T
Theo520
Guest
Karen, where is your evidence that there is some ‘tipping point’ after which 'the damage is irreversible’?
Everything I’ve read indicates this line of thinking is alarmist pseudoscience.
- Status
Everything I’ve read indicates this line of thinking is alarmist pseudoscience.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Actually both of those conditions – extreme snowfall//blizzards and unusual freezes may both be due to GW.
Warmer air sucks up and holds more water vapor (evaporation) – causing droughts in some areas, but overall causing more precipitation, esp in the latitudes closer to the poles. This precipitation can come down as rain, hail, or snow depending on the temperatures at the time of the precip. This is a well-established impact of GW.
Not as well established, but gaining more scientific support, is that GW is causing more Rossby waves that linger longer. This is when instead of a more typical west-to-east weather pattern (for northern & mid-latitudes) it shifts to a wobbly pattern (like a pot on a potter’s wheel gone bad) – some areas south-to-north, bringing warmer weather to the arctic, and some areas north-to-south, bringing cold arctic weather southward…also connected to the “arctic express,” “Nor’easter,” and “negative arctic oscillations.”
Without GW these do occur sometimes, but recent research suggests GW is making this happen more frequently with longer, deeper, more lingering patterns.
Here is a post that explains the various studies re this (references below), focusing on a recent on (2014): “Rossby waves and surface weather extremes” at realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/07/rossby-waves-and-surface-weather-extremes/
“they find that amplified quasi-stationary waves ‘increase probabilities of heat waves in western North America and central Asia, cold outbreaks in eastern North America, droughts in central North America, Europe and central Asia and wet spells in western Asia.’”
Here is another article that explains it - “Stratospheric Phenomenon Is Bringing Frigid Cold to U.S.” at climatecentral.org/news/stratospheric-phenomenon-is-bringing-frigid-cold-to-us-15479
Here’s an image for Rossby waves:
• J.A. Francis, and S.J. Vavrus, “Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes”, Geophys. Res. Lett., vol. 39, pp. n/a-n/a, 2012. dx.doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051000
• E.A. Barnes, “Revisiting the evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in midlatitudes”, Geophys. Res. Lett., vol. 40, pp. 4734-4739, 2013. dx.doi.org/10.1002/grl.50880
• V. Petoukhov, S. Rahmstorf, S. Petri, and H.J. Schellnhuber, “Quasiresonant amplification of planetary waves and recent Northern Hemisphere weather extremes”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 110, pp. 5336-5341, 2013. dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1222000110
• J.A. Screen, and I. Simmonds, “Amplified mid-latitude planetary waves favour particular regional weather extremes”, Nature Climate change, vol. 4, pp. 704-709, 2014. dx.doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE2271
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Good chart. Now take that 23% for China and divide it by 3.6 (as if China had now divided into 3.6 nations) and you’ll get a better sense of per capital comparison between China and the U.S., since China has 3.6 times the pop of the U.S.
Not to mention that a lot of China’s CO2 emissions are actually the America’s, since we buy so many products from China. “You buy it, you own it.”
K
Karen107
Guest
It really makes common sense… When you destroy the habitat it can’t be brought back because it becomes an unfavorable environment for things to regenerate because you’ve destroyed the ecosystems.
Someone spoke of plankton as absorbing CO2 and emitting O2. Well if you destroy the plankton due to warm acidic waters, hows that going to absorb CO2 for the earth to be regenerated? How will the fish survive without the plankton and on and on… things will die and they wont come back, like what’s happening to the rain forests which are becoming vast dry Savannah made inhabitable for humans or animals to live. .
pulseheadlines.com/scientists-predict-dire-consequences-oceans-due-global-warming/2547/
With the oceans providing billions in goods and services each year, the migration or elimination of species can potentially have a massive impact on the world economy. Moreover, if the oceans can no longer absorb carbon dioxide, it will remain in the air we breathe altering the levels of the various gases in our atmosphere, including oxygen.
npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99888903
If we continue with business as usual for even a few more decades, she says, those emissions could be enough to create permanent dust-bowl conditions in the U.S. Southwest and around the Mediterranean.
