Second Coldest Spring In U.S. History

[futurecurrents]

Quote from wjk:

Here's a little education for you, FC. A cold snap like this might occur once in a decade, then maybe twice or 3 times in the next decade, with continued incremental increases over the centuries. At some point over an extended time, snowfalls will occur further south as well as later into the season (north in S hemisphere), and snow melts during the warm months will decrease. It won't happen overnight. Is your pea brain capable of grasping that? You can call me stupid, but that is geological historical fact.

You failed to grasp that in my comments. And yes, our AGW (and I've never disputed that with you) will not be a factor when the greater forces of our orbit, our sun, and the other factors both known and unknown come into play to take us into the next ice age.

Now stick that info in your models and get back with me. I await your brilliance.

No shit. In about a thousand years we are due for an ice age due the milankovitch cyle......if CO2 levels are at normal levels and the earth is the same as it was before mankind started messing it up. They and it are not even close. The ice ages occurred with very modest changes in solar which then got accentuated by feedbacks like a drop in CO2 and increased albido due to more ice. As things stand now the greenhouse effect of increasing CO2 levels will overwhelm the drop in solar. And we don't have thousands of years before GW becomes a huge problem if we keep doing what we're doing. We're talking maybe a hundred. The problems are already starting.

The ice age is not starting now, and certainly the weather outside your door during one spring, two springs or even ten springs is no indication of anything at all except the weather outside your door. It has ZERO to do with long-term, global climate change. That you would use it as evidence of such is just plain stupid. I don't know how else to put it.

 

[wjk]

Quote from wjk:

Maybe we should cut him a break.

On second thought, I think not. I'm sick of cutting liberals and progressives breaks. Fuck the whole lot of them. They are incapable of civility when they disagree. Now if we can get some people in congress who feel the same way...

 

[pspr]

Quote from wjk:

Maybe we should cut him a break. He's not a child. He's just a textbook useful idiot. He has closed his mind to alternatives because his fears have been successfully manipulated by his educators or others. He's not a child, but he's not very old, at least mentally. That said, other left-wingers are physically old, they just never grew up. For example, congress is full of them. And they love the likes of Futuredick because he will do their bidding.

He's been a good little robot soldier for the left in everything he has posted here on every subject.

He's not very bright and he's sort of a one trick pony. I don't think he even looks at the arguments against his positions. He blindly follows his generals as they march toward the cliff.

He sort of reminds me of that Hansen guy at NASA that had to quit because he was so radical and blinded by his AGW ideology.

But, FC is a rude stupid, too. Sometimes you can almost see the steam coming out of his ears because nobody but Ricter wants to be wrong with him.

 

[wjk]

Quote from futurecurrents:

The ice age is not starting now, and certainly the weather outside your door during one spring, two springs or even ten springs is no indication of anything at all except the weather outside your door. It has ZERO to do with long-term, global climate change. That you would use it as evidence of such is just plain stupid. I don't know how else to put it.

That's because your education is limited regarding the issue. Two springs or ten don't matter, until they are viewed in terms of centuries and the end result is under way. I wasn't using it as evidence, but merely suggestion. I've been here 30 years and it's never been this cold even close to this late in the year. I find that interesting. I follow weather events as a hobby since I worked in it professionally in the Navy.

You took my comments to a place they hadn't gone, and then called me stupid. What makes you an expert? You have no way of knowing if we are beginning the early stages of an ice age any more than I, regardless of what we think of AGW.

To find it stupid shows unbelievable arrogance on your part where none of us really know that much about the atmosphere. Models are extremely flawed. I know, because I used to launch weather balloons which provided the only source of direct atmospheric data other than rockets and aircraft for the last century that are used in models (until about 20-30 years ago), and I've seen the mistakes made in extrapolation, not to mention the limited data provided (one balloon for tens of thousands of square miles through 300 or less millibars into the atmosphere along with the potential for selective data in modeling). Go figure out what a skew-t is, and learn to plot one, then we'll talk. To this day, there is still tremendous room for error, though great improvements have occurred with satellite readings of atmosphere.

