Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem

[Keepitsimple]

Another of my non-scientific observations. You'll notice that pretty well every "extreme" weather event is qualified by phrases like greatest/hottest/coldest/wettest "in decades" or "of the last 15 years" or "in satellite history". In other words, they've all happened before - quite regularly - and not that long ago. So far, this winter reminds me of cold, snowy winters from the 70's - and it seems that we might be in store for quite a few more.

[GostHacked]

Another of my non-scientific observations. You'll notice that pretty well every "extreme" weather event is qualified by phrases like greatest/hottest/coldest/wettest "in decades" or "of the last 15 years" or "in satellite history". In other words, they've all happened before - quite regularly - and not that long ago. So far, this winter reminds me of cold, snowy winters from the 70's - and it seems that we might be in store for quite a few more.

Or now how winter storms seem to have the power to shut down everything. OMG SNOW. It's winter. Some years are more brutal than others. It's just how it is, nothing new. The reporting of these storms equates these to attacks like mother nature has it in for us.

[On Guard for Thee]

Bad news for warmists. This year will rank as one of the coldest years in American history.

Warmest November in history.

[On Guard for Thee]

Scientist's have long since said that climate warming will be noted by extremes both up and down but with an overall trend up. And that's what's hapenning.

[On Guard for Thee]

I really do wish "the warmist's" were wrong.

[TimG]

Scientist's have long since said that climate warming will be noted by extremes both up and down but with an overall trend up. And that's what's hapenning.

Der Spiegel described a series of ”weather extremes” occurring all over the world, claiming they were unmistakable signs of a climate change to cooling: deluges of rain in West Germany, severe thunderstorms that uprooted trees and blew off roofs in Berlin, the worst storm in 100 years devastating much of Lower Saxony, hurricane Agnes inflicting 3 billion dollars in damage, floods in Japan and Peru, temperatures in Argentina, India and South Africa dropping to their lowest levels in 300 years.

Except that quote is from 1974 and "Global Cooling" was blamed for the weather.

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-41667249.html

The link between "extreme events" and climate change is unverifiable pseudo-scientific garbage.

No matter what happens with the weather current events will ALWAYS appear to be worse than in the past because that is the way human memory works. More importantly, there will always be yahoos who claim there is a causal relationship between purely random events and human activity. The only thing that has changed in the last 1000 years what people blame: no more witches and demons - now it is smog and CO2. It no more rational today.

Edited December 23, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

The link between "extreme events" and climate change is unverifiable pseudo-scientific garbage.

citation request... let's read your latest Pielkesphere parroting! Let's read your political scientist's best, hey?

.

[socialist]

Here's a blast from the past. Good for a chuckle or two.

http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&cl=search&d=AS19330916.2.221&srpos=3&e=-------100--1----0receding+ice+caps

[socialist]

You gotta have a sense of humour when talking ti deniers.

[eyeball]

The link between "extreme events" and climate change is unverifiable pseudo-scientific garbage.

The link between increasingly powerful weather systems and a warming climate is as fundamental as thermodynamics.

[jbg]

your attempt to paint a broad-brush of fraudulent funding and its application is noted.... again, it's easy to say, and very easy for you to say.

What variation of the "hockey stick" do you keep posting incessantly?

Edited December 23, 2013 by jbg

[bush_cheney2004]

The link between increasingly powerful weather systems and a warming climate is as fundamental as thermodynamics.

Actually, warmist and alarmist theories violate the basic laws of thermodynamics, for both closed and open systems. Far more heat has been found to radiate into space that demonstrably bad models have/had predicted:

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA’s ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

Accordingly, we have seen "warming" trends fall way short of IPCC model predictions.

Edited December 23, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[eyeball]

...alarmist blah blah...warmist blah blah blah...

And yet, and in addition to what the majority of people think, a vast vast and growing majority of scientists and experts still tell us we need to modify our behaviour and suit our economy to meet the needs of our environment instead of the other way around like we've been doing.

What really fascinates me about this debate is how so many can keep reiterating so much advice to so many policy makers to give far more consideration to this issue and nothing happens. In this day and age and given the purportedly democratic nature of the biggest emitters of CO2 on the planet that's a phenomenon in it's own right.

[bush_cheney2004]

And yet, and in addition to what the majority of people think, a vast vast and growing majority of scientists and experts still tell us we need to modify our behaviour and suit our economy to meet the needs of our environment instead of the other way around like we've been doing.

And yet, you continue to screw the marine environment despite what people think...because it makes you money...blah...blah...blah.

What really fascinates me about this debate is how so many can keep reiterating so much advice to so many policy makers to give far more consideration to this issue and nothing happens. In this day and age and given the purportedly democratic nature of the biggest emitters of CO2 on the planet that's a phenomenon in it's own right.

Economics is far more important than flawed advice from warmists and alarmists. The "planet" doesn't give a damn either way.

Edited December 23, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[eyeball]

And yet, you continue to screw the marine environment despite what people think...because it makes you money...blah...blah...blah.

Would you please elaborate on how I do that exactly?

[bush_cheney2004]

Would you please elaborate on how I do that exactly?

How you do it isn't important...."people think" what you do is very destructive and harmful to the environment, yet you persist while criticizing others about CO2 and "climate change". That equals ZERO credibility. Jam on.....

[eyeball]

How you do it isn't important....

No how you do it is the most important thing.

..."people think" ...

Don't give me your "people think" cop out, either put up or shut up.

[bush_cheney2004]

No how you do it is the most important thing.

Don't give me your "people think" cop out, either put up or shut up.