“The sea level rise is a much slower thing, so it will take a long time to happen, but we will lock into it, based on the peak level of [carbon dioxide] we reach in this century,” Solomon says.
God has given us such a beautiful fruitful place to live so why wouldn’t we try to preserve it the way God intended? What comes to my mind is what Jesus warns us about in scientific terms.
Matthew 5:13 "You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
The cows in India are pretty small and scrawny – I doubt they would be producing as much CH4 as American cows (maybe about a 3rd as much), not to mention that the manure there is used for cooking, plastering (the phenol in it is an antiseptic), fertilizer, the leather for shoes & other leather goods, and the ashes from cooking with cow pies for toothpaste
Bullocks are used for plowing, transportation, and thrashing (off-setting I.C.E. vehicle use).
Just a warning, you’d better not pick up someone else’s cow pie there or you can get into trouble for theft
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Here’s something that may help: “Johan Rockstrom: Let the environment guide our development” ted.com/talks/view/lang/en//id/945
There are plenty of examples from the past that this could be our future. “Systems do have multiple stable states separated by thresholds…and could tip over (change states) and end up in an undesired situation” not hospitable to human life on earth.
Now that didn’t mean that life didn’t rebound in millions of years after the near extinction of all life on earth during the end-Permian great warming. It obviously did. But the harms to life were exceedingly high, and in our era, it’s just not nice to kill off a huge portion of human life (and other’s of God’s creatures) over the next 100s and 1000s of years from AGW and other environmental impacts.
Of course, we won’t be alive then so they can’t sue or prosecute us. I guess that’s what y’all are counting on. And no one really believes in heaven or hell anymore. Right?
So no problem to our selfish little selves.
T
Theo520
Guest
Your desperation is showing, how you resort to maligning Indian cowsThe cows in India are pretty small and scrawny – I doubt they would be producing as much CH4 as American cows (maybe about a 3rd as much), not to mention that the manure there is used for cooking, plastering (the phenol in it is an antiseptic), fertilizer, the leather for shoes & other leather goods, and the ashes from cooking with cow pies for toothpaste
Bullocks are used for plowing, transportation, and thrashing (off-setting I.C.E. vehicle use).
Just a warning, you’d better not pick up someone else’s cow pie there or you can get into trouble for theft
, Just admit Karen was wrong in insisting US cows are the top methane producers.India has almost twice the US number of cows, then there is Brazil. Also, farmers in the US don’t waste their cow excrement.
K
Karen107
Guest
That’s not what I said. And the cows are only a part of what causes CO2 emissions. Just look at the pie diagram above! The US tops India and Brazil in emitting CO2. The difference between India and US related to cows is our lifestyle. Hindi consider cows as sacred animals worthy of protection whereas the US has an unhealthy meat heavy diet so we slaughter the cow before they even have time to populate as heavy as in India.Your desperation is showing, how you resort to maligning Indian cows
**
India has almost twice the US number of cows, then there is Brazil. Also, farmers in the US don’t waste their cow excrement.
T
Theo520
Guest
Karen, read your post again, you were very clear the US was the worst offender for emissions. When I corrected you, you asked for evidence and I provided it.
I never said the US wasn’t a major contributor, so you can stop making that case and changing the parameters of comparison.
K
Karen107
Guest
Yes I am very clear that the US is the worse offender for emissions per capita.
Well, it’s not me who’s changing the parameters its you. I talked about all the things causing CO2 gas, you limited it to cows.
You said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theo520 View Post
Karen, you need to break out of your strawman bubble and join the real world.
China does produce more CO2, and both China and India each have almost double the US population of cows.
Where’s your info that proves that? I was talking about CO2 gases.
