APS and the Global Warming Scam

[Peter]

I am hoping for palm trees and flowering plumarias.

Peter  

From The Atlantic: American Trees Are Moving West, and No One Knows Why. As the consequences of climate change strike across the United States, ecologists have a guiding principle about how they think plants will respond. Cold-adapted plants will survive if they move “up”—that is, as they move further north (away from the tropics) and higher in elevation (away from the warm ground). A new survey of how tree populations have shifted over the past three decades finds that this effect is already in action. But there’s a twist: Even more than moving poleward, trees are moving west. About three-quarters of tree species common to eastern American forests—including white oaks, sugar maples, and American hollies—have shifted their population center west since 1980. More than half of the species studied also moved northward during the same period. These results, among the first to use empirical data to look at how climate change is shaping eastern forests, were published in Science Advances on Wednesday.  

Trees, of course, don’t move themselves. But their populations can shift over time, and saplings can expand into a new region while older growth dies in another. The research team compared a tree population to a line full of standing people running from Atlanta to Indianapolis: Even if everyone in the line stood still, if you added new people to the end of the line in Indiana and asked others in Georgia to leave, then the center of the line would move nonetheless.

The results are fascinating in part because they don’t immediately make sense. But he has a hypothesis: While climate change has elevated temperatures across the eastern United States, it has significantly altered rainfall totals. The northeast has gotten a little more rain since 1980 than it did during the proceeding century, while the southeast has gotten much less rain. The Great Plains, especially in Oklahoma and Kansas, get much more than historically normal.

“Different species are responding to climate change differently. Most of the broad-leaf species—deciduous trees—are following moisture moving westward. The evergreen trees—the needle species—are primarily moving northward,” said Songlin Fei, a professor of forestry at Purdue University and one of the authors of the study.

There are a patchwork of other forces which could cause tree populations to shift west, though. Changes in land use, wildfire frequency, and the arrival of pests and blights could be shifting the population. So might the success of conservation efforts. But Fei and his colleagues argue that at least 20 percent of the change in population area is driven by changes in precipitation, which are heavily influenced by human-caused climate change.

“This is a very cool study, with results that seem to raise more questions than they can provide answers for,” said Loïc D’Orangeville, an ecologist at the Quebec Forest Research Center who was not connected to the study, in an email. “West is usually drier in the study region, so although it’s been wetter in the recent decades, it’s still drier than the East.”

“I can’t really make up [for] that moisture attractiveness for trees,” he added.

The movement of conifers and other needle trees north makes much more sense. Conifers are already more vulnerable to temperature than flowering, deciduous trees. They also already populate the boreal forest of eastern North America, so they’re well-adapted to expand the colder, drier conditions they will find as they expand north in the United States.

Fei and his colleagues don’t know if the westward trend will continue. We may have already seen the peak of westward movement, and northward expansion may soon outrank it. “When the result came out that trees are moving westward, our eyeballs opened wide. Like, ‘Wow, what’s going on with this?’ The results seem to show that moisture plays a much more significant role in the near-term is very intriguing,” he told me. The survey draws on the U.S. Forest Service’s Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, a kind of continuously running census of the country’s tree population. The program, which stepped up in 1978 but which has been conducted in some form since the 1930s, surveys the health, density, and species mix of forested areas across the country. It examines not only the majestic, landmark tracts of untrammeled forest (like George Washington National Forest) but the humbler woods, as well: stands of trees near the highway, at the edge of housing developments, and in the middle of city parks.

“This is not a modeling exercise, there are no predictions, this is empirical data,” said Fei. “This study is looking at everything everywhere in the eastern United States.”

What concerns the team is that—if deciduous trees are moving westward while conifers move northward—important ecological communities of forests could start to break up in the east. Forests are defined as much by the mix of species, and the interaction between them, as by the simple presence of a lot of trees. If different species migrate in different directions, then communities could start to collapse.

“If you have a group of friends, and people move away to different places—some go to college in different places, and some move to Florida—the group is … probably going to fall apart,” Fei said. “We’re interested in whether this tree community is falling apart.”

