[Daniel1960]

Hrothgar,
As a contributed to the Realclimate site, I was invited here to specifically discuss climate. Since I play bridge here regularly, I felt that it was an appropriate venue. Since I have been posting here, not once has anyone discussed bridge. Onoway is free to call me a troll, but then again, he is a Uper.

[Winstonm]

 Daniel1960, on 2013-May-30, 19:28, said:

Hrothgar,
As a contributed to the Realclimate site, I was invited here to specifically discuss climate. Since I play bridge here regularly, I felt that it was an appropriate venue. Since I have been posting here, not once has anyone discussed bridge. Onoway is free to call me a troll, but then again, he is a Uper.

I am curious. Was the invitation from a BBO staff member?

[Daniel1960]

 Winstonm, on 2013-May-30, 20:08, said:

I am curious. Was the invitation from a BBO staff member?

I do not recall. I would need to check out the RC site and see who specifically made the request.

[Al_U_Card]

Combining the two is easy.
Clearly, the statement that the climate has "warmed" is recorded, observational evidence.
The theory that [CO2] is a greenhouse gas is accepted by the scientific community and, as such, provides a component to the current planetary atmospheric contribution to that warming.
That humanity provides CO2 to the environment is a given.

100%

What is the effect of that provision and its influence on global climate?

That is the issue at hand.

As for the media, the Koch brothers funded Nova on PBS is a prime example. The recent program on the Moore tornado concluded with the interview of a climate scientist. When asked about whether global warming was responsible for the tornado, he responded:
"We have reason to believe that a warming world will result in more extreme weather." (Model-induced, no doubt.)

Did Nova fact-check that statement? Did they ask about why, then, the statistics for tornado frequency and severity over the period of man-made warming and increasing global temperatures did not concur with that scientist's statement? Why not?

Speaking of denial, anyone who posits that "big oil" (or anyone else) is funding the denial machine is either delusional or a denier of reality. So much money goes into the green machine that their media/social/government influence is pervasive. Happily, the facts about CO2's contributions to global temperatures are supporting reality (What a surprise!) and more and more individuals are waking up to the illusion that the CAGW-scammers are presenting to them.

[onoway]

 Daniel1960, on 2013-May-30, 19:28, said:

Hrothgar,
As a contributed to the Realclimate site, I was invited here to specifically discuss climate. Since I play bridge here regularly, I felt that it was an appropriate venue. Since I have been posting here, not once has anyone discussed bridge. Onoway is free to call me a troll, but then again, he is a Uper.

I may regret asking this but what is an Uper? The only definition I could find was a resident of Michigan and that I'm not. I had/have no intention of calling you a troll and not sure why I got put in the middle of this but this is the water cooler, and the one forum on BBO for discussing anything other than bridge or bridge related topics.

[Daniel1960]

 onoway, on 2013-May-31, 09:34, said:

I may regret asking this but what is an Uper? The only definition I could find was a resident of Michigan and that I'm not. I had/have no intention of calling you a troll and not sure why I got put in the middle of this but this is the water cooler, and the one forum on BBO for discussing anything other than bridge or bridge related topics.

Sorry, I referenced the wrong person. Looking back it was Passedout who mentioned Michigan Tech. The colloquialisms here in Michigan are that someone from the Upper Peninsula is a "Uper", while someone from the lower peninsula is a "troll", i.e. lives below the bridge (Mackinaw). It is more of a friendly jab, than an insult. Sorry, no offense intended.

[onoway]

 Al_U_Card, on 2013-May-31, 04:13, said:

Combining the two is easy.
Clearly, the statement that the climate has "warmed" is recorded, observational evidence.
The theory that [CO2] is a greenhouse gas is accepted by the scientific community and, as such, provides a component to the current planetary atmospheric contribution to that warming.
That humanity provides CO2 to the environment is a given.

100%

What is the effect of that provision and its influence on global climate?

That is the issue at hand.

As for the media, the Koch brothers funded Nova on PBS is a prime example. The recent program on the Moore tornado concluded with the interview of a climate scientist. When asked about whether global warming was responsible for the tornado, he responded:
"We have reason to believe that a warming world will result in more extreme weather." (Model-induced, no doubt.)