Don't squirm so much....if you are indeed a commercial fisherman then your environmental sins are well documented. Leave the fish and their fragile marine environment alone. Further, you burn hydrocarbon fuels in your boats, adding to so called "climate change". That's a double environmental whammy. Oh the humanity !

[eyeball]

Don't squirm so much....if you are indeed a commercial fisherman then your environmental sins are well documented.

I'll say they're well documented, I have cameras on my boats that the government uses to document what I do and how I do it.

Leave the fish and their fragile marine environment alone. Further, you burn hydrocarbon fuels in your boats, adding to so called "climate change". That's a double environmental whammy. Oh the humanity !

Don't worry, I've been pretty much phased out of business in favour of 'fishermen' who apparently don't need to be monitored. They're big, powerful and well connected to who phased me out so you just know they must be doing it right and with lots of humanity.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Don't worry, I've been pretty much phased out of business in favour of 'fishermen' who apparently don't need to be monitored. They're big, powerful and well connected to who phased me out so you just know they must be doing it right and with lots of humanity.

OK, but at least they are not telling Americans to believe and act on "climate change" nonsense in direct conflict with their economic interests.

[TimG]

The link between increasingly powerful weather systems and a warming climate is as fundamental as thermodynamics.

Actually no. Even if one can claim a theoretical association that does not mean that the actual effect will be measurable in the real world.

The real world data (despite alarmists who claim otherwise) shows that warming has had no measurable effect on 'weather events'.

Edited December 24, 2013 by TimG

[GostHacked]

Leaving BC's satire aside, might be correct on overfishing, however ......

The oceans are polluted. Plastics, ship vessel waste and traffic,spills, engine exhaust, plethora of dangerous chemicals including some synthetic bacteria... chemicals, world wars and ongoing wars, piracy, illegal dumping of all sorts of stuff including highly radioactive materials. Then there is Fukushima on top of ALL that, still going strong 3 years later. Oh and how many oil rigs have gone down? That enough? I guess we could mention how large storms wipe a whole whack load of stuff into the oceans. Like entire cities. The tsunami in Japan and off Indonesia couple years back. Guess where all that stuff got washed away to?? Then there is continued oil and gas exploration causing geological issues, including sea bed mining. Throw a coal port on the Great Barrier Reef.

I am sure C02 is a problem in there somewhere.

[-1=e^ipi]

The link between increasingly powerful weather systems and a warming climate is as fundamental as thermodynamics.

Yes, and I explained using thermodynamics earlier in this thread why many of the alarmist claims such as more heat = more extreme weather is retarded. But I guess I have to repeat myself.

Winds and weather systems are the result of temperature (and as a result, pressure) differences in the earth's atmosphere which is due primarily due to unequal heating of the earth by the sun in equatorial regions compared to polar regions (equatorial regions have more direct sun light). Increasing CO2 concentrations and other greenhouse gases reduces the global temperature gradient between equatorial regions and polar regions, which reduces available energy for weather events. For example, most climate models predict a decrease in the frequency and severity of tornadoes in tornado alley as a response to climate change.

In addition, climate models predict that increasing CO2 will increase the temperatures of the planet's upper atmosphere more than the planet's oceans. This reduction will reduce the workable energy for hurricanes (which are essentially giant heat engines, which transfer heat from the air near the ocean's surface to the earth's upper atmosphere), which will reduce the severity and frequency of hurricanes (even the recent IPCC report admits this).

And yet, and in addition to what the majority of people think, a vast vast and growing majority of scientists and experts still tell us we need to modify our behaviour and suit our economy to meet the needs of our environment instead of the other way around like we've been doing.

Science cannot tell a society what to do or what to not do. Science is a methodology that is useful for understanding the truth of the universe. To determine what a society should do you have to look at economics, philosophy, etc.

Furthermore, many of the so called experts you reference are simply climate alarmists with little understanding of science. As for the scientists, in many cases scientists need to be biased and un-scientific in order to get grant money and publish papers, especially if there is large amounts of political interference.

This is just one giant appeal to authority fallacy. If you want to justify a position, back it up with evidence and reasoning. Don't just say, oh well these people in positions of authority say so, so they must be right.

[On Guard for Thee]

Actually no. Even if one can claim a theoretical association that does not mean that the actual effect will be measurable in the real world.

The real world data (despite alarmists who claim otherwise) shows that warming has had no measurable effect on 'weather events'.

Where is your "real world" data coming from, "Real world" comic books?

[On Guard for Thee]

Leaving BC's satire aside, might be correct on overfishing, however ......

The oceans are polluted. Plastics, ship vessel waste and traffic,spills, engine exhaust, plethora of dangerous chemicals including some synthetic bacteria... chemicals, world wars and ongoing wars, piracy, illegal dumping of all sorts of stuff including highly radioactive materials. Then there is Fukushima on top of ALL that, still going strong 3 years later. Oh and how many oil rigs have gone down? That enough? I guess we could mention how large storms wipe a whole whack load of stuff into the oceans. Like entire cities. The tsunami in Japan and off Indonesia couple years back. Guess where all that stuff got washed away to?? Then there is continued oil and gas exploration causing geological issues, including sea bed mining. Throw a coal port on the Great Barrier Reef.

I am sure C02 is a problem in there somewhere.

I am not a Greenpeace member but I heard an interesting comment during the interview with one of the recently released members from Russia today.

He harked back to the blowout that BP had in the Gulf not so long ago that took months to plug. I'm sure we still haven't seen all the fallout from that. But his point was can you imagine that same thing happening on a seafloor that has ten feet of ice over top? A little hard to get boats into position I'd bet.