“These results show contemporary proof of something we know has happened before and will happen again: that trees are highly dynamic organisms, constantly moving in response to climatic shifts like recent glaciations or other disturbances. Their actual range does not reflect conditions that are optimal for their growth,” ”

Any tree’s range represents “a legacy of historical migrations and battles lost against other species or disturbances. With climate change however, their capacity to keep pace with the fast-changing climate is a major issue.”

[BaalChatzaf]

3 hours ago, Peter said:

I am hoping for palm trees and flowering plumarias.

Peter  

From The Atlantic: American Trees Are Moving West, and No One Knows Why. As the consequences of climate change strike across the United States, ecologists have a guiding principle about how they think plants will respond. Cold-adapted plants will survive if they move “up”—that is, as they move further north (away from the tropics) and higher in elevation (away from the warm ground). A new survey of how tree populations have shifted over the past three decades finds that this effect is already in action. But there’s a twist: Even more than moving poleward, trees are moving west. About three-quarters of tree species common to eastern American forests—including white oaks, sugar maples, and American hollies—have shifted their population center west since 1980. More than half of the species studied also moved northward during the same period. These results, among the first to use empirical data to look at how climate change is shaping eastern forests, were published in Science Advances on Wednesday.  

Trees, of course, don’t move themselves. But their populations can shift over time, and saplings can expand into a new region while older growth dies in another. The research team compared a tree population to a line full of standing people running from Atlanta to Indianapolis: Even if everyone in the line stood still, if you added new people to the end of the line in Indiana and asked others in Georgia to leave, then the center of the line would move nonetheless.

The results are fascinating in part because they don’t immediately make sense. But he has a hypothesis: While climate change has elevated temperatures across the eastern United States, it has significantly altered rainfall totals. The northeast has gotten a little more rain since 1980 than it did during the proceeding century, while the southeast has gotten much less rain. The Great Plains, especially in Oklahoma and Kansas, get much more than historically normal.

“Different species are responding to climate change differently. Most of the broad-leaf species—deciduous trees—are following moisture moving westward. The evergreen trees—the needle species—are primarily moving northward,” said Songlin Fei, a professor of forestry at Purdue University and one of the authors of the study.

There are a patchwork of other forces which could cause tree populations to shift west, though. Changes in land use, wildfire frequency, and the arrival of pests and blights could be shifting the population. So might the success of conservation efforts. But Fei and his colleagues argue that at least 20 percent of the change in population area is driven by changes in precipitation, which are heavily influenced by human-caused climate change.

“This is a very cool study, with results that seem to raise more questions than they can provide answers for,” said Loïc D’Orangeville, an ecologist at the Quebec Forest Research Center who was not connected to the study, in an email. “West is usually drier in the study region, so although it’s been wetter in the recent decades, it’s still drier than the East.”

“I can’t really make up [for] that moisture attractiveness for trees,” he added.

The movement of conifers and other needle trees north makes much more sense. Conifers are already more vulnerable to temperature than flowering, deciduous trees. They also already populate the boreal forest of eastern North America, so they’re well-adapted to expand the colder, drier conditions they will find as they expand north in the United States.

Fei and his colleagues don’t know if the westward trend will continue. We may have already seen the peak of westward movement, and northward expansion may soon outrank it. “When the result came out that trees are moving westward, our eyeballs opened wide. Like, ‘Wow, what’s going on with this?’ The results seem to show that moisture plays a much more significant role in the near-term is very intriguing,” he told me. The survey draws on the U.S. Forest Service’s Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, a kind of continuously running census of the country’s tree population. The program, which stepped up in 1978 but which has been conducted in some form since the 1930s, surveys the health, density, and species mix of forested areas across the country. It examines not only the majestic, landmark tracts of untrammeled forest (like George Washington National Forest) but the humbler woods, as well: stands of trees near the highway, at the edge of housing developments, and in the middle of city parks.

“This is not a modeling exercise, there are no predictions, this is empirical data,” said Fei. “This study is looking at everything everywhere in the eastern United States.”

What concerns the team is that—if deciduous trees are moving westward while conifers move northward—important ecological communities of forests could start to break up in the east. Forests are defined as much by the mix of species, and the interaction between them, as by the simple presence of a lot of trees. If different species migrate in different directions, then communities could start to collapse.