Did Nova fact-check that statement? Did they ask about why, then, the statistics for tornado frequency and severity over the period of man-made warming and increasing global temperatures did not concur with that scientist's statement? Why not?

Speaking of denial, anyone who posits that "big oil" (or anyone else) is funding the denial machine is either delusional or a denier of reality. So much money goes into the green machine that their media/social/government influence is pervasive. Happily, the facts about CO2's contributions to global temperatures are supporting reality (What a surprise!) and more and more individuals are waking up to the illusion that the CAGW-scammers are presenting to them.

I am truly confused. Are you objecting to the idea that people have any responsibility for what the weather does, or are you saying that the people who say they are now seeing great white sharks off the coast of Nova Scotia or high numbers of dead polar bears are all lying? We had the "storm of the century" in Saskatchewan a couple of years ago, New York had its "storm of the century" last year and Oklahoma is reeling from the second hit in two weeks with major tornado damage and the season's just getting going. That's just on THIS continent. All just coincidence?

[Daniel1960]

 onoway, on 2013-June-01, 20:48, said:

I am truly confused. Are you objecting to the idea that people have any responsibility for what the weather does, or are you saying that the people who say they are now seeing great white sharks off the coast of Nova Scotia or high numbers of dead polar bears are all lying? We had the "storm of the century" in Saskatchewan a couple of years ago, New York had its "storm of the century" last year and Oklahoma is reeling from the second hit in two weeks with major tornado damage and the season's just getting going. That's just on THIS continent. All just coincidence?

Is it coincidence? Of course not. The local weather responds to larger circulation patterns. The fact that we had a very late start to the tornado season this year was a direct result of the extended winter in the U.S. We still have a ways to go, but we may catch up to average by summer's end. That said, we are in a 60-year decline in strong tornadoes, with the 2000s being the lowest decade on record. Hurricanes are also in a lull period, with global cyclonic activity at a low, and the U.S. currently in its longest period without a major landfall hitting hurricane. I am not familiar with the Saskatchewan storm, so I cannot make an educated comment about it. What is the reference to dead polar bears?

[onoway]

 Daniel1960, on 2013-June-01, 22:18, said:

Is it coincidence? Of course not. The local weather responds to larger circulation patterns. The fact that we had a very late start to the tornado season this year was a direct result of the extended winter in the U.S. We still have a ways to go, but we may catch up to average by summer's end. That said, we are in a 60-year decline in strong tornadoes, with the 2000s being the lowest decade on record. Hurricanes are also in a lull period, with global cyclonic activity at a low, and the U.S. currently in its longest period without a major landfall hitting hurricane. I am not familiar with the Saskatchewan storm, so I cannot make an educated comment about it. What is the reference to dead polar bears?

You don't count Sandy as a hurricane?

We don't have a lot of people in Saskatchewan so it didn't have the impact a major storm has in large centres, but dozens of people lost their houses to massive flooding (In less than an hour the water was kneehigh in some parts of the town)certainly agreed with the designation. Simultaneously there were tornadoes one of which raised havoc on a reserve an hour west. Nobody was killed and aside from that those hit relatively uninhabited areas. so not newsworthy. It was the first time I had heard of tornadoes here so that made an impression.

The reference to polar bears was an interview I listened to a month or so back..a photographer for National Geographic who (mostly) grew up in Greenland and other parts of the north. He's spent many years going back to visit and photograph the north (he photographs other places as well of course.) He said that only recently have dead polar bears been showing up frequently and it's a direct result of the changed ice conditions interfering with their ability to hunt seals successfully. He explained it in detail which I don't clearly remember now.

[Al_U_Card]

It may also relate to bigger polar bear populations (which have tripled in the last 50 years) which would result in more of them dying...)

As for the once-per-century weather events. They happen once per century. Just look into archival information and you will see that nothing out of the ordinary (on longer time-scales) is occurring regarding severe weather.

The coincidence is the confluence of more people to record events and better information dissemination. We all find out about things in a flash, these days. The upshot is that there is no link between our presence and the weather or the climate (so far, nothing other than supposition and theory). Are we, as a race, murdering, polluting, greedy and profligate? That would be my conclusion. No amount of carbon indulgences will reduce, forgive or repair those sins. They will just create yet another and provide support for what is already headed in the wrong direction.

