Is Manmade Global Warming Real?

[lynnvinc]

The greater flooding that ensued was merely variations that are common in short term climate. It’s no different than having a string of years that are snowy in the north followed by a string of years with little snow. BTW…after those floods…a drought occurred. It all balances out.

Who is the person that was fired? I have a hard time believing that you could be fired from the NWS for expressing an opinion. I work for the NWS…for 21 years.

Sorry to say but both greater flooding (esp in higher latitudes) and greater droughts are projected with AGW. That’s bec warmer air sucks up moisture from the land and plants, desiccating these (also leading to greater wildfire risk), AND causes greater precip events – like Morton Salt, when it rains, it pours. So (as our NWS weatherman who gave the talk said and I’ve read this other places) you can have floods even during official droughts. In fact worldwide it is expected there will be greater precip events, not less. Here is something to help that just came out: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation - ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/

The NWS man in question is Pat Newman. I believe he filed a case and did get his pension, but I’m not sure.

Anyway to be on the safe side, don’t mention the “CC” word. You are right to be skeptical of it, if you want to ensure you have a pension.

 

[lynnvinc]

I’ve tried and tried to get you to actually read - what you link to - in what you think supports your argument

Did you actually READ it?

IN CHAPTER 4.

Quote:
“There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change”

Quote:
“The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados”

Quote:
“The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses”

It The report ] even takes care of tying up a loose end that has allowed some commentators to avoid the scientific literature…

The last statement by the OFFICAL IPCC… Kinda puts Stefan Rahmstorf’s latest Alarmist Claims book you peddle, in deep question.

And your point???

It takes a long time and arduous studies to finally be able to attribute increased weather events to GW (and single events cannot be attributed to AGW, since climate =/ weather, but is the statistical sum of weather).

However, scientists have pretty good cause to project that increased warming will lead to increased floods, etc. Not just from glacier melt, but also warmer air causes more evaporation and holds more water vapor, which can come down in deluges and blizzards (during colder times of the year). This is pretty much accepted in the scientific community, and most also understand GW could lead to more intense storms under certain weather conditions – the old heat → kinetic energy thing.

Another thing that is not in the report, but is a possibility, is that GW may be causing greater negative arctic oscillations – bringing killing freezes into subtropical areas (like mine), destroying winter crops, like the $billion loss in N. Mexico from such a neg AO a couple of years ago. This is not at the level of sci certainty, but why in the name of our Lord would we want to risk destroying crops in Mexico? Better to turn off one little light not in use than to take a totally know-nothing, do-nothing stance.

 

[lynnvinc]

he said she said hesaid she said while the world burns

 

[adoglover1956]

Sorry to say but both greater flooding (esp in higher latitudes) and greater droughts are projected with AGW. That’s bec warmer air sucks up moisture from the land and plants, desiccating these (also leading to greater wildfire risk), AND causes greater precip events – like Morton Salt, when it rains, it pours. So (as our NWS weatherman who gave the talk said and I’ve read this other places) you can have floods even during official droughts. In fact worldwide it is expected there will be greater precip events, not less. Here is something to help that just came out: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation - ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/

The NWS man in question is Pat Newman. I believe he filed a case and did get his pension, but I’m not sure.

Anyway to be on the safe side, don’t mention the “CC” word. You are right to be skeptical of it, if you want to ensure you have a pension.

I’m sorry. There is nothing but conjecture to what you are saying. As a meteorologist over 30 I believe I do have some idea of how weather and climate works. What is happening now is nothing but normal climate variation. I don’t mean to be snark at all…but I will stick to my beliefs which are held by a majority of mets and climatologists in the field.

BTW…my kudos to Kimmielittle for actually taking the time to support her position with references.

And you might want to check out this non-governmental agency on climate change. The members far outway the PAID members of the AGW crowd.

Another good website is: www.icecap.us

peace

 

[adoglover1956]

sustainabletruth.blogspot.com/2009/11/scare-is-over.html

The above is from the NGIPCC. A much more reasonable and scientific approach. As a meteorologist I know once said:

The only scientists that believe in AGW are those whose pockets it’s lining.

 

[adoglover1956]

he said she said hesaid she said while the world burns

Howdy…

I’m trying to do some research on Pat Neuman. He worked for the North Central River Forecast Center. I know he is a hydrologist not a meteorologist. I’m not sure why he would have run into such trouble. He was supported by President Bush. If he was on private time making a private presentation (in otherwords outside government time) and indicated that he was representing the NWS…that would be a problem.