“If you have a group of friends, and people move away to different places—some go to college in different places, and some move to Florida—the group is … probably going to fall apart,” Fei said. “We’re interested in whether this tree community is falling apart.”

“These results show contemporary proof of something we know has happened before and will happen again: that trees are highly dynamic organisms, constantly moving in response to climatic shifts like recent glaciations or other disturbances. Their actual range does not reflect conditions that are optimal for their growth,” ”

Any tree’s range represents “a legacy of historical migrations and battles lost against other species or disturbances. With climate change however, their capacity to keep pace with the fast-changing climate is a major issue.”

Very interesting.  This is good solid empirical work.  Compare  this kind  of  nose to the grindstone empirical undertaking to the Climate Mavens weighting the outputs of their two dozen  crude and incomplete Global Climate Models.  

[Brant Gaede]

The assumption is that trees moving west and rainfall pattern changes are effects of climate--that is, a warming--change.

CC is a given except when it is used as an euphemism for AGW. CC only means climate changes.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

39 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

The assumption is that trees moving west and rainfall pattern changes are effects of climate--that is, a warming--change.

CC is a given except when it is used as an euphemism for AGW. CC only means climate changes.

--Brant

Here is the Big Problem.  Any symptoms of climate change  are  automatically assumed to be the effects of human activity.  This of course is nonsense on stilts, but that is what is happening. So if there is any serious naturally caused climate change and effects thereof (for example rise in sea level)  instead of  figuring out ways to adapt to it,  there is a flurry of regulations on human activity which does nothing and we do not face up to the real problem. 

So here is the scenario:  sea level rises (say).  The assumption is that humans caused it.  The actions taken -- fine the capitalists and close down industries.  We cripple ourselves economically at the same time we take no steps to deal with rising sea level (such as building dikes or moving inland).  The politiization of climate conditions may end up being a disaster to civilization. 

[Peter]

Ba’al wrote, “The politiization of climate conditions may end up being a disaster to civilization.”

Did you mean to say, “The politicization or north polarization of climate conditions may end up being a disaster to civilization.”?

Watch the papers. When water front houses become really, really cheap, that is the time to move to higher ground. Here in the Mid Atlantic, you can’t get a waterfront house for less than 400K to one million K. Beach replenishment keeps the local beaches like Rehoboth, DE, Ocean City and Assateague, MD and Chincoteague, VA solvent. Hurricane season starts June first, as it does every year. But that has failed to move the “FEARMONITOR” past the range of mild concern.  

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Let be crosspost in celebration.

1 minute ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

President Trump delivered another huge one.

Paris Climate Agreement boondoggle:

Kablooey!

Keep it coming, Mr. President.

Michael

Woo hoo!

Take that, elitist globalist suckas.

He means it.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Let be crosspost in celebration.

Woo hoo!

Take that, elitist globalist suckas.

He means it.

Michael

This event is just a lot of Political Noise.  Addressing the issue of CO2  effluence will be dealt with technologically,  not politically. Newer and better power generation technology  will resolve this "problem".  Technology works and politics is bullshit.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The left is howling in outrage. They sound like someone is taking away their money and power or something.

I was looking at Jake Tapper grilling Rand Paul in righteous indignation (It's not even worth posting the video because we see this crap 24/7.) All I could think about was this. Why doesn't Jake give up his job for climate change since he's so hell bent on making other Americans give up theirs?

I betcha ole' Jake would find that question outrageous and silly. But I betcha if his job was on the line, his righteous indignation would be replaced with a far different attitude.

 

Friggin' elitists don't have a clue. Or maybe they do. They are seeing for real that the jig is up.

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The left is howling in outrage. They sound like someone is taking away their money and power or something.

Worse, Lloyd Blankfein CEO of Goldman Sachs just fired his first tweet ever

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-01/his-first-ever-tweet-lloyd-blankfein-slams-trumps-climate-decision

[merjet]

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/goodbye-paris-accord-climate/

[Marc]

On November 21, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Wolf DeVoon said:

Thanks. Prompted me to glance at the seat of consciousness.

