(11-25-2014 02:43 PM)NewJersey GATA Wrote:  What causes global warming? answer ...... (in Al Gore's mind).

The opportunity to make lots and lots of money.

(11-25-2014 03:28 PM)NewJersey GATA Wrote:  I don't think anyone can argue with you on those proposals.

How do we as humans decrease population? War, desease, lower birth rate, birth rate at a later age in women etc.

I wouldn't necessarily suggest we do, I'm merely pointing out that these aren't being proposed, even by the most ardent of supporters.

If we were to support these things, we'd be taxing meat and subsidizing vegans and vegetarians and discouraging large families/encourage small ones... Perhaps not to the extent that China does, but certainly some socialists would suggest that. Taxing houses over 1500 sq ft. etc etc.

I'm not so much suggesting that we should as I am pointing out that any REAL attempt to solve this global problem would include SOME attempts at addressing these issues, yet not one of them does... it's almost entirely about fossil fuels and 'reparations'.



Oh, for clarity....

It's more like a half century of data, with much of that data, especially the last 10-20 years or so runs counter to the rhetoric.

The 'data' prior to that for the past century or so is from localized and often unscientific or unreliable data observations, used to extrapolate OTHER data, just as we are today for ice growth... i.e. we use measures of growing antarctic ice to portent a cooling 100 years ago, when today we're using it to portend a warming... The 'millenia' data is based on these same algorithms (AlGoreRhythms) that are failing to predict what we are able to observe.... yet we still for some reason are convinced that the global mean temperature 1000 years ago was 68.4 degrees and not 68.8 degrees based on ice cores from either pole and no data whatsoever from 99% of the planet.

(11-25-2014 03:44 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 02:43 PM)NewJersey GATA Wrote:  What causes global warming? answer ...... (in Al Gore's mind).

The opportunity to make lots and lots of money.

it's ALWAYS money....whatever the meaning of 'money' is at that time period....

(11-25-2014 10:43 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Last week, an article in the Buffalo News blamed global warming for the 7' of snow. The logic, cold air temperatures crossing the warmer Lake Erie water. The implication was that Lake Erie was warmer than usual.

Yet an easy check of the NOAA data base shows that for November 18th (the day of the storm) Lake Erie had an average temp of 46 degrees, which is two degrees colder than the average from 1932.

Don't let your agenda get in the way of facts.

You mean this one?
Winter weather weirdness may be just beginning

Which said this:

Quote:The main ingredient – or culprit – appears to be Super Typhoon Nuri, which formed in the Philippines early this month before tracking northward to the Bering Sea.

There, Nuri “caused a ripple effect on the jet stream,” meteorologist Jeff Masters of the Weather Underground blog wrote last week. And as a result, strange things started happening very far away.

As Nuri moved north, it pushed arctic air south – way south. In Big Bend National Park on the Texas-Mexico border, nighttime temperatures plunged into the low 20s at mid-month. Temperatures in Charlotte, N.C., dropped into the teens. And last week, that rejiggered jet stream blew cold arctic air straight across the comparatively warm waters of Lake Erie – the classic combination for producing lake-effect snow, and lots of it, in Buffalo and points south.

Adding it all up, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration – which watched it all happening on its weather satellites – said on its website: “While the Bering Sea Superstorm did not directly cause the snow event in New York, it did set the stage for it by nudging the jet stream into an unusual shape that sent a pulse of cool Arctic air south over the central United States.”

And added this:

Quote:While showing wide year-by-year variations, a 2009 study in the Journal of Great Lakes Research, for example, showed the average annual lake-effect snow totals off of Lake Erie increasing by nearly 20 inches between 1925 and 2007.

It's just more evidence that weather is not climate.

(11-25-2014 03:44 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 02:43 PM)NewJersey GATA Wrote:  What causes global warming? answer ...... (in Al Gore's mind).

The opportunity to make lots and lots of money.

Who is making all this money?

(11-25-2014 10:49 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 10:43 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Last week, an article in the Buffalo News blamed global warming for the 7' of snow. The logic, cold air temperatures crossing the warmer Lake Erie water. The implication was that Lake Erie was warmer than usual.

Yet an easy check of the NOAA data base shows that for November 18th (the day of the storm) Lake Erie had an average temp of 46 degrees, which is two degrees colder than the average from 1932.

Don't let your agenda get in the way of facts.

Great Lakes have been much colder than usual, that's what the high ice coverage proved (science is hard).

There were some links to past articles suggesting that AGW would reduce lake effect snow, but they weren't as explicit as the person who compiled the list was suggesting.

Much colder?

Erie isn't much different than the last 12 years.

(11-25-2014 05:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Much colder?

