Tuesday, February 16, 2010

More about "Snowmaggedon"

For those who may be interested in pursuing this topic further, here's a good round-up of information about GCC.


Six said...

LOL I love how Global Warming alarmist are quick to point out that weather is not an indicator of climate change - except when it is.

You did this the other day too when you cited Katrina as the result of Global Warming... however, when I asked you what you used as a source of that, you quickly changed your position to one that said that basically specific weather events cannot be attributed as a result of Global Warming... just like the LACK OF severe storms the last several years was not evidence that there was no global warming. We have NOT had more frequent severe storms over the last decade as has been predicted - so is that the result of climate change?

You can't have it both ways... either weather is the result of global warming all the time or it is not all - not just when it fits your theory.

Citizen Jane said...

Hi, Six,

Maybe I could try to put this another way. We're talking about probabilities, and logically, no "probability" is 100%. So no one can say with certainty that one specific storm--e.g., Katrina--was "caused by" GCC.

What we can say is that rising average temperatures result in more energy in the atmosphere and changing conditions in things like wind and precipitation patterns, ocean currents, glacial ice melt, etc. So we can say with certainty that there will be MORE extreme weather events--we just can't say that any ONE event would not have happened before human activities started changing the climate so rapidly.

Here's another good article on the subject: http://www.newsweek.com/id/143787

Six said...

Thanks for the link... problem is though, the claim they make that 100-year storms are now 15-year stoms is not backed up. Using hurricanes as an example, storms classified as 'hurricanes' have actually become LESS-frequent over the last two decades, and not more frequent. Katrina was for the most part a catagory 1 storm that topped out as a catagory 3 hurricane at landfall, what made it so deadly was where it hit and the failure of man-made things called levies... because as all know much of New Orleans is below sea level.

As an example, of 'extreme' hurricanes, during the last 20 year period there were 10-catagory 5 hurricanes from 1990-2010. More than the previous 20-year period to be certain. However, similarly the 20-year period from 1950-1970 there were ALSO 10-catagory 5 hurricanes. Was that too caused by global warming? Is so, what caused the decline afterwards? (and there has not been a catagory 5 since 2007).

Moreover, Katrina was not even one of the 25-most deadly hurricanes of all time. The top 5 most deadly took place in 1780, 1998, 1900, 1974, 1930. Do you see a pattern of frequency? I don't!

Additionally, ranking storms by 'catagory' did not even start until 1924. So we are measuring frequency of 'severe' storms over a 80 year periord which is the equivalent of less than one-tenth of one second out of a 24-hour day.

Citizen Jane said...

You're right about that, Six--a decade's worth of hurricane data "proves" nothing.

Here's today's comment from T. Friedman: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/opinion/17friedman.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Six said...

So lets sum up his arguments...

* Weather proves nothing, except when it does. When it rains more its because of man-made global 'weirding' - rains less, again, global 'wierding'. Got it - check!

* not all climate 'weirding' is caused by humans, some of it by the glowing ball of fire that shines 24/7/365 and even though the earth has had massively fluctuating climates for a billion or two years, including much higher CO2 levels and temps than today, which further includes periods of time with no polar ice caps at all (nevermind that the planet was exploding with land-dwelling life unmatched by today) Man probably caused the warming then too - check!

Now lets look at his link provided - that person claims that because of man-made global 'weirding' over the next 40-50 or so years half of all life will be wiped out, sea levels are going to rise by 5-6 feet then a foot a year after that!! (Sounds similarly as outrageous to Gore's claim that sea levels would rise by 20 ft and that there would be no ice cap by 2014) but surely - there is no sensationalized predictions. Ok got it - half of all life is at stake by the second half of the century and buy property at least 20-30 ft above sea level. Check!

Whats TF's solution? Have some coalition of agencies all collectively come together and produce an unimpeachable document with peer-reviewed sources perfectly articulating all of the facts of the horrible CO2 emisions impact on Gloabal 'Weirding' - further highlight the awful places evil skeptic's get thier funding (because obviously anyone questioning the sanctity of global weirding facts clearly is only doing for nefarious reasons). Check!

And according to him, in that paper we better show where the evil skeptics get thier funding - because clearly anyone questioning climate weirding is only interested in PROFITS! Should we include in the same report where Pro-weirding scientists get thier funding? What about patents they hold, or businesses they profit from that are so-called 'green' or 'clean'? Nah... (sarcastic) those scientists are part of the holy faith therefore thier funding sources are of no consequence. 'Green' scientists - good! scientist that dare to question- bad! Check!

Lets go see if anyone else has thought of this too - wait they have! IPCC! It's even put together through an endorsement of the almighty UN!! They even recieved a Nobel Peace Prize for such a piece of work (actually they shared it with Gore for his piece of work that was equally flawed). Although looking closely at that supposedly impeachable piece of work has found to have more than it's share of errors. Furthing looking in to this impeachable organization has found it to be citing weather stations that don't exist, making claims that are quite litterally impossible and using a little fuzzy math while not sharing original sources of information - interesting... maybe we should ask them where they get thier funding and to what purpose? How about we start by asking they they headed by a man who is reverered as the worlds top climate scientists but has no formal training in climatology or meteorology or geology... hell even astrology (LOL)!

What it has helped me to realize is that while obviously climate change is real, the causes and effects are more hyped by politics than by science.