Researchers at George Washington University are reporting that they’ve discovered the human consciousness on-off switch, deep within the brain. When this region of the brain, called the claustrum, is electrically stimulated, consciousness — self-awareness, sentience, whatever you want to call it — appears to turn off completely. When the stimulation is removed, consciousness returns. The claustrum seems to bind together all of our senses, perceptions, and computations into single, cohesive experience. This could have massive repercussions for people currently in a minimally conscious state (i.e. a coma), and for deciding once and for all which organisms are actually conscious. Are monkeys conscious? Cats and dogs? A fetus? [Extreme Tech]

Max Planck Institute smart guys on the other hand, think it's the prefontal cortex, based on monkey studies.

The precise question, however, is the brain function of a True Believer in impending global climate doom.

Great explanation , thank you Sir

[BaalChatzaf]

Garth Paltridge is a Lukewarmer whose views are worth studying.  here is his background and some reference to his publications.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Garth_Paltridge

This article by Paltridge is an excellent example of the Lukewarmer position.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9303&page=0

The closing paragraph says a great deal.

"The bottom line in the global warming story is that the potential for bias is overwhelmingly towards the politically correct. If for no other reason, the money lies on that side of the fence. Perhaps the most interesting, and probably unanswerable, remaining question about it all is how a belief in climatic doom became politically correct in the first place. Conspiracy theorists would probably favour the idea that it was all planned 30 years ago by some small, shadowy, secret organisation bent on destruction of the world’s social order. Personally I would rather believe that, given the human addiction to tales of collective guilt, there is no need to invoke conspiracy as part of the explanation. The path to the final outcome was inevitable from the start."

 

[Peter]

Ayn and I think it was started as an anti-industrial revolution in the 1960’s. What’s that Ayn? She wants me to tell you that coupled with the hatred of wealth, capitalism, and freedom, the environmentalists also wanted power over America and the entire globe. Ayn is a little sleepy so she is going to take a nap inside a copy of her latest book, out in July and in hardcover only.

Peter       

[Ellen Stuttle]

On June 1, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Let [me] crosspost in celebration.

[re Trump's June 1 announcement about withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement.]

Woo hoo!

Take that, elitist globalist suckas.

He means it.

Michael

Belatedly joining the celebration.

ClimateLand has been hopping like the proverbial cat on a hot tin roof the last couple weeks.  (The announcement was anticipated and hopping began in advance.)

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

On May 9, 2017 at 6:44 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

 

On May 9, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Ellen Stuttle said:

 

(3) Your general habit of not answering questions but instead giving lectures which don't actually address what you were asked.

Ellen

Repeat the question....

If you asked do I think the earth is warming,  my answer is yes.  A little bit.  

[....]

Bob, there's a bizarre example of your not tracking and not conversing but instead using posts to which you reply as pegs on which to hang lectures.

"Repeat the question," you say, while ignoring my point (1).  Albeit not in question form, point (1) reiterated the substance of questions I'd asked you three times - getting answers none of those times - pertaining to your thinking "it is worth the cost" to develop the better models you say "we need."

And, no, of course I didn't ask if you think the earth is warming.  You've said you think so repeatedly, and one of the things to which I was objecting was precisely the positiveness of your assertions on that issue.  See my point (2).

Attempting to communicate with you is like trying to have a conversation with a computerized pop-up info-bites program.

Frustrating and almost profitless.  You did manage to correct the inaccurate blanket analogy, but otherwise I think I haven't gotten through.

Possibly though you'll understand my point about the difference between "warmer than" and "warming" if I quote a paragraph from an article by Garth Paltrige which you recommend here.

Quote

Paltridge wrote - link:

[my emphasis]

In one limited sense the members of the "do something about global warming" lobby are correct. If humans insist on giving the atmosphere an extra dose of carbon dioxide, then indeed one can expect Earth’s surface temperature to rise. To be strictly accurate, we should say that its temperature will be higher than it would have been otherwise.

Do you understand?  Temperatures could be falling and still be a bit warmer than they would have been without the additional carbon dioxide.

