “The data can’t all be bad” and “probably isn’t fudged”.
Seriously, why bother?
The Jurassic saw global average temps of 72 degrees and atmospheric CO2 of 2000 ppm and in every instance a rise in CO2 has followed the rise in temperature by 8 centuries.
The solubility of CO2 in water is inversely proportional to temperature with the oceans containing thousands of times more CO2.
DNF (900924) — 1/24/2015 @ 7:36 pmKevin M (25bbee) — 1/23/2015 @ 7:05 pm
They say a lot more. That’s just within the own terms of the measurements. And slower warming should be convincing.
Other things you can say:
1) The record only goes back to the late 1800’s at most. Compared to periods before, this is really a cold period. There was a little period before the Medieval Warm Period when it was about the current temperature, and you have to go back to about 2500 BC to again get current temperatures, and then only for a short time.
2) The record high (by a tiny margin) does not alter the fact there is a “pause” nor does it make
the climate prediction models any good, which keep on wanting to have significant rises soon, and it doesn’t happen.
3) If you use satellite data ((not subject to arbitrary corrections) 1998 is still the record, 0.15°C warmer than 2014. If you start the year in the December of the previous year, instead of in January (using the Meteorological Year) the record is held by 2010, winning in a photo finish by by 0.01°C.
– See more at: http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.Dm2Z36NY.2qe9ALxJ.dpuf
4) There’s a systemic bias in the record-keeping toward warming, because of the urban heat island effect, with instruments moving into more urbanized areas when they stay where they are; and because of the switching from glass toward automatic electronic instruments (which in one case turned out to record temperatures an average of almost one degree Celsius higher over an eight year period.)
5) This meme of 2014 being the highest year on record was being pushed all year since the beginning of 2014 (not in itself something, but consistent with trying to cook the books.)
6) The whole thing is not accurate anyway, since a lot of the earth is not covered (seas, Antarctica, deserts, mountains) or barely sampled. Of course you can say that the sampled areas should not be different than the unsampled area.
Sammy Finkelman (e806a6) — 1/24/2015 @ 7:51 pmHow can LosAngeles be considered in any sort of consideration of the climate?
Los Angelese is a desert city that was converted to a modern metropolis by growing the city’s land area enough to get close to water distribution far, far away. (“ChinaTown” has the misfortune of being directed by Polanski but he did get the basic story correct).
you can’t take a converted dessert area and use it for any sort of data statistical analysis.
seeRpea (1d44c7) — 1/24/2015 @ 8:30 pmHere’s something:
http://www.applet-magic.com/AGT_NOAA.htm
He has a theory of a 32-year cycle (probably too regular) and says the obvious:
Sammy Finkelman (e806a6) — 1/24/2015 @ 8:44 pm180. The list of implausible candidates for 2016 runs to two dozen at last count.
DNF (900924) — 1/25/2015 @ 3:38 am188. One would have thought establishing if not theoretically, at least experimentally that CO2 could, in fact, warm the Earth by OLR capture.
As the emissivity of a low partial pressure gas in atmospheric CO2 is one thousandth that of dirt or green leaves, one seven hundredth that of snow, one five hundredth that of water theoretical plausibility of AGW is untenable.
The second law of thermodynamics precludes warming of a hotter body by a cooler body.
OLR capture by CO2 creates bond vibrational kinetic energy which is instantly shared with the surrounding gas via collision.
Should one still desire to prove experimentally that AGW is possible ..
GLWT
DNF (900924) — 1/25/2015 @ 4:00 amWasn’t a question of liking him. Was a question of, “Was he better than Teh One”?
Since a lump of human excrement six feet high could replace Obama with great effectiveness and promise, that’s hardly a low bar Romney had to limbo beneath.
The need for the “odd pause” in the data is what makes it a questionable presumption at all. There is plenty of longer-term evidence that the climate is, and has been, lowering for a long time.
1) There’s a concept called the “Citrus Line”. It’s the point north of which you don’t grow citrus, because the chances of a frost seriously damaging a productive citrus tree during its roughly 20 year valuable life span are too high. It says a lot when you become aware of the fact that the Citrus Line in the American South used to be IN GEORGIA. Yes, in the 1880s it was well north of its current point, which is in the closer proximity to ORLANDO, roughly 200 MILES south of where it was a century and a quarter ago. That’s a pretty HUGE change to the south if things are “warming”.
2) In the shorter term, there’s the simple fact that we are now in the LONGEST time period in the record books (since about 1820 when there were enough people along the entire eastern seaboard from Texas to Maine to record a description of a hurricane striking) that no hurricane of class 3 or above has struck that eastern seaboard. Yes, no class 3 hurricanes since the year of Katrina. The significance of this is thus:
If the atmosphere is warming up, then, first and foremost, the oceans have to also be warming. Water is a tremendous heat-sink, its capacity to absorb heat is just phenomenal. Hurricane strength is not driven directly by atmospheric heat but by ocean heat. It’s the exchange of heat between the warmer ocean areas (such as the Caribbean, or the Equatorial Indian Ocean, or the Equatorial Pacific, which drive the creation of hurricanes, and define how powerful they get to be.
So if the earth is ACTUALLY warming, then there should be warming OCEANS to go with it. Which would then have, as a direct consequence, MORE AND WORSE HURRICANES. This was, after all, one of the mantras being spouted after the statistical anomaly of 2005, with four of them striking the eastern seaboard — “We have to get used to it, this is going to be the new norm”. Much as with Jeanne Dixon prognostications, every in the media’s kind of found it inconvenient to remember them and hold the prognosticators to them.
Instead, we see direct evidence to the COUNTER of that claim, which is the longest period since 1920 with NO major hurricanes (class 3 or above) making landfall anywhere from Texas to Maine. In fact, the last three hurricane seasons (June 1 to Nov 30) have only seen FOUR total major hurricanes.
Sorry, “it’s warming” is a dog that just don’t hunt. This is an artifact of the whole “measurement adjustment” process, not an actual thing. The satellite data (which NEEDS no such “tweaking”) shows no substantial warming beyond known cycles since it started in the 1960s.
Anecdotal data bears this out, too. In the early 2000s, it snowed in Saudi Arabia, which hadn’t had any recorded snowfall in its entire history. Some years back there was snow on US Thanksgiving weekend in Sydney, Australia. Remember, this is Southern Hemisphere. By comparison, what if you had snowfall on MAY 25th in Atlanta Georgia, or Los Angeles? They were predicting a decade ago that Brit children would never see snow again. Instead, they’re seeing heavy blizzards for Xmas.
Yes some of that is “explained away” as a “hiatus”. But at some point, your bogon flux meter ought to be pegging. There’s a REASON they’re having to change the term to the utterly meaningless “global climate change” from “global warming”. People can SEE it ain’t warming.
IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d) — 1/25/2015 @ 6:37 pmI saw this whole skydragon montage, twenty years ago, in ‘after the warming’ they created the scenario, then they ‘fixed the readings’ around it,
http://therightscoop.com/sarah-palin-appearance-at-freedom-summit-was-a-total-crowd-pleaser-full-speech/
narciso (ee1f88) — 1/25/2015 @ 6:45 pm