Arctic scientist under investigation

[kimmielittle]

Proof once again that radical enviromentalism has little to do with “saving” the planet and much to do with using a bogus crisis to advance the far left wing political aagenda.

AGW has nothing to do with saving the environment.

I have invited, many times, for evidence that AGW OR it’s schemes are actually environmentally linked OR even environmentally sound practices.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Environmentalists were Not remotelly “Unanimous” in any such bizarre allegations, nor were any responsible Scientists. Every State this Summer already has broken Heat records: ABC News August 15. Alaska to Florida; Severe Droughts and Record Tornadoes also: Signs of Early Global Warming. Let’s stop the false Spin here.

Some folks tracked back the Texas climate and found that extreme drought cycles are and have been normal … going back to the 1400’s.

Read all about it.

nytimes.com/2011/08/14/opinion/sunday/as-texas-dries-out-life-falters-and-fades.html?_r=1

Normal. Not fun. But still part of the normal cycle of droughts.

You don’t have to like it. Just recognize it as part of the normal weather / climate cycle.

 

[PPeterson]

Some folks tracked back the Texas climate and found that extreme drought cycles are and have been normal … going back to the 1400’s.

Read all about it.

nytimes.com/2011/08/14/opinion/sunday/as-texas-dries-out-life-falters-and-fades.html?_r=1

Normal. Not fun. But still part of the normal cycle of droughts.

You don’t have to like it. Just recognize it as part of the normal weather / climate cycle.

might want to read the article you posted again all the way to the end lol.

 

[kimmielittle]

might want to read the article you posted again all the way to the end lol.

The paper referred to within that article One thing I’ve learned… is to actually investigate the papers referenced - before claiming it ] …is The Seager et al 2007 paper.

They have misled policymakers on the reality of how the climate system behaves, as illustrated in the new McNabe et al 2010 paper.

Gregory J. McCabe

U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado, USA

David R. Legates

Office of the State Climatologist, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, USA

Harry F. Lins

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, USA

Daily precipitation from 22 National Weather Service first‐order weather stations in the southwestern United States for water years 1951 through 2006 are used to examine variability and trends in the frequency of dry days and dry event length. Dry events with minimum thresholds of 10 and 20 consecutive days of precipitation with less than 2.54 mm are analyzed. For water years and cool seasons (October through March), most sites indicate negative trends in dry event length (i.e., dry event durations are becoming shorter). For the warm season (April through September), most sites also indicate negative trends; however, more sites indicate positive trends in dry event length for the warm season than for water years or cool seasons. The larger number of sites indicating positive trends in dry event length during the warm season is due to a series of dry warm seasons near the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century. Overall, a large portion of the variability in dry event length is attributable to variability of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation, especially for water years and cool seasons.** Our results are consistent with analyses of trends in discharge for sites in the southwestern United States, an increased frequency in El Niño events, and positive trends in precipitation in the southwestern United States.**

Citation: G. J. McCabe, D. R. Legates, and H. F. Lins (2010), Variability and trends in dry day frequency and dry event length in the southwestern United States, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D07108, doi:10.1029/2009JD012866.

bolding mine ]

The dominance of the regional climate feature of ENSO, as reported in the McNabe et al 2010 paper, further documents why the use of a global average surface temperature trend (or global average radiative forcing) is a grossly inadequate metric to diagnose climate variability and change.

.

pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/08/30/new-paper-on-climate-variability-and-trends-in-the-southwest-usa-by-mccabe-et-al-2010/

Reality is: droughts in the Southwest are caused by La Niña, the weather pattern involving cooling of waters in the Pacific, which pushes warm, dry air inland, shifting the rains away from Texas, New Mexico and Arizona.

Maybe, we should actually study …BEFORE we buy the kool-ade claims???

 

[kimmielittle]

The Conclusion of the McCabe et al report reads:

The conclusion contains the text

Little evidence of long‐term positive trends in dry event length in the southwestern United States is apparent in the analysis of daily WBAN precipitation data. During the mid‐1990s to late 1990s, drought conditions began in the southwestern United States and persisted in the 21st century. This drought has resulted in positive trends in dry event length for some sites in the southwestern United States. However, most of the statistically significant trends in the number of dry days and dry event length are negative trends for water years and cool seasons.