Erie isn't much different than the last 12 years.

Really?

The period from Jan to May would be considered 'much' colder by climatoligists... who talk about <2 degrees over hundreds of years as being 'substantial'... and we're talking surface water, not weather.

June about the same...

July 'much' warmer

Aug And Sept 'much' colder

Oct about the same

Nov to date looks like about 5 degrees colder, which is MASSIVE in these terms.

(11-25-2014 05:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Who is making all this money?

Scientists. Academics. Researchers. Fund Raisers. Politicians.

It's not outrageous to state there is clear money and job security in supporting Global Warming research, and there is even more money in being a Global Warming Prophet, regardless of the inaccuracy of the science, the inaccuracy of the predictions, and the inaccurate studies that are designed to produce the Global Warming results that the Gaia worshipers demand.

It's this constant shell game of as long as you have plenty of explanations for why your data utterly fails to support your theory, you’re still in the money! Screw this new "science” of using data you don’t understand to reach a predetermined conclusion that promotes your political goals.

FFS why don’t we postpone judgment until we have a couple of models that work reasonably well, instead of telling me that Miami will be underwater in 2020 and we'll have to show pictures of snow to our grandkids

There may indeed by real, man-made climate change, in fact I fully believe man is impacting in many negative ways this lonely blue marble. But I have a great deal of suspicion on the underlying data and the research motivations used to generate even the recent claims of warming, much less to accept the longer term claims made by AGW proponents. And judging by the behavior of those doing climate research and meeting with the IPCC and the Goracle, you almost have to assume the opposite.

Global warming is not a crisis now and is not going to be one for a long, long time, if ever. Scare tactics to grab political power are risable and infuriating

(11-25-2014 03:28 PM)NewJersey GATA Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 03:13 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  As has been alluded to, among the 'best' solutions to 'save the planet' would be to lower the population, to stop building cities and bridges and homes or mining for rare minerals and to decrease the cattle, particularly feeder cattle population... and to discourage people from living in the north in the winter OR the south in the summer...

These would do FAR more than increasing epa fuel economy standards

yet NONE of those things get proposed.

I don't think anyone can argue with you on those proposals.

How do we as humans decrease population? War, desease, lower birth rate, birth rate at a later age in women etc.

...Women's Liberation...

(11-25-2014 05:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 05:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Much colder?

Erie isn't much different than the last 12 years.

Really?

The period from Jan to May would be considered 'much' colder by climatoligists... who talk about <2 degrees over hundreds of years as being 'substantial'... and we're talking surface water, not weather.

June about the same...

July 'much' warmer

Aug And Sept 'much' colder

Oct about the same

Nov to date looks like about 5 degrees colder, which is MASSIVE in these terms.

True, also interesting that timmy pointed out data relating only to the surface temp, not the entire body of water. He also managed to do this for the shallowest Great Lake. It's almost like he selected only the data that would support the point he wanted to make. That's known as "fraud" in the sciences.

(11-25-2014 05:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 05:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Much colder?

Erie isn't much different than the last 12 years.

Really?

The period from Jan to May would be considered 'much' colder by climatoligists... who talk about <2 degrees over hundreds of years as being 'substantial'... and we're talking surface water, not weather.

June about the same...

July 'much' warmer

Aug And Sept 'much' colder

Oct about the same

Nov to date looks like about 5 degrees colder, which is MASSIVE in these terms.

Of course there are differences, but the chart is only looking at one year compared to twelve. And it's not that different really. But yes...a 5 degree shift would be massive, but only if you're talking about a longer period. That was the only point I was trying to make. And to be fair, Erie maybe an anomaly when compared to the other 4 which have clearly shown an even bigger variance.

(11-26-2014 08:32 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 05:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 05:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Much colder?

Erie isn't much different than the last 12 years.

Really?

The period from Jan to May would be considered 'much' colder by climatoligists... who talk about <2 degrees over hundreds of years as being 'substantial'... and we're talking surface water, not weather.

June about the same...

July 'much' warmer

Aug And Sept 'much' colder

Oct about the same

Nov to date looks like about 5 degrees colder, which is MASSIVE in these terms.

True, also interesting that timmy pointed out data relating only to the surface temp, not the entire body of water. He also managed to do this for the shallowest Great Lake. It's almost like he selected only the data that would support the point he wanted to make. That's known as "fraud" in the sciences.

Sorry DrTorch, I had been looking into stuff about the Buffalo snow storm. Buffalo receives Lake effect snow fall from Lake Erie. That's that the reason I used it.

(11-26-2014 10:48 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 08:32 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 05:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 05:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Much colder?

Erie isn't much different than the last 12 years.

