[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] [OT] In case you hadn't heard....

Subject: Re: [OM] [OT] In case you hadn't heard....
From: Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 11:53:53 -0500
> But you know I don't agree with that and here's the reason why.  Despite
> the claims that "the science is settled" and that "97% of climate
> scientists agree" neither the "science" nor the computer models based on
> the "science" have been able to make an accurate climate projection that
> covers the warming hiatus evident in the temperature observations since
> about 1998.
> <http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png>

Well, it points out that there are other major disruptors that can
occur. Solar cycles have the greatest impact on global climate. We've
been going through an amazingly long solar minimum that wasn't
"predicted", but is shown to be predictable now that we have gone back
and figured out how all these long, longer and very long cycles have
interacted, giving us, in effect, a missing solar maximum. We also
know that one unfortunate volcanic event can have the effect of all
human activity multiplied a few times. The melting that is occurring
across arctic and sub-arctic regions is proof that melting IS

What the Algore crowd seem to forget, though, is that we're still
coming off of our last ice age. We're still warming up and the
northern shield is still rebounding! Well, so we're experiencing
global warming? Sure, of course! Duh! But wait a cotton pickin minute.
What is it that is being exposed during the melting? Plant and animal
life that is evidence that these regions used to be warm before. Oh, I
get it. The Neanderthals were industrialists.

> The warming effect of CO2 is readily observable under isolation in a
> lab.  But to predict the response of the real earth one must model a
> huge array of both positive and negative feedback mechanisms. The fact
> that these models come nowhere near the earth's actual temperature
> response (and never have) despite continuously increasing CO2 very
> clearly says the "science isn't settled"...

I agree that the "as measured" conditions aren't matching the
projections based on lab experiments, but I believe that is because
we're still learning about all that is impacting our climate. Every
year we get more information and readjust our assumptions. Algore's
"hockey stick" is a farce, of course, but the overall long-term trend
lines do show (as well as common sense telling us) that human activity
is affecting climate change to some extent.

The "science" behind the warming effect of CO2 and other greenhouse
gases cannot be refuted. They are what they are and the atmospheric
testing proves out that the concentrations are increasing. Burping
termites aren't the only cause of that.

> And it really doesn't matter what 97% of climate scientists think.  What
> matters is the very much smaller percentage of climate guys who build
> and operate climate models.  They should hang their heads in shame as
> they ask for more grant money for even more research on the already
> "settled science".  Your pocket is being picked directly by these
> modelers and indirectly by what they're doing to the worlds' cost of energy.

I'm convinced that 97% of these 97% are opportunistic shysters who are
pursuing a constant paycheck at the tax payers' expense. But I think
there are 3% of these guys and gals that truly know what they are
doing and don't make wild-a** claims just to get another grant.

What really gets my hackles flying is when people on either side of
the debate use a one-off weather event to prove or disprove "climate
change". Weather is NOT climate. Hurricane Sandy is not proof either
way. Hurricanes happen. When you build a major metropolitan area along
the cost, you're going to get flooded sooner or later when a big
honkin storm happens to track in just on the south side of a
funnelling shoreline at high tide.

I also recall many gruesome winters in Michigan, as well as the one
winter when it was 70 degrees on Christmas day and people were out on
the lake in BOATS, not on top of the lake in ICE BOATS. We would get
two or three winters in a row of cold and snow, and two or three
winters of almost nothing. This was true thirty years ago and it's
still true this year. We had snow in June.

Here in the Great Plains, the weather pattern in the late 19th century
was very strange. Even one year was called the unending winter and
resulted in two years of almost no crop due to weather. The third
year, there was no crop due to grasshoppers. Then there was the
"Children's Blizzard" which was the final straw for a lot of people
and the Great Plains have been in constant population decline ever
since. This winter has been very tough because of the extreme cold. Is
it a sign of global cooling? No, just weather patterns caused by a
couple of long-term oscillations that happened to line up this year.
It was actually highly predictable and the Farmers Almanac was dead

I'm more fearful of the upcoming economic collapse scheduled for later
this spring.

Ken Norton
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz