StreetScooby 5 #26 August 2, 2012 Quote But I still think this is more about pushing the green agenda, power and money than it is about climate science I would agree that it's definitely moved beyond climate science into that realm.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #27 August 2, 2012 > Lots of "real" climate scientists acknowledge they don't fully understand the >dynamics of the problem. That's true - and that's why there is a fairly wide error band in all the IPCC prediction scenarios. One (small) example - As temperatures rise, more water evaporates. Everything else being equal, more clouds form as a result. Clouds during the day = cooler planet overall (higher albedo.) Clouds at night = warmer planet overall (lower radiation.) So will there be more new clouds at night than during the day? If there are more at night, then warming rates will increase faster they would without new clouds. If there are more during the day, warming will proceed slower than it would in the absence of the new clouds. Thus the error bands in the predictions. > I am firmly convinced that a big government solution to this problem is not going to >happen, unless rational market players are actively encouraged to participate, and by >that I mean nuclear power folks. Government solutions are already happening. But I agree that market players must be involved as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #28 August 2, 2012 Quotensidc.org/news/press/20120730_draught.html droughtmonitor.unl.edu/ nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ www.kxan.com/dpps/weather/us_wx_news/half-of-us-counties-now-considered-disaster-areas-nt12-jgr_4283663 you confusing weather with climate again, when it suits your purpose? We had a major drought in the 30s too, as I recall. We've had El Nino type patterns for centuries. Personally I've enjoyed the weather this year very much. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #29 August 2, 2012 >Personally I've enjoyed the weather this year very much. So have I. Farmers, not so much. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #30 August 2, 2012 QuoteQuotensidc.org/news/press/20120730_draught.html droughtmonitor.unl.edu/ nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ www.kxan.com/dpps/weather/us_wx_news/half-of-us-counties-now-considered-disaster-areas-nt12-jgr_4283663 you confusing weather with climate again, when it suits your purpose? We had a major drought in the 30s too, as I recall. We've had El Nino type patterns for centuries. Personally I've enjoyed the weather this year very much. Weather is local. Drought in fully half the counties in the USA is not a local effect. The Arctic Ocean + Greenland are not local.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #31 August 2, 2012 "show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," said Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data." 1889 + 150 = 2039 2012 is hardly "right on time".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #32 August 2, 2012 Quote Weather is local. Drought in fully half the counties in the USA is not a local effect. The Arctic Ocean + Greenland are not local. El Nino has effects from Australia to the the Americas, but it's still a temporary situation, not a change. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #33 August 3, 2012 QuoteQuote Weather is local. Drought in fully half the counties in the USA is not a local effect. The Arctic Ocean + Greenland are not local. El Nino has effects from Australia to the the Americas, but it's still a temporary situation, not a change. Attached shows global temperature changes AFTER correcting for known effects of southern oscillation, aerosol albedo, etc. See also voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/images/record_hi_lo.gif... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #34 August 3, 2012 hey, that wasn't too hard now, was it? But what were you posting those anecdoctal stories about 2012 for, as evidence of a trend? They proved nothing other than this year sucks for some, is great for me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #35 August 3, 2012 Quote They proved nothing... From a -0.3 "anomaly" to a +0.3 "anomaly" in 30 years. As others have written, within reasonable normal variation.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #36 August 4, 2012 Quotehey, that wasn't too hard now, was it? . No, and I posted it previously too, a few weeks back.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #37 August 4, 2012 QuoteThey proved nothing other than this year sucks for some, is great for me. We would have to visit what is meant by the term "great." If you mean you're experiencing locally mild summer temperatures that you personally like, then "great" might be appropriate in a certain context. And if they continued for you for the next decade that might also be "great" for you personally. However, if we look at what has happened across the country in terms of drought and if THAT continued for the next decade, then your personal "great" might be a world-wide tragedy. Is the nearly country-wide drought this year weather or climate? Hard to tell, but it's part of a larger trend and if it continues it will be far from "great" in the positive sense of the word.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
