Is hurricane sandy a bellwether?

[Charles E]

It doesn't fly, Keith, because it never has been about the science, the data. Some big players saw that in the short term, they were far better off to keep energy policies the way the are. So, it got politicized. Earlier in the thread, someone said they didn't trust who was giving them the information. You think he was referring to scientists?

Here's another one -- A former Ronald Regan adviser, Bruce Bartlett, noted that an analysis of tax policy over the last half century, including the 1986 Regan tax cut that lowered the top rates from 50% to 28%, showed that such cuts do slightly stimulate the economy. How slight? It all shows up on the right hand side of the decimal point -- a few tenths of a percent. And the change doesn't even last.

That's the data. You think anyone believes it?

I have a good analogy of trickle-down economics too, just like my solution for global warming. It turns out that the human body isn't perfect when it comes to processing food. Well, that's reasonable, who would have thought otherwise? What it means is if you're hungry & have no money to buy food, you can eat rich folk's $hit and get nutritional value -- that's a trickle-down food policy.

 

[SGJennings]

Too, I think that most folks, even really smart folks, just can't understand that weather is not climate.

 

[Charles E]

Too, I think that most folks, even really smart folks, just can't understand that weather is not climate.

Very good point!

 

[Wilbur]

Doesn't matter in the slightest that any of us don't believe everything we're "TOLD". For every one of US, there's a million others that will forward that email to "at least ten people" and then wait on "something good to happen".

 

[JerrySharrett]

Who do you choose to believe? .........stated that climate change and/or global warming was...... James

Tell me this, the nice folks who are driving this "global warming" agenda, why did they change the agenda title to "climate change"?

 

[vicvanb]

There are some effects that it is too late to reverse, but what we do over the next several decades is extremely important to what kind of world we leave to our children and grandchildren. The mean temperature of the Earth has already risen by about 1 F, and even if we were to stop emitting carbon as soon as possible, it will continue to rise to 2.5 F above normal by the end of the century. But if world emissions continue to grow at current rates, the rise will be 10 F. Sea level rose by about 7 inches in the 20th century, and will rise another 7 to 22 inches, depending on what we do. These are big differences.

These model predictions are so well accepted among the scientific community that NASA summarizes them on their website: http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/ Although, the sea level rise estimates keep getting revised upwards as mechanisms for self-accelerating effects are incorporated into the models.

Exactly right! Thank you.

 

[vicvanb]

if I've learned anything in 50yrs it's that we CANNOT agree. It's like oil and water, I'm one and you're the other, we simply do not draw the same conclusions from the same data. Pick a subject, we will disagree.

I disagree (as you predicted)--there are many subjects we could agree on but climate change apparently is not one.

Thank goodness there are a diversity of thoughts on diffent issues. In the end they all get sorted out. I'm just worried that when our young kids reach our age they will say: "Our parents' generation saw this coming but did little to address the problem. Why were they so unwilling to act????"

 

[mks]

It doesn't fly, Keith, because it never has been about the science, the data. Some big players saw that in the short term, they were far better off to keep energy policies the way the are. So, it got politicized. Earlier in the thread, someone said they didn't trust who was giving them the information. You think he was referring to scientists?

At its foundation, it's about the money, and money buys the policies, as well as the PR to create the support. Huge corporations have a vested interest in continuing to sell us oil, gas and coal. I don't know who he was referring to, but those with the most to lose have the greatest motivation to keep things the same. Without some David and Goliath miracles, things won't change.

 

[vicvanb]

I recognize that some of these facts are very controversial and hard for some to accept. Who, for example, would believe that heat melts ice?

 

[mks]

Tell me this, the nice folks who are driving this "global warming" agenda, why did they change the agenda title to "climate change"?

Jerry,
The global average temperature has increased and is predicted to keep increasing, so the initial name was "global warming." Later, it was recognized that not all regions would have temperatures affected by the same amount. For instance, in the midwest the temperature won't change as much as the average, but the weather events will get more extreme. Thus "climate change" is a more universal description. The predictions have evolved as the computer models get more sophisticated, and the name has evolved with them, but the globe on average is still warming.