Really?

The period from Jan to May would be considered 'much' colder by climatoligists... who talk about <2 degrees over hundreds of years as being 'substantial'... and we're talking surface water, not weather.

June about the same...

July 'much' warmer

Aug And Sept 'much' colder

Oct about the same

Nov to date looks like about 5 degrees colder, which is MASSIVE in these terms.

True, also interesting that timmy pointed out data relating only to the surface temp, not the entire body of water. He also managed to do this for the shallowest Great Lake. It's almost like he selected only the data that would support the point he wanted to make. That's known as "fraud" in the sciences.

Sorry DrTorch, I had been looking into stuff about the Buffalo snow storm. Buffalo receives Lake effect snow fall from Lake Erie. That's that the reason I used it.

And that does make sense. Perhaps I was too harsh.

You've taken an agnostic position on AGW, but those who are alarmists frequently use cherry-picked data to support their position, so I react strongly when something looks like that.

(11-26-2014 10:55 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 10:48 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 08:32 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 05:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 05:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Much colder?

Erie isn't much different than the last 12 years.

Really?

The period from Jan to May would be considered 'much' colder by climatoligists... who talk about <2 degrees over hundreds of years as being 'substantial'... and we're talking surface water, not weather.

June about the same...

July 'much' warmer

Aug And Sept 'much' colder

Oct about the same

Nov to date looks like about 5 degrees colder, which is MASSIVE in these terms.

True, also interesting that timmy pointed out data relating only to the surface temp, not the entire body of water. He also managed to do this for the shallowest Great Lake. It's almost like he selected only the data that would support the point he wanted to make. That's known as "fraud" in the sciences.

Sorry DrTorch, I had been looking into stuff about the Buffalo snow storm. Buffalo receives Lake effect snow fall from Lake Erie. That's that the reason I used it.

And that does make sense. Perhaps I was too harsh.

You've taken an agnostic position on AGW, but those who are alarmists frequently use cherry-picked data to support their position, so I react strongly when something looks like that.

Thank you.

What have I just witnessed?

;.)

(11-25-2014 05:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 03:44 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 02:43 PM)NewJersey GATA Wrote:  What causes global warming? answer ...... (in Al Gore's mind).

The opportunity to make lots and lots of money.

Who is making all this money?

Well, for starters......

Blood And Gore: Making A Killing On Anti-Carbon Investment Hype

Quote:Gore and Blood, the former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM), co-founded London-based GIM in 2004. Between 2008 and 2011 the company had raised profits of nearly $218 million from institutions and wealthy investors. By 2008 Gore was able to put $35 million into hedge funds and private partnerships through the Capricorn Investment Group, a Palo Alto company founded by his Canadian billionaire buddy Jeffrey Skoll, the first president of EBay Inc. It was Skoll’s Participant Media that produced Gore’s feverishly frightening 2006 horror film, “An Inconvenient Truth”.

(11-26-2014 10:30 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Of course there are differences, but the chart is only looking at one year compared to twelve. And it's not that different really. But yes...a 5 degree shift would be massive, but only if you're talking about a longer period. That was the only point I was trying to make. And to be fair, Erie maybe an anomaly when compared to the other 4 which have clearly shown an even bigger variance.

Or Torch was comparing it to a different period of time. YOU, after all, and not he picked this particular chart. That doesn't make either of you wrong. You BOTH could be right, depending on the time frame and how you describe temperature variances. One additional thought... because we're talking water temperature and not air temperature... 5 degrees is FAR greater... but that's a trivial point.

That's actually the problem with using terms like 'colder' and 'warmer' in this context.

We're measuring actual factual readings from essentially the entire globe in 2014 to limited and subject to greater variance/miscalculation readings from say 50 years ago from numerous, but not all or even most of the globe... to fairly unreliable readings from a small number of places 100 years ago to computer simulated models from 1000 to 10,000 years ago... and then 'arguing' about temperature shifts of LITERALLY fractions of degrees.

I think this is the biggest problem for the global warming people... that the science necessary to draw the conclusions that some of them do just isn't nearly as reliable as they want to claim it is... and the proof is that they've been MOSTLY wrong in the recent data where we have the most observations. That doesn't make their predictions about what could happen to the world if we rise by 2 degrees wrong... nor does it make the idea of keeping the environment as clean as possible wrong to avoid having as big a negative impact...

If THAT were their focus (and I think that IS the focus of many of them), we could all agree. The problem is the vocal and honestly aggressive group who try and use outrageous claims and factually lacking evidence to cause people to make (frankly) irrational decisions. Sell us the homeowners insurance we actually need. Don't try and sell us the $100,000 bomb shelter.