Ellen

[BaalChatzaf]

29 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Bob, there's a bizarre example of your not tracking and not conversing but instead using posts to which you reply as pegs on which to hang lectures.

"Repeat the question," you say, while ignoring my point (1).  Albeit not in question form, point (1) reiterated the substance of questions I'd asked you three times - getting answers none of those times - pertaining to your thinking "it is worth the cost" to develop the better models you say "we need."

And, no, of course I didn't ask if you think the earth is warming.  You've said you think so repeatedly, and one of the things to which I was objecting was precisely the positiveness of your assertions on that issue.  See my point (2).

Attempting to communicate with you is like trying to have a conversation with a computerized pop-up info-bites program.

Frustrating and almost profitless.  You did manage to correct the inaccurate blanket analogy, but otherwise I think I haven't gotten through.

Possibly though you'll understand my point about the difference between "warmer than" and "warming" if I quote a paragraph from an article by Garth Paltrige which you recommend here.

Do you understand?  Temperatures could be falling and still be a bit warmer than they would have been without the additional carbon dioxide.

Ellen

Warming (in the  common parlance) means  temperature increase.  And yes.  If a colder body is warmed up  somewhere there is a warmer body that cooled down or which produced even more entropy -- second law of thermodynamics.   Heat moves from the higher temperature body spontaneously  to the lower temperature body  and never the other way spontaneously.    To make heat move "backwards"  requires work (which is why one needs a powered compressor to make a refrigerator work).   And yes I do understand.  for example if all the ice in the arctic melted and turned off the thermohaline ocean conveyor,  northern Europe would be right back in a Little Ice Age.   They would be having Ice Festivals on the Thames again in England  and Hans Brinker  would be ice skating the canals in the Netherlands with his silver skates.   And a winter such as the one that wrecked Napoleon would happen every year in Russia just like it did during the Little Ice Age.   So there would be parts of the world that froze during a global warming era.

I am with the Lukewarmers on this.  I simply do not believe that a "tipping point" will be reached any time soon that will turn the Earth into Venus. There was a time millions of years ago that the CO2 level in the atmosphere  was  over 5000 ppm and the Earth never became Venus. I see no reason to believe the Earth will become Venus.  But that is not what people like Al Gore, the inventor of the internet ((sic!) this is sarcasm), are saying.  They are predicting a 20 feet rise in ocean levels by the end of the century  and they say the polar bears will all drown or go extinct. 

And I am with the Lukewarmers who say that the set of climate sensitivity models that the IPCC related mavens trot out predict too much temperature increase too soon.  The models  are shit. Compared to what is done at Cern  the IPCC sponsored "climate science" currently practiced is like tea leaf readers telling us there is a tall dark  climate catastrophe in our future. 

Climate modelling is NOT climate science.  And climate science (so called)  is still waiting for its  Copernicus,  Kepler and Galileo. On a good day I would say "climate science" has reached the stage where astronomy and cosmology was  with  Tycho Brahe.  We have good instruments but we are lacking an effect theory to make accurate specific predictions.  Where are you, Kepler?

[Peter]

Bob wrote: Climate modelling is NOT climate science. And climate science (so called) is still waiting for its Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo. On a good day I would say "climate science" has reached the stage where astronomy and cosmology was with Tycho Brahe.  We have good instruments but we are lacking an effect theory to make accurate specific predictions. Where are you, Kepler? end quote

 

Isn’t Kepler the name of the Hippy Dippy Weatherman? I understand that the weather predictors are wrong some of the time because the factors that cause weather are chaotic. Our top, local weatherman has an ad with various locals saying, “Dan said it would be like this.” He shows various models and talks about how reliable they are. And when inclement weather or a hurricane is approaching he will break into regular programming to tell us the news. And lastly, he admits when he was wrong and explains why.

 

Physical Geologists study graphs of climate change going back millions of years and correlate temperature rises and falls with “events” that may have caused them. Even the graph of the last 100,000 years was illuminating and showed us being in a 10,000 year uptick inside the larger downward trend towards another ice age. So if “climate science” really isn’t a science what are they missing from their equations?