You calling me stupid is extremely insulting given my experience over yours, and destroys any chance of us having mutual agreement from this day forward. You aren't as smart as you think, and like so many on the left, have no sense of humor.

 

[wjk]

Quote from futurecurrents:

The ice age is not starting now, and certainly the weather outside your door during one spring, two springs or even ten springs is no indication of anything at all except the weather outside your door. It has ZERO to do with long-term, global climate change. That you would use it as evidence of such is just plain stupid. I don't know how else to put it.

Trends in weather are what make long term climate change readable. (Excluding events like volcanoes and meteor strikes, where there would be very short trends in change.) How the hell does that escape you? I can't even believe you would say this! Quit while you are behind.

Are you willing to ignore the trends you don't agree with to satisfy your beliefs or education? Are you not willing to question those who do the modeling regarding those trends? That's what I take away from your most recent comments.

 

[wjk]

Quote from futurecurrents:

In about a thousand years we are due for an ice age due the milankovitch cyle......if CO2 levels are at normal levels and the earth is the same as it was before mankind started messing it up. They and it are not even close. The ice ages occurred with very modest changes in solar which then got accentuated by feedbacks like a drop in CO2 and increased albido due to more ice. As things stand now the greenhouse effect of increasing CO2 levels will overwhelm the drop in solar. And we don't have thousands of years before GW becomes a huge problem if we keep doing what we're doing. We're talking maybe a hundred. The problems are already starting.

I have no dispute with this prediction regarding the normal timing of the ice age. I simply don't believe there is ample evidence to suggest levels of Co2 we have contributed will matter in the end. There is more to the ice age occurrences than solar. Some studies suggest orbital variations play a large role, for instance.

In a nutshell, there are too many variables. Perhaps I'm looking at a bigger time frame than you. In any case, time will tell won't it?

In the future, FC, show a little more respect, and maybe we can have further discussion. Otherwise, I'll stand by my rudeness. If you progressives weren't so damn arrogant, more people might be willing to have discussions with you. Later

 

[jem]

the drone spews his mantra as the top climatologists tell him they have no way of showing CO2 forces temps on the earth.

oddly at the moment the science is settled.

here is the science fc...

The scientists doing the IPCC and UN models tell you there is no science saying co2 causes warming.



http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot...d-amountnh.html

2.Very Unreliable Climate Forecasts - Modelling.

The entire IPCC - Al Gore CAGW paradigm relies on the forecast of dangerous 21st century warming based on the projections (not, modellers are careful to say,predictions) of climate models. The outcome of models is not empirical data .The science is in the inputs i.e our knowledge ( often guesses and assumptions ) of the initial conditions and the physical processes at work on the initial state of the system as we can best establish it.
Science section IPCC AR4 WG1 8.6 deals with forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity. The conclusions are in section 8.6.4 which deals with the reliability of the projections.It concludes:

"Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections,consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed"
What could be clearer. The IPCC in 2007 said that we dont even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- ie we don't know what future temperatures will be and we can't calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2.This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the "plausible" models to be tested anyway.
This quoted statement was ignored by the editors who produced the Summary for Policymakers. Here predictions of disaster were illegitimately given “with high confidence.” in complete contradiction to several sections of the WG1 science section where uncertainties and error bars were discussed. Almost all the worlds politicians, media and eco-activist organisations uncritically accepted and used these predictions as infallible guides to the futrure and acted on these delusions of certainty.

A glance at this Figure 2-20 From AR4 WGI shows immediately that the IPCC models are structurally obviously highly implausible. The only natural forcing is TSI and everything else is anthropogenic. For example under natural should come such things as eg Milankovitch orbital cycles,Lunar related tidal effects on ocean currents and all the Solar activity data time series - eg Solar and Earth magnetic field strength, TSI ,SSNs ,GCRs ,( effect on aerosols,clouds and albedo) CHs, MCEs, EUV variations, and associated ozone variations and Forbush events. Unless the range and causes of natural variation are known within reasonably narrow limits it is simply not possible to calculate the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on climate.