[hrothgar]

 Al_U_Card, on 2013-June-02, 04:15, said:

It may also relate to bigger polar bear populations (which have tripled in the last 50 years) which would result in more of them dying...)

Oh look.. Al is lying again.
(Not that surprising, especially after his previous statements that he is justified in lying to try to promote his "cause" d'jour)

1. There is no reliable data about the size of polar bear populations 50 years ago. It's not possible to make specific statements comparing current populations with those 50 years.
2. More recent studies show that 19 out of the 20 existing polar bear populations are in clear decline (The one exception is an inland population which isn't affected as much by sea ice decline)
3. The major force impacting polar bear populations 50 years back was people shooting them. In theory, it would be possible for populations to increase even as conditions and range grew less favorable.

There is lots of easy to find information available debunking this long standing lie...
Regardless, I recommend that folks google information about polar bear populations

[Al_U_Card]

It would appear that the estimates of low bear populations in the 60s were done by the Russians and are not to be trusted or accepted by the advocates of saving the bears and their fear that a warmer Arctic (and less sea-ice) will finish them off.

Notwithstanding the bear's survival over previous periods of less sea-ice, it appears that most bear populations are steady or increasing while a smaller percentage are in decline.

There are 19 polar bear subpopulations world-wide. Roughly one-third are in decline, another third are steady or increasing and the others haven't been studied sufficiently.

your lying eyes

Conservation efforts? Natural variation? Refusal of Roman Catholic doctrine?
Once again, the catastrophist's positions are not upheld by the facts.

maybe, maybe not

Other than that, send your money to "Save the bears" knowing that it will go to a good cause.

scholarship

[Daniel1960]

 onoway, on 2013-June-01, 23:18, said:

You don't count Sandy as a hurricane?

We don't have a lot of people in Saskatchewan so it didn't have the impact a major storm has in large centres, but dozens of people lost their houses to massive flooding (In less than an hour the water was kneehigh in some parts of the town)certainly agreed with the designation. Simultaneously there were tornadoes one of which raised havoc on a reserve an hour west. Nobody was killed and aside from that those hit relatively uninhabited areas. so not newsworthy. It was the first time I had heard of tornadoes here so that made an impression.

The reference to polar bears was an interview I listened to a month or so back..a photographer for National Geographic who (mostly) grew up in Greenland and other parts of the north. He's spent many years going back to visit and photograph the north (he photographs other places as well of course.) He said that only recently have dead polar bears been showing up frequently and it's a direct result of the changed ice conditions interfering with their ability to hunt seals successfully. He explained it in detail which I don't clearly remember now.

Sandy was definitely a hurricane. New York experiences a major hurricane approximately every 75 years (close enough to "storm of the century"). The previous was in 1938, 74 years prior. Individual events can occur anywhere an be considered freakish or unusual. It is best to look at overall trends to see if anything out of the ordinary is happening. With regards to overall hurricane or tornadic activity, nothing unusual is happening. When these start occurring with increased frequency, then something has changed.
The Arctic sea ice has definitely retreated in recent years. The increase could also be due to the larger bear population as mentioned previously, ice conditions, or seals. I may need to read more about it.

[Winstonm]

Considering the effects of AGW on weather, this EPA link discusses that and other subjects. Increased frequency of storms is not high on the list of anticipated events. The key issue is changed climate in various regions.

Quote

Patterns of precipitation and storm events, including both rain and snowfall are also likely to change. However, some of these changes are less certain than the changes associated with temperature. Projections show that future precipitation and storm changes will vary by season and region.

[PassedOut]

I'm not sure how to reconcile these statements:

 Daniel1960, on 2013-June-01, 22:18, said:

Hurricanes are also in a lull period, with global cyclonic activity at a low, and the U.S. currently in its longest period without a major landfall hitting hurricane.

 Daniel1960, on 2013-June-02, 06:38, said:

Sandy was definitely a hurricane.

And it hit on the last week of October last year, causing damage as far west as Wisconsin. So I don't understand your original claim.

[Winstonm]

Misdirection by moving the goalposts in Forbes : (emphasis and notes added added)

Quote

The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because (1) most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. (2) The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.

Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, (3) global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis.

note 1: How about that, there is a concensus. What's the problem?
note 2: Oh, that is the problem. How bad is it and what do we need to do. Funny, but no one ever said there was a consensus on those questions.
note 3: So, because a few are spinning the results in their favor, the results of the document must be flawed? Huh?

Although conservative Forbes author James Taylor admits that most skeptics and most alarmist agree that AGW is real, it cannot be a considered a consensus because we disagree on how significant a problem it is, a person we strongly dislike published the findings, and because there is no consensus on how this will affect the planet and what needs to be done now, it means there is no consensus on the question of AGW itself.

If you followed that logic, you may have a future in the Tea Party.

[Al_U_Card]

 Winstonm, on 2013-June-02, 08:25, said:

Considering the effects of AGW on weather, this EPA link discusses that and other subjects. Increased frequency of storms is not high on the list of anticipated events. The key issue is changed climate in various regions.

are also likely to change. However, some of these changes are less certain than the changes associated with temperature. Projections

Knowing how the IPCC finagled the expert review comments (climategate e-mails and expert-reviewer exposés) to make policy statements that removed uncertainty and doubt and left only attribution, the above bolded qualifiers are understandable. Everything is a guess, just like next week's weather, I suppose. Anyone care to invest in that bet? Send your money to the catastrophists as they will need it to continue to baffle with ...

Speaking of which, even a cursory overview of Cook's (and his cohorts err co-authors Nuccitelli and Lewandowsky) survey efforts reveals so much poor science as to be mind-boggling but perhaps the words of climatologist Richard Tol might help:

“In his defense, [Dana] has had limited exposure to stats at uni” – Richard Tol

“[Dana] I think your sampling strategy is a load of nonsense.” – Richard Tol

Dr. Tol's creds speak volumes

[Gerben42]

 mike777, on 2013-May-13, 22:47, said:

I still predict that the next ten years will bring solar energy into a major source of cheap, reliable energy.

Yes there are many problems to overcome.

my local paper touts that an inventor has solved the problem via a solar energy trap that is 99% efficient and use sand to trap and control the energy. Cheap super cheap energy.


At this point no one has even peer reviewed or built a working model of his theory.
One guy..PHD guy said this is a no brainer win.....

http://www.newsobser...lar-energy.html

Mike, as nice as your prediction might be, the main problem with solar energy is not that it's not working, it's the low availability and the inability to adapt the supply to the demand. You cannot turn the sun on and off as you can your light switch. Therefore a working energy mix must have a mixture between base load capacity and variable capacity. The main low-CO2 sources of energy for both types:

Base load: Hydro & Geothermal & Nuclear (I would want to add Biomass here, but given the impact on agricultural land use I wouldn't want to see this increase)
Variable load: Solar & Wind

Countries with a healthy energy mix will use these types, and maybe in the future also Tidal & Fusion power.

[Winstonm]

 Al_U_Card, on 2013-June-02, 10:48, said:

Everything is a guess, just like next week's weather, I suppose. Anyone care to invest in that bet?

The National Weather Service reported known favorable conditions for development of tornadoes in Moore, Oklahoma and other areas days in advance of the actual deadly EF-5 tornado that killed 24 in Moore. TORCON readings were 6 of 10.

No, weather is not a guess. Yes, I would invest at 60% accuracy.

[Al_U_Card]

 Winstonm, on 2013-June-02, 11:48, said:

The National Weather Service reported known favorable conditions for development of tornadoes in Moore, Oklahoma and other areas days in advance of the actual deadly EF-5 tornado that killed 24 in Moore. TORCON readings were 6 of 10.

No, weather is not a guess. Yes, I would invest at 60% accuracy.

EXACTLY right, Winston. Those predictions (and not projections) can be verified and they come up with some kind of success. (Especially for nominal weather conditions.) The specifics of cyclonic formation and other special types of weather are more problematic and variable.

So, how are the CAGW-[CO2] projections faring? How about 5% (and headed outside of even that confidence interval)? Were they to be even close to a 66% (1 sigma) then the models would have to do without their proposed multiplicative effect of the real GHG (water vapor) and there would be NO catastrophe. But that would generate neither interest nor money so that is a big IPCC no-no.