Peter

  

From: "Dennis May" Reply-To: Starship_Forum Subject: [Starship_Forum] Cosmology Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 10:50:05 -0600.Forwarded from [atlantis_II] Re: Infant Universe

Jeff Olson wrote: >Seriously, I've been wanting to ask you a couple of questions on this subject for a long time.  You've been highly critical if not dismissive of the "Big Bang" in several posts, but: 1) I'm not sure you've ever offered a substantive critique of it (I recall you making a series of criticisms, but I don't think you ever developed them into a full-bodied rebuttal; 2) and I don't think you've offered your cosmological alternative?

 

The "Big Bang" theory is a series of theories concerning gravity and the reasons why the universe takes on its present appearance. The origin of the theory is Einstein's General Theory of Relativity [1915] melded with the observation of galactic red-shifts formulated as Hubble's Law [1929].  The concept of the universe starting from a "primeval atom" originated with Lemaître [1927].  The common assumption that galactic red-shifts implied galaxies were receding from each other lead to the present model where the universe began a finite time in the past and has been expanding ever since.

 

Information viewed as supporting the hot "Big Bang" model:

 

A.  Hubble's Law [galactic red-shifts] [1929]

B.  Cosmic microwave background radiation [1950's]

C.  Cosmological abundances of elements

D.  Observation that the passage of time is slower in the distant past

E.  The distribution of quasars [mixed evidence]

F.  Olbers' Paradox [darkness of the night sky]

 

Weaknesses in the hot "Big Bang" theory:

 

A.  What is the source of the "Big Bang"?

B.  Unknown and unobserved dark matter and dark energy is required.  Not only required but all sorts of complex arrangements are needed for even the most basic observations to agree with General Relativity.

C.  Where did the anti-matter go?

D.  Unexplained quantized red-shifts among galaxies and within individual galaxies.

E.  The unexplained existence of very high energy cosmic rays [the cosmic microwave background should slow them down]

F.  No known source for the required introduction of "inflation" and questionable reasoning concerning an increasing speed of universal expansion.

G.  There is a great deal of mixed evidence concerning the distribution of various bodies, the age of bodies at various red-shifts, and how fully formed apparently old galaxies and stars exist at the very edge of observation near the time the "Big Bang" is expected to have occurred.

H.  The universal expansion conveniently expands between galaxies but not within galaxies due to the careful placement of dark energy and/or dark matter.

 

What began as a simple fitting of General Relativity to Hubble's Law has morphed into a large number of fixes having no basis in observation beyond the need to make the "Big Bang" theory work.  The most damning observation is that General Relativity does not even closely predict the shape of galaxies unless one introduces unseen sources of mass.  This unseen and undetectable mass is actually expected to compose 90%+ of the universe, yet there is no reason to expect that it exists except to fix General Relativity.  It is also known that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are fundamentally incompatible, though the correctness of neither is fundamentally questioned.

 

What is my cosmological alternative?  I have not offered one in any detail for a number of reasons:

 

A.  Piecemeal approaches to overturning the "Big Bang" theory cannot work in the atmosphere of today’s referred journals.

 

B.  No new cosmological theory will be take seriously unless it generates a repeatable experiment which can be performed locally.  The "Big Bang" is now infinitely malleable.  A theory which is equally good is not good enough, it must produce a new previously unknown physics with real applications.

 

C.  The absence of a suitable reward structure.  Let's say there are 10,000 researchers worldwide gaining an average income plus benefits of $100,000 per year for supporting the "Big Bang" model in one way or another.  That is about a $Billion a year times the last forty years.  Add to that the cost of research equipment and the cost is probably doubled.

 

What would be the reward structure for overturning this gravy train?  A couple books, the lecture circuit?, an academic post?, Late Night with David Letterman?  More money can be and has been made with local rental properties or running a good small business.

 

D.  The cynical attack dogs.  If you think Atlantis is full of those salivating to crush babies as they are being born, you cannot imagine the heavy weights that will come down on any theory less than a completed, sealed, and delivered done deal.  There will be no period of reasoned discussion or evolution. It must be a finished package out of the chute.  A process similar to a 135 lb woman giving birth to a 300 lb linebacker - helmet, shoulder pads, and all.

