YOU trust the scientists programming the data, and I do not. If truth was on the side of the AGW believers, there would be no need to alter data. Now, what do you propose should be done to solve this “problem” of earth warming?
Spencer and Bastardi do not have the power to fleece wealth producers with new taxation and regulations, but government officials do.
WARMIST ALARMIST CHART (old data)
There are plenty of refutations by real scientists of almost all the claims of the skeptics. You can look them up yourself:
I’ve been over and over this (why arctic blasts are plaguing America more than usual) – GW-enhanced Rossby waves. As for more snow – a warmer climate holds more WV, which can precip as rain OR snow, depending… I’ve been explaining this over and over and over and over again and providing sources. People should be willing to do a little research on their own. Here’s something by a well-known climate scientist writing for laypeople: skepticalscience.com/warming-arctic-weird-weather.htmlTo you personally, Lynn, what measures should we take to combat “global warming”, a phenomenon if true, seems like it would be a very good thing. Unfortunately, Israel has had a snowstorm and Niagra Falls has frozen over. And we are two months past the winter solstice!
And this is the excuse why they have not made any predictions? The claim was that they were “proven right”. Exactly what scientific theory of theirs has been proven right?
Why, bec his 1981 prediction – the one that included uptake of heat by the deeper oceans, UNDERESTIMATED AGW?
CURRENT CHART
I posted a link to this article because you asked for an explanation why the Niagara Falls are frozen over.
There are other effects on Rossby (Planetary) waves, such as solar wind, UV, and magnetic fields, some coupled. Here are some papers describing those effects:
Thank you. Do you believe that the transition can be made within 25, 50 or 100 years? Remember what a pay for play scandal Solyndra and other solar “companies” turned out to be. Windmills eat copious acreage, BTW, and kill birds by the thousands (as do solar panels).
50-year transition is absolutely no problem, because a power plant is designed for, and depreciated over, a 50-year period. 25-year transition would require a faster write-off of assets.
Caveat emptor; Solyndra’s technology was expensive snake oil. Chinese foundries of Si-based panels are profitable.
How exactly do the windmills eat acreage? A base of the tower is, what, 10x10m?
Yes, I think the transition to renewable energy generation can be done within 25-50 years.Thank you. Do you believe that the transition can be made within 25, 50 or 100 years? Remember what a pay for play scandal Solyndra and other solar “companies” turned out to be. Windmills eat copious acreage, BTW, and kill birds by the thousands (as do solar panels).
And we all know what a boondoggle ethanol has been. It was supposed to reduce our dependence on foreign countries, and all it has done is strip prime farm lands of nutrients and skyrocketed the prices of fruits, veggies and livestock.
I don’t think we should worry too much about interplanetary electric fields, solar-wind-induced electric potentials and other esoteric phenomena. The sun energy output, orbital forcing and greenhouse gases do a good job in explaining our climate.
Are you referring to weller2’s graph of birds killed? Then it’s funny you should complain about biased data, when this posting was in response to RACJ’s claim that wind turbines kill birds “by the thousands” (which is true) without any substantiated data on whether or not those “thousands” are significant. Why should RACJ’s implicit claim that this is a significant problem get a free pass when you doubt any data that does not agree with your favorite narrative? If you think weller2’s graph is in error, then why not point out the specific error (and substantiate it)?
Worry about what? My post has links to papers hosted by or archived on NASA, UCAR and other sites that offer additional information to that which has already been offered about Rossby/planetary waves. It may seem esoteric to you, but that may be because you are unfamiliar with it. It is not new information, I think one of those links had a 1985 paper. Of course if you would like to amplify your dismissal a bit, you know, provide some additional information which would highlight why these phenomena have no effect, I’m open to hear from you.
Nothing against additional information. Scientists will look at any obscure influences, including galactic cosmic rays, UV flux and solar wind variation, Rossby and Kelvin waves and their influence on climate.
Since the attribution question is still under scrutiny, I’d say everything is fair game. My point is what it always has been, that the current measurement uncertainties and low model fidelity leaves plenty of doubt on how the energy balance is calculated. If you would have read the “black part,” you would have understood that I was not suggesting that Rossby/planetary waves were responsible for climate change. If anything, they are an indication of how the atmosphere is behaving to various influences. The links provided contained some basic information on the phenomena, although they do not apparently contain the kind of information you are looking for. With the uncertainties mentioned earlier, if we are honest, I doubt any of us knows what to stuff in the “critical” bin. Best to keep an open mind on these things. I am still waiting to hear why you think it is acceptable to dismiss this or other effects, maybe a paper or journal entry?
Hans, CO2 (man made or otherwise) has shown itself to fail the scientific method.