Keith

 

[spfld]

While the U.S. goes all in for this "green" stuff and along with it our competetive abilities being slashed by ever more EPA regs in the name of climate change, who exactly will strongarm China, India, Brazil and the rest of the world for that matter into following our lead??? BTW China IS building coal fired electric plants and buying coal from around the world, and we are selling our coal to them also cause we cannot use it here anymore. I believe Joe Bastardi.

 

[katokoch]

Brazil is doing a better job than you'd think... It would be nice if we could follow their ethanol market.

I'm just worried that when our young kids reach our age they will say: "Our parents' generation saw this coming but did little to address the problem. Why were they so unwilling to act????"

Speaking as someone who (hopefully) has many years ahead of them on this planet, I think a lot of us already feel this way. It's disappointing how toxic all of the politics surrounding this issue have become, since we're ultimately gonna be paying for it in the future. Personally I think sustainability will be the key as we move ahead- looking for solutions that make sense on environmental, economic, and social levels. Whether the climate change is heavily affected by human behavior or not, I think we've still got to make some changes if we want to keep this Earth a nice place. I'm concerned the direction we're headed in just won't do it.

 

[tim]

I truly love these scientific exchanges. Some of the "zelots" in the group would be advised, for instance to read some of the fairly interesting papers puplished by Dr. Lindzen, cheif climatologist in residence MIT. Oh by the way, on the rising sea level warning faction, I thought it most interesting that for years we've heard of sea levels up by some 3' since 1850 based on "rock solid" measurment data taken from Australia/NewZealand historical data. Turns out recently it's been corrected now to reflect 3" since 1850.........that's 3". Tell me again how research profs. secure grant money?????
We're pretty sure Al Gore did'nt invent the internet, but he sure as hell invented the global warming industry.

As a postscript for those that actually take it upon themselves to do a bit more homework than listening to George Clooney, resarch the massive and well published data by the team of Scandinavian Climatologists last year, relative to high atmospheric levels of O2 and the remarkable impact solar activity plays on this.....but far be it for me to suggest actual objective scientific opinion to the zealotry.

 

[tim]

Brazil is doing a better job than you'd think... It would be nice if we could follow their ethanol market.



Speaking as someone who (hopefully) has many years ahead of them on this planet, I think a lot of us already feel this way. It's disappointing how toxic all of the politics surrounding this issue have become, since we're ultimately gonna be paying for it in the future. Personally I think sustainability will be the key as we move ahead- looking for solutions that make sense on environmental, economic, and social levels. Whether the climate change is heavily affected by human behavior or not, I think we've still got to make some changes if we want to keep this Earth a nice place. I'm concerned the direction we're headed in just won't do it.

A little "real world" experience would be helpful here. About 35% of their entire economy and capitol markets are driven by Petrobras....And it ain't because of sugar cane derived ethanol

 

[mks]

Tim,
Lindzen is a high profile critic of the IPCC, because he was actually on the panel. But to pick out one dissenter among ~30 panelists and 200+ delegates and say that he is right and the rest are wrong doesn't seem logical. Getting a bunch of scientists to agree on anything is like herding cats, so I rather think that the overwhelming consensus is remarkable. And since you asked, Lindzen is funded by oil companies. Further, many of his criticisms at the time were on the technical details, not the overall conclusion. His more recent work has drawn criticism from other scientists.

Tell you what, let's leave out Gore because he isn't even a scientist, then let's throw out the outliers like Lindzen, and see what the majority scientific opinion is.

Seems you have a typo in your point about sea levels.

Keith

 

[tim]

Tim,
Lindzen is a high profile critic of the IPCC, because he was actually on the panel. But to pick out one dissenter among ~30 panelists and 200+ delegates and say that he is right and the rest are wrong doesn't seem logical. Getting a bunch of scientists to agree on anything is like herding cats, so I rather think that the overwhelming consensus is remarkable. And since you asked, Lindzen is funded by oil companies. Further, many of his criticisms at the time were on the technical details, not the overall conclusion. His more recent work has drawn criticism from other scientists.