Quote from futurecurrents:

BTW....This is STILL true....


Fact is the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have gone up 35% in the last 150 years due to man. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. How could that NOT cause warming? It's a very simple concept ........that the fossil fuel industry wants to keep us confused about. Virtually all the world's climate scientists and all it's science organizations are in agreement. The science is settled. The deniers just look ignorant and foolish at this point.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from wjk:

I have no dispute with this prediction regarding the normal timing of the ice age. I simply don't believe there is ample evidence to suggest levels of Co2 we have contributed will matter in the end. There is more to the ice age occurrences than solar. Some studies suggest orbital variations play a large role, for instance.

In a nutshell, there are too many variables. Perhaps I'm looking at a bigger time frame than you. In any case, time will tell won't it?

In the future, FC, show a little more respect, and maybe we can have further discussion. Otherwise, I'll stand by my rudeness. If you progressives weren't so damn arrogant, more people might be willing to have discussions with you. Later

I apologize if I mistook what you were saying. I'm still not sure what that is.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

the drone spews his mantra as the top climatologists tell him they have no way of showing CO2 forces temps on the earth.

oddly at the moment the science is settled.

here is the science fc...

The scientists doing the IPCC and UN models tell you there is no science saying co2 causes warming.



http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot...d-amountnh.html

2.Very Unreliable Climate Forecasts - Modelling.

The entire IPCC - Al Gore CAGW paradigm relies on the forecast of dangerous 21st century warming based on the projections (not, modellers are careful to say,predictions) of climate models. The outcome of models is not empirical data .The science is in the inputs i.e our knowledge ( often guesses and assumptions ) of the initial conditions and the physical processes at work on the initial state of the system as we can best establish it.
Science section IPCC AR4 WG1 8.6 deals with forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity. The conclusions are in section 8.6.4 which deals with the reliability of the projections.It concludes:

"Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections,consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed"
What could be clearer. The IPCC in 2007 said that we dont even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- ie we don't know what future temperatures will be and we can't calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2.This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the "plausible" models to be tested anyway.
This quoted statement was ignored by the editors who produced the Summary for Policymakers. Here predictions of disaster were illegitimately given “with high confidence.” in complete contradiction to several sections of the WG1 science section where uncertainties and error bars were discussed. Almost all the worlds politicians, media and eco-activist organisations uncritically accepted and used these predictions as infallible guides to the futrure and acted on these delusions of certainty.

A glance at this Figure 2-20 From AR4 WGI shows immediately that the IPCC models are structurally obviously highly implausible. The only natural forcing is TSI and everything else is anthropogenic. For example under natural should come such things as eg Milankovitch orbital cycles,Lunar related tidal effects on ocean currents and all the Solar activity data time series - eg Solar and Earth magnetic field strength, TSI ,SSNs ,GCRs ,( effect on aerosols,clouds and albedo) CHs, MCEs, EUV variations, and associated ozone variations and Forbush events. Unless the range and causes of natural variation are known within reasonably narrow limits it is simply not possible to calculate the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on climate.

What part of 97% of all the world's climate scientists and all of it's science organizations saying man's activities are mostly responsible for the warming over the last 50 years don't you get? You are insane.

Why oh why can't you ever use reliable, authoritative sources?

 

[pspr]

Quote from futurecurrents:

What part of 97% of all the world's climate scientists and all of it's science organizations saying man's activities are mostly responsible for the warming over the last 50 years don't you get? You are insane.

Why oh why can't you ever use reliable, authoritative sources?

A perfect example of your lying to promote your political ideal. Your 97% number has been shown to be a total fabrication.

You will lie about anything to promote your AGW agenda. How much do they pay you to be a moron and post these lies here?