Dennis May

[BaalChatzaf]

28 minutes ago, Peter said:

 

 

D.  The cynical attack dogs.  If you think Atlantis is full of those salivating to crush babies as they are being born, you cannot imagine the heavy weights that will come down on any theory less than a completed, sealed, and delivered done deal.  There will be no period of reasoned discussion or evolution. It must be a finished package out of the chute.  A process similar to a 135 lb woman giving birth to a 300 lb linebacker - helmet, shoulder pads, and all.

Dennis May

Zeus and Athena.  Athena burst out fully armored  from the head of Zeus.  Body armor,  helmet, dory spear and hoplon. 

[Peter]

9 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Zeus and Athena.  Athena burst out fully armored  from the head of Zeus.  Body armor,  helmet, dory spear and hoplon. 

Oh Great Carnak, what are the climate scientists missing in their predictions? I think they are smart and well informed, though many have hopped on the (man done dat climate change) gravy train.  

[BaalChatzaf]

48 minutes ago, Peter said:

Oh Great Carnak, what are the climate scientists missing in their predictions? I think they are smart and well informed, though many have hopped on the (man done dat climate change) gravy train.  

same old story.  follow the money....

[Ellen Stuttle]

On June 11, 2017 at 4:04 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

 And yes I do understand.

No, you don't, but never mind.

Unresponsive lecture xxx....., including repeat of your Venus trope, your use of which is another of the issues I've asked you about in regard to which answers came there none.

Ellen

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

No, you don't, but never mind.

Unresponsive lecture xxx....., including repeat of your Venus trope, your use of which is another of the issues I've asked you about in regard to which answers came there none.

Ellen

Specifically,  what are you asking.  Make it simple because I do not handle complication well.

By the way.  Has the Earth warmed up since the middle of the Little Ice Age?  A simple yes/no  will suffice. 

[Ellen Stuttle]

20 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Specifically,  what are you asking.  Make it simple because I do not handle complication well.

By the way.  Has the Earth warmed up since the middle of the Little Ice Age?  A simple yes/no  will suffice. 

You don't handle complication well, but you claim to understand very advanced math and climate dynamics??!!  That doesn't compute.

One thing I've been trying to point out to you is the difference which seems to elude you between "warmer than" and "warming."  Yes, I think that Earth has warmed up since the middle of the Little Ice AgeS (precisely, plural, not singular), but this does not entail that warmING has been continuous or is occurring now.

Try this example:  In the region where I live, the average temperature for September is typically 20 or more Fahrenheit degrees warmer than the average temperature for March.  But this does not mean that there's a cooling trend in March and a warming trend in September.  The opposite is the case.  There's a cooling trend in September and a warming trend in March.

--

On the Venus issue, you keep saying that you don't think that Earth will turn into Venus.  Well, of course Earth won't turn into Venus.  Taken literally, the idea that Earth would turn into Venus is silly. So what are the alarmist claims, specifically, not metaphorically, which you're negativing in making the statement that you don't think that Earth will turn into Venus?

Ellen

[BaalChatzaf]

12 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

You don't handle complication well, but you claim to understand very advanced math and climate dynamics??!!  That doesn't compute.

One thing I've been trying to point out to you is the difference which seems to elude you between "warmer than" and "warming."  Yes, I think that Earth has warmed up since the middle of the Little Ice AgeS (precisely, plural, not singular), but this does not entail that warmING has been continuous or is occurring now.

Try this example:  In the region where I live, the average temperature for September is typically 20 or more Fahrenheit degrees warmer than the average temperature for March.  But this does not mean that there's a cooling trend in March and a warming trend in September.  The opposite is the case.  There's a cooling trend in September and a warming trend in March.

--

On the Venus issue, you keep saying that you don't think that Earth will turn into Venus.  Well, of course Earth won't turn into Venus.  Taken literally, the idea that Earth would turn into Venus is silly. So what are the alarmist claims, specifically, not metaphorically, which you're negativing in making the statement that you don't think that Earth will turn into Venus?