First of all China doesn’t have more cows than the US and India has less CO2 emissions than the US per the pie chart diagram. . Now I will admit I was wrong about the number of cows in the US is less than India or Brazil but you better admit that CO2 is a major problem here in the US, moreso than these countries which have more cows. lol I cant help it but this is getting so wacked out I can’t help but laugh. That is the same thing with science. People who are not scientists are criss crossing numbers and finding ways to discredit certain scientists over others to try and prove that these things aren’t happening when in fact they are! The fact is that the US is a main contributor to global warming and climate change and I think you agree with me.! That’s what started this whole dialogue didn’t you see that before you went for a rebuttal?!!
T
Theo520
Guest
Karen,
You said China was a distant second to the USA in contributing to global warming. I showed you they contributed more CO2, which your climate scientists insist is the primary control knob driving global warming.
You also said the US was the top methane producer from cows. I provided evidence that both Brazil and India should far exceed the US in this area.
The odd thing I’ve noticed about alamists is that they will never concede a single point, no matter how glaring the error is exposed.
Be an adult and acknowledge your initial error. It doesn’t change that our per capita ratios are bad
You said China was a distant second to the USA in contributing to global warming. I showed you they contributed more CO2, which your climate scientists insist is the primary control knob driving global warming.
You also said the US was the top methane producer from cows. I provided evidence that both Brazil and India should far exceed the US in this area.
The odd thing I’ve noticed about alamists is that they will never concede a single point, no matter how glaring the error is exposed.
Be an adult and acknowledge your initial error. It doesn’t change that our per capita ratios are bad
K
Karen107
Guest
Per capita… We do worse when you consider that their population is many times larger than ours and much of what they manufacture are goods sold in the US.
K
Karen107
Guest
This is what I said word for word…We drive the biggest cars (why I think most americans have at least 2 cars), we have the most cows adding methane gases to our atmosphere, on and on…
I said we have more cows, which I stand corrected but from the rest of what I said you can deduct that cows are just part of the contribution to greenhouse gases.
K
Karen107
Guest
I have already conceded that I have pointed out that I was unaware that Brazil and India had more cows than the US. Now can you be adult and acknowledge the skeptics are wrong in their belief that the US isn’t a major part of the problem so we need to act??Karen,
You said China was a distant second to the USA in contributing to global warming. I showed you they contributed more CO2, which your climate scientists insist is the primary control knob driving global warming.
You also said the US was the top methane producer from cows. I provided evidence that both Brazil and India should far exceed the US in this area.
The odd thing I’ve noticed about alamists is that they will never concede a single point, no matter how glaring the error is exposed.
Be an adult and acknowledge your initial error. It doesn’t change that our per capita ratios are bad
T
Theo520
Guest
There’s your strawman jumping up. Skeptics fully acknowledge that the US is a major contributor to GHG, and they acknowledge our per capita levels are the highest in the world. But your earlier post wasn’t about ‘per capita’ it was about total emissions on a country level, so I corrected you.
When you make things up that aren’t true, it undermines your cause. Just stick with the truth in the future.
K
Karen107
Guest
Stop it! . I can point out some things which you said that weren’t true but I wont hound on them drive them in and call you a liar because I’m Christian and I realize people aren’t perfect and come from different perspectives… We do eat too many cows and it’s a problem with our health and our world and we can rectify that by eating better, not shooting up our cows with so many hormones and antibiotics and eating more healthy with fruits and vegetables… This is the lifestyle we have that people are holding onto so preciously so that they will say and do anything to deny AGW. I made my original point because Zoltan was claiming that we weren’t contributors to global warming and that it was the rest of the worlds problem not ours. You agree with that so just pay attention! Skeptics are saying we are not part of the problem or we have done enough, or we can’t do any more than what we are doing, or a myriad of other arguments which just aren’t true! I am coming from a position of honesty can you?
K
Karen107
Guest
T
Theo520
Guest
If / When you point out my mistakes, I’ll acknowledge them and it will be over. I welcome the corrections as that is were I learn
This is dragging on because you were in denial and repeatedly deflected. Your still doing it. Now you are introducing many new very subjective topics so I’ll leave you to your judgmental assessment of ‘skeptics’ YOU DON’T LISTEN
As they say in AA, the first step is to admit you have a problem.