The world ain’t burning as many would seem to thing. BTW…the greatest drought in American history was the dust blow years. That was at the very beginning of the industrial revolution and nothing has ever compared to it since.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

he said she said hesaid she said while the world burns

Well you are the biggest one-note trumpet in the orchestra…

But no, the world isn’t burning. If it ever does, it will be due to that giant yellow orb we call our sun.

 

[lynnvinc]

You call it a “hack” …funny no police agency has. They were definitely “released”…but unless you are FOIA

Those emails not hacked??? I’m beginning to wonder…

I’m a “dog with a bone” in the AGW issue bec I’m concerned with reducing my harm to life on earth and hope others would be too. I focus on avoiding the false negative, so I consider much of the science too timid (false-positive avoiding that it is), so I have my own critique of the scientists and science.

But why would someone who is not invested in fossil fuels in some way twist every detail to the opposite side? ((I even own a small part of a gas well, but that doesn’t make me want to twist everything to fit some illicit smear campaign against climate scientists.))

Unless, of course, one fears turning off lights not in use will lead to communist-atheist-neopagan takeover, as many conspiracy theory AGW skeptics fear.

Since the science on AGW is pretty good and robust now, the only tactic left is to impugn the scientists…kill the messengers.

I’m thinking of the story about the man who fled from Death only to meet Death in the town he fled to.

 

[adoglover1956]

Those emails not hacked??? I’m beginning to wonder…

I’m a “dog with a bone” in the AGW issue bec I’m concerned with reducing my harm to life on earth and hope others would be too. I focus on avoiding the false negative, so I consider much of the science too timid (false-positive avoiding that it is), so I have my own critique of the scientists and science.

But why would someone who is not invested in fossil fuels in some way twist every detail to the opposite side? ((I even own a small part of a gas well, but that doesn’t make me want to twist everything to fit some illicit smear campaign against climate scientists.))

Unless, of course, one fears turning off lights not in use will lead to communist-atheist-neopagan takeover, as many conspiracy theory AGW skeptics fear.

**Since the science on AGW is pretty good and robust now, the only tactic left is to impugn the scientists…kill the messengers.
**
I’m thinking of the story about the man who fled from Death only to meet Death in the town he fled to.

It is not a robust science. You are partisan and refuse to investigate the countering scientist. Oh well…ya just can’t convince liberals to seek the truth.

 

[kimmielittle]

And your point???

.

My Point would be obvious…IF you read the caveats in Chapter 4

Read the report,…it’s pretty simple to understand.

Repeating:

IN CHAPTER 4.

:
“There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have** not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change”**

:
"The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados"

:
“The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for** flood** losses”

NONE of your CAGW alarmist Claims are supported…After 30+ years of investigation.

 

[lynnvinc]

The only scientists that believe in AGW are those whose pockets it’s lining.

You’re so right on that. I’ve saving $1000s from mitigating AGW, and laughing all the way to the bank. I really feel for those poor skeptics who much prefer to go totally bankrupt than lift a tiny finger to mitigate. The ego is mightier than the dollar.

 

[adoglover1956]

You’re so right on that. I’ve saving $1000s from mitigating AGW, and laughing all the way to the bank. I really feel for those poor skeptics who much prefer to go totally bankrupt than lift a tiny finger to mitigate. The ego is mightier than the dollar.

Ah…so you do fit the profile. Perhaps you can share you secrets. That’s the Christian thing to do.

 

[kimmielittle]

Those emails not hacked???

If you bothered to read the Climategate emails and how some treated others WITHIN the crowd…AND the knowledge that Freedom of Information Act requests were being illegally withheld…They could have been “released” easier than hacked - by an “insider” - “whistle blower”.

The point I’m making…YOU don’t know they were hacked…neither does Mann…etc.

 

[lynnvinc]

Howdy…

I’m trying to do some research on Pat Neuman. He worked for the North Central River Forecast Center. I know he is a hydrologist not a meteorologist. I’m not sure why he would have run into such trouble. He was supported by President Bush. If he was on private time making a private presentation (in otherwords outside government time) and indicated that he was representing the NWS…that would be a problem.

Yes, I think that’s the same person. Perhaps Bush supported him after he had pressed his lawsuit or made the issue public. I vaguely remember him saying he had written to Bush, and that’s really great that the prez listened and felt compassion. I don’t even know if he’s still alive, but if you get a hold of him, he can tell you his story more clearly.

I’d still suggest that gov workers be a bit careful about bandying about the CC word (unless it’s to express skepticism), just to be on the safe side. Luckily I’m not in the physical sciences, so I can talk about it more openly. ((The phys sci at our U are heavily funded by xxx, xxx, & xxx, and I don’t even want to get them in trouble.))