Tell you what, let's leave out Gore because he isn't even a scientist, then let's throw out the outliers like Lindzen, and see what the majority scientific opinion is.

Seems you have a typo in your point about sea levels.

Keith

First, his work is referenced because he's highly respected, very accomplished, and represents anything other than the consensus opinins I see referred to constantly. Second the oil co. funding is BS. Third tell me what you think After you read a few of his works. After that read the Scandinavian data puplished by the team of highly regarded climatologists and astro physics folks who approached it as new to the question and apparantly fully open minded. You'll see a remarkable smilarity of opinion, both in the data and, peer repudiation. Quite a bit of "if we want your opinion, we'll give it to you". Pure science to be sure.

 

[Charles E]

As for the real world, I just watched a Bugatti Veyron beat a McLaren F1 in a 1-mile drag race. Looked like the McLaren would have won at 1/4 mile, though. The combined worth of the two cars? US $4,838,700. No idea what kind of mileage they get.

But the real world Tim is speaking of, Keith, is one where scientists don't count. They are essentially pawns. The larger industrial associations, even a few of the largest single corporations, function today as warlords functioned in earlier times.

Almost by definition, Warlords operate at least partially outside the law. They are immune to the smaller governments, which they can control solely through financial means -- not always legal means, of course (in earlier times, this control would have been by military power, using private armies). Even the largest governments know that the cost of bringing them under control would be too great. And by "cost," I don't just mean dollars. So they exist side by side with the governments, each helping the other. Almost always been that way.

 

[tim]

As for the real world, I just watched a Bugatti Veyron beat a McLaren F1 in a 1-mile drag race. Looked like the McLaren would have won at 1/4 mile, though. The combined worth of the two cars? US $4,838,700. No idea what kind of mileage they get.

But the real world Tim is speaking of, Keith, is one where scientists don't count. They are essentially pawns. The larger industrial associations, even a few of the largest single corporations, function today as warlords functioned in earlier times.

Almost by definition, Warlords operate at least partially outside the law. They are immune to the smaller governments, which they can control solely through financial means -- not always legal means, of course (in earlier times, this control would have been by military power, using private armies). Even the largest governments know that the cost of bringing them under control would be too great. And by "cost," I don't just mean dollars. So they exist side by side with the governments, each helping the other. Almost always been that way.

The Veyron as I recall has a fairly large fuel capacity, but at max power will last 15 minutes.....which is actually good because at max power the tires at about $6500/per are good for about 20 minutes.

 

[tim]

As for the real world, I just watched a Bugatti Veyron beat a McLaren F1 in a 1-mile drag race. Looked like the McLaren would have won at 1/4 mile, though. The combined worth of the two cars? US $4,838,700. No idea what kind of mileage they get.

But the real world Tim is speaking of, Keith, is one where scientists don't count. They are essentially pawns. The larger industrial associations, even a few of the largest single corporations, function today as warlords functioned in earlier times.

Almost by definition, Warlords operate at least partially outside the law. They are immune to the smaller governments, which they can control solely through financial means -- not always legal means, of course (in earlier times, this control would have been by military power, using private armies). Even the largest governments know that the cost of bringing them under control would be too great. And by "cost," I don't just mean dollars. So they exist side by side with the governments, each helping the other. Almost always been that way.

Certainly they count and they're combined body of work is evolving. Lest we forget these are the folks that forwarned global freezing, utilize climate simulation models with a fair degree of error on the back end with miniscule errors on the front end, many of which would love to pilot the wayback machine to that lovely preindustrial time where if people hated you they had the common courtesy to ride up to you on a nice horse and cave your head in with a trunion of some kind.

 

[alinwa]

At its foundation...... Huge corporations have a vested interest in continuing to sell us oil, gas and coal...........

C'mon Keith, you're brighter than this!

oil/gas/coal

Just where does "vested interest" enter into this? By implication you're indicting real power sources, (altho you left out nukes) thereby implying that there are other alternatives.... WHAT exactly?? Fairy Dust? Are we going to hear next that Nicolai Tesla was a genius? Pogue?? Wind? Solar?

I didn't expect this from you, you seem to understand your education......