The rain was hammering the house all last night and now many areas are flooded with some roads closed. As luck would have it, we've had a new roof put on the house in the last few years and got some help to tar around the chimney and plumbing stack in the bathroom in the last few months. I looked for leaks in the ceiling but didn't find any. Here on the mountain I'm sure we were on the high end of the rainfall. Not only did it rain but the temperature was in the low 50's F. Darn that Global Warming! o_O
This was a huge storm cutting across a number of states and I wonder what some of the posters experienced over the past 24 hours with the monster rain? ^_^
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 08:35:45 -0400, Frank wrote in
Here's something interesting about "climate change" I found posted in response to a liberal biased news article
Man-made climate warming/change is quack science used by big-government tax and spend politicians and special interest groups to justify massive new taxes and government control (think gas cans, light bulbs and carbon taxes). Indeed, many of the UN-IPCC input data assumptions used in the Global Warming Climate Change computer models are egregiously unrealistic, e.g. CO2 uptake via the global ocean/air interface, effects of solar activity, very limited data sampling, sub-surface ocean current movement changes, chronic underestimate of methane effects, variability of volcanic ash and CO2 ejection, methane overestimation, etc. There are many others. As the developers of computer models like to say: "Garbage in, garbage out".
The IPCC previous report, in 2007, was so grotesquely flawed that the leading scientific body in the United States, the InterAcademy Council, decided that an investigation was warranted. The IAC duly reported in 2010, and concluded that there were "significant shortcomings in each major step of [the] IPCC?s assessment process", and that "significant improvements" were needed. It also chastised the IPCC for claiming to have "high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence".
Indeed, A peer-reviewed climate change study released in Sept.2013 by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change finds the threat of man-made global warming to be not only greatly exaggerated but so small as to be "embedded within the background variability of the natural climate system" and not dangerous.
Want more? How about: ?The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.? The global warming establishment ?has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.? -- Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University.
Consequently, I nominate this for a Carl Sagan Junk-Science award. As you may recall, Sagan is the "scientist" who popularized the nuclear winter global cooling hysteria in the early 1990s. He was an early and avid advocate of self-promotion and "popular" science, subsequently to become more accurately and descriptively known today as "Junk-Science". Junk-Science was valued by Sagan and his followers because it allows an advocate to feel "good" about himself without requiring a factual basis. Sagan has since been eclipsed by Al Gore and BoBama as the preeminent Climate Change Delusionals and advocates of Junk-Science for the masses as a basis for political power and $$$ grabs. But Big government tax-and-spend liberals couldn't sell Global Warming because everyone noticed it was actually getting colder; so they changed their mantra to Climate Change. That way ANY annoying, inconvenient or unpleasant weather could qualify as a justification for massive new taxes and government control.
For info about big-media bias on this issue, read "LA Times bans letters from climate skeptics" (you will have to search for it because this site doesn't allow posting of links.)
0.15" in a couple of sprinkles Fri evening and Sat morning...another band was promising last night until it all fell apart when got within about 20 miles...
That's most measurable since a couple small snowfalls back in early March...still no relief in sight for the 3-yr drought...
Where are you located my friend? We had a serious drought here in Central Alabamastan a while back with reservoirs getting low and crop failures but now rainfall seems to be back to normal which means we're getting a good bit. An old saying about Alabama weather is, "If you don't like the weather, stick around, it will change." I've witnessed "Climate Change" for more than 6 decades and I've seen that it evens out and we wind up with an average climate over a number of years. I've seen warm winters and very cold winters, the same for summers, some very hot and some very mild. Climate changes, it's a normal thing for it to do. o_O
As far as the widespread "don't like it, it'll change" saw, "you ain't see'ed nuthin' yet" in that regards down there as compared to the High Plains.
Spent 25 yr or so in E TN thru their "drought"...was more than our annual average in the worst of years. Of course, in that hard red clay and all that vegetation, it takes more but they don't really have an appreciation for what real drought looks like. A shortage relative to normal on occasion, yeah, that they get east of the Mississippi now and again...
Those advocating the draconian methods to control climate are the political progressive class and even if put in effect they will also tell you that they will make little difference.
I also like to point out that climatologists supporting global warming just about all work for the government. They may be scientists but they know where their paychecks come from and know you get along better if you give the boss what he wants.
Just for the fun's of it, I looked at the past March for a point somewhere in sorta' mid-Alabama outside of major metro area -- Alabaster happened to show up quickly
SW KS deltas Mid AL deltas Max High 78 F 82 F Min High 8 F 70 F 43 F 39 F Max Low 46 F 56 F Min Low -5 F 51 F 29 F 27 F Max Day swing 58 F (24-82F) 38 F (39F-77F) Max Sust Wind 45 mph 24 mph Max Peak Gust 54 mph 39 mph Precip 0.05" 2.16"
Believe what you want to believe. U of DE prof was working for the state. Then Governor Ruth Minner democrat was a political hack with a GED that did not finish high school.
More like a comprehendum of positions that a "study" per se... but I'd have to think that it represents the views of many people with expertise who have read studies that lead them to their positions.
Some quotes from that web page: ======================================================================== "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations....
AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
- American Association for the Advancement of Science ""The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3
- American Chemical Society "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
- American Geophysical Union "Human-induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
- American Medical Association "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6
- American Meteorological Society "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
- American Physical Society "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth?s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8
- The Geological Society of America "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9
SCIENCE ACADEMIES
- International academies: Joint statement "Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world?s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10
- U.S. National Academy of Sciences "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11
U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
- U.S. Global Change Research Program "The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12
INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ?Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.?13
?Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.?14 *IPCC defines ?very likely? as greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence." ========================================================================
That would suggest a cabal that doesn't seem possible in it's complexity. I have a pretty dim view of human nature, but that includes people's ability to cooperate.
Exxon or the Koche brothers, I can see: they're bonded together by a mutual desire to maximize profits.
But virtually the entire world community of scientists? What do they stand to gain? I'd think vanishingly-few of them have any significant economic interest/investments in alternative energy ventures. I would think they are just trying to get published and not have their colleagues rip what they've published to shreds.
From what I've read, China and India are both running scared. For starters, they are both heavily dependent on snow melt from the Himalayas (SP?) which is no longer coming in the volume they have come to depend on.
I've seen or read (can't recall which) articles on India's efforts to build catch basins to help mitigate the problem on their side.
China, of course, is kicking the world's ass on production of photovoltaics and windmills.
Of course, China is also building coal-fired power plants hand-over-fist... and one could think they don't give a rat's ass about the climate or air quality.
But in big cities, there's actually a class thing now where people of means can afford to have the air in their house extensively filtered and to send their kids to school where the air is likewise processed.... So I would think that somewhere in the power structure, they see a serious problem and are trying to figure out what to do.
That's what they've got in it -- 90% of environmental research is funded by government grants so in a "publish or perish" world the only way to win a grant and therefore retain their professorship is to follow the lead of the funding agency.
Now, being an engineer/physics guy meself, I don't think 90%+ really intend this but it's the inevitable result of eventually succumbing to the current research trend.
There's no way one can put any serious credence in the details of the models over the time frames they're projecting--it's ludicrous.
So do you deny that the world is getting warmer or do you agree with that but deny that human activity is significantly responsible?
I think that both are true, and as we all should know, more heat equals more volatility so more extreme events. I do enjoy reading folks talking about this being part of a natural cycle, like the climate scientists aren't aware of the natural cycles.
Naturally the scientists are usually receiving grants from governments
- who else funds work that doesn't really have quick financial rewards? Certainly not corporations that have a vested interest in selling more fossil fuels.
As Pete said, if this is all some huge conspiracy by those horrible leftists, I would think that some of the millions of people involved would spill the beans.
I do hope that you are correct, and that we aren't heading for really serious climate alterations, but I think that we are.
But to suggest the government doesn't skew their funding and they don't have vested interests is also a scam, since politicians are involved. There is nothing inherently pure about government money, either.
I'm in the camp that there's nothing outside of of normal variability observed and I'm far from convinced the models have the ability to "prove" anything else.
The proponents are guilty of the same argument they complain of--that they're using very short-term data to claim evidence of longterm change.
By historical data, we're still coming out of the last ice age so it's not at all unlikely in my view that a period of warming could be expected and since all the initial hoopla began the last number of years have pretty much negated that trend, anyways.
That results have conclusively been shown to have been selectively chosen to produce desirable results in studies and that the proponents are also largely in favor of more governmental controls in general is also the political and bias inside the movement aside from the "pure" science issues.
I've previously likened it much as what I observed 20 and 30 yr ago while consulting for the "fusion in 20 years" camp at the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab and Rochester Lab for Laser Energetics where despite the obvious difficulties it was a nearly religious belief in the program that had evolved simply by being so closely involved that any result that didn't fit or criticism was essentially overwhelmed by the momentum of the effort. As we now know, we're _still_ 20+ yr away and likely, imo, will be another 30 from now.
I expect in another 20 or 30 we'll discover this has all gone the way of the "nuclear winter" of the late 50s and 60s.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.