In addition, correlation and spectral analyses indicate that a substantial portion of the variability in dry event characteristics in the southwestern United States is attributable to ENSO variability, particularly for water years and cool seasons. Since the mid‐1970s, El Niño events have been more frequent, and this has resulted in increased precipitation in the southwestern United States, particularly during the cool season. The increased precipitation is associated with a decrease in the number of dry days and a decrease in dry event length.

pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/08/30/new-paper-on-climate-variability-and-trends-in-the-southwest-usa-by-mccabe-et-al-2010/

 

[ringil]

You guys know that nobody is talking about this right?

 

[kimmielittle]

You guys know that nobody is talking about this right?

You do realize WE are…don’t you?

And according to Google and CAF - it is being read

 

[ringil]

A pretty teenie tiny slice of the US public then.

 

[kimmielittle]

A pretty teenie tiny slice of the US public then.

Yes, we’ve included you

Back to our discussions

 

[AntalKalnoky]

It would help if you learned how to link your references…Please do so.

I don’t have the time to reference Every Factual Citation, nor do you validly.

ABSOLUTELY…Try referencing your claims, please.

It is because we are experiencing ENSO cycles.
These are Obviously no ENSO Cycles, being All Time High temperature Records in Every State.

Like in Texas?

If This is what you are referencing, maybe a bit of history?
Look up the drought of 1930;s - 1950’s…1990’s…etc.

kcautv.com/story/15264572/drought-recalls-long-punishing-dry-spell-of-1950s

Then look up ENSO records

cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml

esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/enso.different.html

library.thinkquest.org/18424/Weather.html

When we actually start to study the environment…We find, to EVERYTHING there ia a cycle.

When we realize that…we can stop with pseudo-science unproven claims…

YES, The unproven hypothesis of AGW is a pseudo-science soft science ] Just as religion. It fails Mr Poppers falsifiability test of science.

• Exactly the Opposite: It is All Hard Science, agreed to worldwide, and every Nation, including the Vatican going Green energy independent. We Are Begining Global Warming: all early Signs Prove. The CO2 Content in the global air is shown Beyond Natural Recovery, and is Logarithmic Increase. ( I don’t have Time to look up the Numerous References I’ve seen, not rebutted, in 20 years.)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

It is the Next few Centuries Increasing Global Damges. We have Responsibility to Protect Against, "Cheaply" now.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

(A Few Links, hopefully, at 3:35 AM EDT; Am Very busy Natioally/Locally, and have Cheapest Basic PC; had trouble providing Links.) NASA on Climate Change overview, from GW Bush 2007 Era: climate.change/climate.nasa.gov.com

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Newswithnumbers.com/2009/06/01 : Al Gore’s Numbers, Graphs Proven Correct. www.seekingtruth.co.uk/climate_change.htm: ICCSP Data Correct!.

                                                                                                                        climate.nasa.gov

                                                                                                                     You    didn't get them all, either  Kimmie  :)   But then your  just a  "student";  I'm trying to learn  PC Basics, on Most Basic PC.  :hey_bud::egyptian:

 

[kimmielittle]

Newswithnumbers.com/2009/06/01 : Al Gore’s Numbers, Graphs Proven Correct.

I take it that you agree with Mr Gore’s Graphs?

If I agree with Mr Gore’s graphs…I’ve thrown CO2 out the window as the Main Driver of Climate.

You see, Mr Gore won’t tell you this…but by using his graphs shows CO2 lags Temperature rise by 800 years.

If CO2 is the Main driver of climate Temperature would rise WITH CO2 Rise…But Temperature Rises before CO2

Because it turns out that there is an 800-year lag between temperature and carbon dioxide, unlike the sense conveyed by Mr. Gore’s graph. You are probably wondering by now – and if you are not, you should be – which rises first, carbon dioxide or temperature. The answer? Temperature. In every case, the ice-core data shows that temperature rises precede rises in carbon dioxide by, on average, 800 years. In fact, the relationship is not “complicated.” When the ocean-atmosphere system warms, the oceans discharge vast quantities of carbon dioxide in a process known as de-gassing. For this reason, warm and cold years show up on the Mauna Loa C02 measurements even in the short term. For instance, the post-Pinatubo-eruption year of 1993 shows the lowest C02 increase since measurements have been kept. When did the highest C02 increase take place? During the super El Niño year of 1998.

It’s just one inconvenient truth.

I can give many links to this but here is two.

huffingtonpost.com/harold-ambler/mr-gore-apology-accepted_b_154982.html

wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/

It should also be noted…MR Gore refuses to explain this…For that matter, He refuses to debate about anything he’s presented.

.

You didn’t get them all, either Kimmie But then your just a “student”;

Albeit I am a student…I’m well versed in what is presented by IPCC and AGW’ers AND the actual “sciences” behind the claims.

I’m trying to learn PC Basics, on Most Basic PC. :hey_bud::egyptian:

I appreciate you trying to link to what you are referencing. Thank you

You do know that IPCC got 21 F’s on their claims of being fully peer-reviewed? Many Scientists etc have called for a complete overhaul of the IPCC process.

EVEN Environmentalist such as Jeff Price of the World Wildlife Federation.

motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/02/reforming-ipcc

nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7282/full/463730a.html

 

[Monte_RCMS]

might want to read the article you posted again all the way to the end lol.

I reread it.

What is your point?

That there is a large body of work and it all points to routine and normal drought cycles?

That the current drought is current news?

That there is no new news contradicting the 2007 report or any of the cyclical drought studies?

I know you want to be cute and sarcastic … but you need to know how to do science.

Sorry, but there isn’t any good news on the horizon.

 

[kimmielittle]

Exactly the Opposite: It is All Hard Science, agreed to worldwide, and every Nation,

Actually no…AGW requires a belief in the hypothesis. Religion also requires a belief.

A soft science, by definition, cannot be settled. Its conclusions are ultimately a matter of belief.

Albeit…it incorporates HARD Sciences…e.g Physics…Math…etc…AGW can not pass Mr Poppers falsifiability test for a hard science.

including the Vatican going Green energy independent.

Well yes, That is called Good Stewardship…BUT Good stewardship is independent of a belief in AGW

We Are Begining Global Warming: all early Signs Prove.

Actually no. We have proof that Climate is changing. We do not have proof of AGW.

The CO2 Content in the global air is shown Beyond Natural Recovery,

Would you care to explain?

To the consternation of global warming proponents,] the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today 4400 ppm.

According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

Or For example, during the Jurassic Period 200 mya ], average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm – about 18 times higher than today.

HOW DID they recover if not Naturally???

IN fact:The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

I take it that you agree with Mr Gore’s Graphs?

If I agree with Mr Gore’s graphs…I’ve thrown CO2 out the window as the Main Driver of Climate.

You see, Mr Gore won’t tell you this…but by using his graphs shows CO2 lags Temperature rise by 800 years.

If CO2 is the Main driver of climate Temperature would rise WITH CO2 Rise…But Temperature Rises before CO2

It’s just one inconvenient truth.

I can give many links to this but here is two.

huffingtonpost.com/harold-ambler/mr-gore-apology-accepted_b_154982.html

wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/

It should also be noted…MR Gore refuses to explain this…For that matter, He refuses to debate about anything he’s presented.

.
Albeit I am a student…I’m well versed in what is presented by IPCC and AGW’ers AND the actual “sciences” behind the claims.

I appreciate you trying to link to what you are referencing. Thank you

You do know that IPCC got 21 F’s on their claims of being fully peer-reviewed? Many Scientists etc have called for a complete overhaul of the IPCC process.

EVEN Environmentalist such as Jeff Price of the World Wildlife Federation.

motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/02/reforming-ipcc

nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7282/full/463730a.html

(1) It is Science, the Scientific Community that Agrees with Gore’s Graphs, which are From Science Data. (2) CO2 is Not the driver of Climate; There are Many factors in Climate. It is the Proven Percent of CO2 in the Air for 600,000 years that clearly shows a Sharp Rise in CO2 during the last 200 years to now Irreparably high levels, and rising Logarithmically ever more rapidly. We are in the early stages of Global Warming Disaster for 2 Centuries from now; Able to Slow the Rise, as the World Except the USa is trying to do. Science and Scientific Data don’t Lie or spin; only those trying to prove it wrong do. Gore was Preciselly Correct, Proven and Known.

The proper term is Global Warming, Not the incorrect ‘climate change’. Is every country and the Vatican wrong in trying to Prevent Global Warming, except the USA?