Ellen

Math I can handle.  Do you have a mathematical question for me?  Thermodynamics I understand fairly well.  Do you have a thermodynamic question for me?

As to warming,  that is a sticky question because there is more than one climate at work on earth.  Tropical climates differ from polar climates for example.  

Is the average yearly temperature of the ocean rising these days?   Well in parts of the ocean..  There is a lot of arctic  sea ice melting and the the glaciers in the north are receding. you can see that just by looking at the aerial  photos of the glacier areas.  Also there is a northwest passage that is open part of the year  across Canada.  At one time this was not the case.  What are the causes?  Are they mostly from human activity or are there natural drivers.  Good question.  I would say a bit of both but mostly natural variations.  I leave that to the experts to find serious answers. 

The climate and the eco-extremists  have been telling us that doom awaits us this century or the next.  Al Gore, the inventor of the internet,  tells us the oceans will rise 20 feet or more and the polar bears will drown.   But I will be damned if I can find  a definite prediction on this in the climate literature.  I am sure if enough land based ice masses melt the oceans will rise.  How much?  I don't know.  

Here is a definite statement.  The climate sensitivity models  the IPCC  sponsors or sanctions  run too hot.  When a model does not predict the real world accurately  we say the model is wrong.  Not the IPCC.  They have two dozen models  (maybe more)  none of which are accurate and the take a weighted average  of their outputs.   I do not consider this science.  Maybe the climate mavens do. 

[Ellen Stuttle]

22 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Math I can handle.  Do you have a mathematical question for me?  Thermodynamics I understand fairly well.  Do you have a thermodynamic question for me?

As to warming,  that is a sticky question because there is more than one climate at work on earth.  Tropical climates differ from polar climates for example.  

Is the average yearly temperature of the ocean rising these days?   Well in parts of the ocean..  There is a lot of arctic  sea ice melting and the the glaciers in the north are receding. you can see that just by looking at the aerial  photos of the glacier areas.  Also there is a northwest passage that is open part of the year  across Canada.  At one time this was not the case.  What are the causes?  Are they mostly from human activity or are there natural drivers.  Good question.  I would say a bit of both but mostly natural variations.  I leave that to the experts to find serious answers. 

The climate and the eco-extremists  have been telling us that doom awaits us this century or the next.  Al Gore, the inventor of the internet,  tells us the oceans will rise 20 feet or more and the polar bears will drown.   But I will be damned if I can find  a definite prediction on this in the climate literature.  I am sure if enough land based ice masses melt the oceans will rise.  How much?  I don't know.  

Here is a definite statement.  The climate sensitivity models  the IPCC  sponsors or sanctions  run too hot.  When a model does not predict the real world accurately  we say the model is wrong.  Not the IPCC.  They have two dozen models  (maybe more)  none of which are accurate and the take a weighted average  of their outputs.   I do not consider this science.  Maybe the climate mavens do. 

Bob, I still don't get a clear indication that you understand the difference between "warmer than" and "warming."

Question: Have you heard of what's called "the hiatus"?  I searched your posts for the term and found not one reference.

Is your description that "The climate and the eco-extremists  have been telling us that doom awaits us this century or the next.  [....]"what you're referring to when you say that you don't think that Earth will turn into Venus?  A 20-foot sea level rise and drowning polar bears wouldn't make Earth comparable to Venus.  Venus has a super-dense 95% carbon dioxide atmosphere.  The density is such that, although nitrogen is a trace gas on Venus, Venus' atmosphere nonetheless has more nitrogen than Earth's.  The idea that Earth's atmosphere might become like Venus' is just bonkers.

Ellen

PS about glaciers receding. I think that's the dumbest physics argument for "global warming."  We're in an interglacial.  Glaciers recede during interglacials.  Temperatures don't have to be continuing to rise for glaciers to recede.

Do the simple experiment of taking an ice cube from the freezer and placing it in a dish on a kitchen cupboard.  Then leave the room.  Then come back after awhile.  Depending on how long you're gone, the ice cube will have melted partly to entirely.  Would you be justified in concluding that the temperature of the kitchen must have been increasing while you were gone?