This is dragging on because you were in denial and repeatedly deflected. Your still doing it. Now you are introducing many new very subjective topics so I’ll leave you to your judgmental assessment of ‘skeptics’ YOU DON’T LISTEN
As they say in AA, the first step is to admit you have a problem.
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Hi Lynn and Karen,
There is the latin expression, “Res ipsa loquitur,” or the “The thing speaks for itself.” So, for example, if you open a can of green beans and find a dead mouse in it, you know someone messed up. Negligence is proved just by the fact.
I have given you various facts (“things”) which ought to give you great pause, facts which speak for themselves. Since you have not demonstrated I am not being factual, I can only assume that you concede that I am.
So, for starters, will you now admit that I am not slandering Michael Mann when I say he did not disclose material facts about his research?
cordially,
ferd
There is the latin expression, “Res ipsa loquitur,” or the “The thing speaks for itself.” So, for example, if you open a can of green beans and find a dead mouse in it, you know someone messed up. Negligence is proved just by the fact.
I have given you various facts (“things”) which ought to give you great pause, facts which speak for themselves. Since you have not demonstrated I am not being factual, I can only assume that you concede that I am.
So, for starters, will you now admit that I am not slandering Michael Mann when I say he did not disclose material facts about his research?
cordially,
ferd
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Revisiting McIntyre’s scientific credentials, he was a very bright mathematician and studied some in England. He had a scholarship at MIT but decided to work in the family business, where he applied his mathematical and statistical skills evaluating business and mining proposals. Even though he only has a BS degree, he developed a very finely honed BS detector during his 30 some years working in a business environment. When he saw the Hockey Stick being used by the Canadian government as a sales tool for the Kyoto Treaty his antennae perked up.
He’d seen a lot of hockey sticks in his career. Profits may be flat in the early going, but then profits will skyrocket… Because folks can get sued for misrepresenting the case for whatever business proposal they hope to be funded, there are actually way more due diligence and safeguards in the business world than in the academic world. McIntyre was appalled to find that no one had examined Mann’s data and methods, all the way through to publication in the IPCC 3rd report.
But anyway, fast forwarding to the end of the Hockey Stick affair, McIntyre and McKitrick were vindicated. Both expert panels convened to review Mann’s work and MM’s critcisms, agreed on the essential points.
Professor Wegman, a statistics expert, said they found Mann’s papers were “somewhat obscure and incomplete and criticisms of MM to be valid and compelling.”
Professor North, chair of the NAS panel, agreed with Wegman othat Mann’s statistical algorithm “mined” the data for hockey sticks and gave that shape prominence in the final result. In addition, Mann use of bristlecone pines was inappropriate. To be fair, North’s report affirmed Mann because other, supposedly independent, studies got the same result. But that was tantamount to saying, “Bad data, bad methods, but right result. So what’s the big deal?”
He’d seen a lot of hockey sticks in his career. Profits may be flat in the early going, but then profits will skyrocket… Because folks can get sued for misrepresenting the case for whatever business proposal they hope to be funded, there are actually way more due diligence and safeguards in the business world than in the academic world. McIntyre was appalled to find that no one had examined Mann’s data and methods, all the way through to publication in the IPCC 3rd report.
But anyway, fast forwarding to the end of the Hockey Stick affair, McIntyre and McKitrick were vindicated. Both expert panels convened to review Mann’s work and MM’s critcisms, agreed on the essential points.
Professor Wegman, a statistics expert, said they found Mann’s papers were “somewhat obscure and incomplete and criticisms of MM to be valid and compelling.”
Professor North, chair of the NAS panel, agreed with Wegman othat Mann’s statistical algorithm “mined” the data for hockey sticks and gave that shape prominence in the final result. In addition, Mann use of bristlecone pines was inappropriate. To be fair, North’s report affirmed Mann because other, supposedly independent, studies got the same result. But that was tantamount to saying, “Bad data, bad methods, but right result. So what’s the big deal?”
- Status