 

[kimmielittle]

You’re so right on that. I’ve saving $1000s from mitigating AGW, and laughing all the way to the bank. I really feel for those poor skeptics who much prefer to go totally bankrupt than lift a tiny finger to mitigate. The ego is mightier than the dollar.

Your electricity from Green Mountain is at least $0,04 kWh more than mine…

Don’t worry yourself about my very healthy economics

 

[kimmielittle]

BTW…my kudos to Kimmielittle for actually taking the time to support her position with references.

Thank you

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Those emails not hacked??? I’m beginning to wonder…

I’m a “dog with a bone” in the AGW issue bec I’m concerned with reducing my harm to life on earth and hope others would be too. I focus on avoiding the false negative, so I consider much of the science too timid (false-positive avoiding that it is), so I have my own critique of the scientists and science.

But why would someone who is not invested in fossil fuels in some way twist every detail to the opposite side? **((I even own a small part of a gas well, but that doesn’t make me want to twist everything to fit some illicit smear campaign against climate scientists.))
**
Unless, of course, one fears turning off lights not in use will lead to communist-atheist-neopagan takeover, as many conspiracy theory AGW skeptics fear.

Since the science on AGW is pretty good and robust now, the only tactic left is to impugn the scientists…kill the messengers.

I’m thinking of the story about the man who fled from Death only to meet Death in the town he fled to.

You are part of the evil carbon fuel conglomerate!!!



I could say “hypocrite” right now…You are getting profits off an industry you are screaming about…

 

[adoglover1956]

Yes, I think that’s the same person. Perhaps Bush supported him after he had pressed his lawsuit or made the issue public. I vaguely remember him saying he had written to Bush, and that’s really great that the prez listened and felt compassion. I don’t even know if he’s still alive, but if you get a hold of him, he can tell you his story more clearly.

I’d still suggest that gov workers be a bit careful about bandying about the CC word (unless it’s to express skepticism), just to be on the safe side. Luckily I’m not in the physical sciences, so I can talk about it more openly. ((The phys sci at our U are heavily funded by xxx, xxx, & xxx, and I don’t even want to get them in trouble.))

I understand. And I hope you the smiling and winking are indicative of joking around sarcasm on my part.

 

[lynnvinc]

BTW…my kudos to Kimmielittle for actually taking the time to support her position with references.

You mean for taking the time to copy and paste #$%&# ('cuse my profanity) from her favorite denialist sites: see google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22There+is+medium+evidence+and+high+agreement%22+%22The+statement+about+the+absence+of+trends%22+%22The+absence+of+an+attributable+climate+change%22&oq=%22There+is+medium+evidence+and+high+agreement%22+%22The+statement+about+the+absence+of+trends%22+%22The+absence+of+an+attributable+climate+change%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=hp.12…24326l64504l3l65815l5l2l0l0l0l0l110l219l0j2l2l0.frgbld.&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=50aeccfec5fc8449&biw=1406&bih=818

You’ll find a plethora of denialist sites that quote exactly what Kimmie was quoting.

Coincidence?

Here is the homework problem for the day. Figure out what the odds are that each of these site’s moderators independently read all 594 pp of that report that just came out recently and happened upon those exact same quotes.

Those who figure it correctly get 594 indulgences or a free pass to heaven

 

[kimmielittle]

You mean for taking the time to copy and paste #$%&# ('cuse my profanity) from her favorite denialist sites: see google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22There+is+medium+evidence+and+high+agreement%22+%22The+statement+about+the+absence+of+trends%22+%22The+absence+of+an+attributable+climate+change%22&oq=%22There+is+medium+evidence+and+high+agreement%22+%22The+statement+about+the+absence+of+trends%22+%22The+absence+of+an+attributable+climate+change%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=hp.12…24326l64504l3l65815l5l2l0l0l0l0l110l219l0j2l2l0.frgbld.&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=50aeccfec5fc8449&biw=1406&bih=818

You’ll find a plethora of denialist sites that quote exactly what Kimmie was quoting.

Coincidence?

Here is the homework problem for the day. Figure out what the odds are that each of these site’s moderators independently read all 594 pp of that report that just came out recently and happened upon those exact same quotes.

Those who figure it correctly get 594 indulgences or a free pass to heaven

Well you don’t get a free pass…

They say the same because they are DIRECT QUOTES from Chapter 4

THATS why I put them in little quote boxes

Quote:<<<<< SEE THIS WORD

“There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change”

Quote::

“The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados”

Quote::

“The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses”

SEE the " marks around them"

It works that way when you directly quote from a source.

ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/

AND THIS IS WHERE I D/L THIS MASSIVE
ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-All_FINAL.pdf

So much for your scientific research

In charity, I’ll accept your apology.