 

[kimmielittle]

(1) It is Science, the Scientific Community that Agrees with Gore’s Graphs, which are From Science Data. (2) CO2 is Not the driver of Climate; There are Many factors in Climate. It is the Proven Percent of CO2 in the Air for 600,000 years that clearly shows a Sharp Rise in CO2 during the last 200 years to now Irreparably high levels, and rising Logarithmically ever more rapidly. We are in the early stages of Global Warming Disaster for 2 Centuries from now; Able to Slow the Rise, as the World Except the USa is trying to do. Science and Scientific Data don’t Lie or spin; only those trying to prove it wrong do. Gore was Preciselly Correct, Proven and Known.

The proper term is Global Warming, Not the incorrect ‘climate change’. Is every country and the Vatican wrong in trying to Prevent Global Warming, except the USA?

First and foremost - Remember CO2 is not climate…it is gas. In other words, We can reduce the gas and not touch the Climate…

When Mr Gore does these 5 things then you might have a case

This is what you need to prove the claims of AGW IPCC

TACKLE THESE FIRST

To prove human production of carbon dioxide caused global warming, the following would need to be observed:

1:Sustained unusually high global atmospheric temperatures; WITH,

2:Ongoing rising global atmospheric temperatures; WITH,

3:Clear evidence that carbon dioxide raises Earth’s global atmospheric temperature;
WITH,

4:Clear evidence that human production of carbon dioxide controls global
atmospheric CO2 levels; WITH,

5:Clear evidence that warmer temperatures are catastrophic.

ALL FIVE HAVE TO BE PROVEN TO PROVE THE CLAIMS OF AGW AND CO2 IS THE MAIN DRIVER OF CLIMATE.

NO ONE…NOT IPCC…NOT ANYONE has made even one of these evidences - let alone connecting Two to each other.

This would result in empirical observational evidence.

Can you give us evidence of being able to LOWER temperatures even 1C ?

If not…WHAT are we preventing.

Temperature rises 400 -800 years ahead of CO2 rise. I gave you links ]

Now let’sask the question…Just how many IPCC reviewers signed AR4 Chapter 9 saying Global warming is caused by man…?

** 5 FIVE ** people. Read the AR4 Chapter 9

 

[kimmielittle]

as the World Except the USa is trying to do.

Actually wrong…MANY countries have abandoned Koyoto

Science and Scientific Data don’t Lie or spin; only those trying to prove it wrong do. Gore was Preciselly Correct, Proven and Known.

First off AGW lives in MODELS.
The Data supporting it LIVES in Models

And contrary to belief - Models have not proved AGW

Sooooo Mr Gore has not been proven correct - as a matter of fact a UK court ruled against his facts.

The ruling came on a challenge from a UK school official who did not want to show the film to students. High Court Judge Michael Burton said that the film is “substantially founded upon scientific research and fact” but that the errors were made in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration.”

Here is just One

Mr Gore

The report mentions the possibility that there may be an unquantified further contribution in future from these two ice sheets arising from “dynamical ice flow.”

Is this true?

REMEMBER you said this:

Gore was Preciselly Correct, Proven and Known.

Mr Gore said this

Gore says that in each of the last four interglacial warm periods it was changes in carbon dioxide concentration that caused changes in temperature.

Is this true?

 

[PPeterson]

I reread it.

I know you want to be cute and sarcastic … but you need to know how to do science.

your argument:

the article proves everything is totally normal and part of natural cycles.

what it actually says:

"But the future, sadly, is likely to be worse than the past. “Texas is going to get hotter and drier,” said Malcolm Cleaveland, a professor at the University of Arkansas who led the researchers. Indeed, rainfall modeling shows that rising temperatures and more arid conditions over the last few decades are likely to increase in the 21st century.

According to a paper published in Science in 2007, “Droughts will become the new climatology of the American Southwest within a time frame of years to decades.” Rain will become more rare and it will evaporate more quickly, making the megadroughts of old look like periodic dry spells. And it will be in part thanks to increased carbon emissions, a fact that Texas will have a hard time confronting."

My impression:

I would have agreed that my ability to “do science” is fairly weak. But, if (mis)reading the opinion page and is doing science i’m decent at that.

 

[Wolseley]

Newswithnumbers.com/2009/06/01 : Al Gore’s Numbers, Graphs Proven Correct. www.seekingtruth.co.uk/climate_change.htm: ICCSP Data Correct!.

                                                                                                                        climate.nasa.gov

                                                                                                                     You    didn't get them all, either  Kimmie  :)   But then your  just a  "student";  I'm trying to learn  PC Basics, on Most Basic PC.  :hey_bud::egyptian:

Al Gore did not invent the Internet. He invented Global Warming.