|
Post by walnut on Dec 7, 2016 16:08:43 GMT
I don't think that is a fair assessment. By implying that he is over simplifying, I think that you are over simplifying.
Theo said: "Winter 2016-17 will be colder-and-wetter than normal, especially from the Midwest to the East, including the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states."
Theo seems to understand the difference between climate and weather: "Weather is the atmospheric conditions people experience at any point in time. And the Climate is the average of weather conditions in a region over time."
I am not saying I believe or don't believe. But to criticize him because he is not a published "climate scientist" is missing the point, he really is just a guy with an opinion. An "Astro-meteorologist"....
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Dec 7, 2016 16:19:59 GMT
That is sad news
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Dec 7, 2016 17:16:51 GMT
Think they know something that we're still arguing about??? Time to get outta Dodge boys and girls.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Dec 7, 2016 17:29:04 GMT
We in NZ have experienced the misdirection of resource from needed and wanted ecological issues to the CO2 pollution story.
Yes Code the EPA is vital as is NASA but mission creep is the issue. Trump may set them on the rails but he always presents the risk of baby out with the bath water.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 7, 2016 17:35:07 GMT
When President Nixon provided the legislation to establish the EPA, there was a real need for environmental improvements. There still is TODAY! But the EPA has become so damn fixated on CO2 that they have LOST their mission. From Flint, Michigan type of water problems to this type of problem. I WANT, in fact I DEMAND that the EPA force the law breakers to fix what they have done. Suing Ranchers over puddles will NOT fix anything. Requiring farmers to get permits before they apply a chemical will NOT fix anything. Europe is such a maze of regulations it isn't funny. The EPA wants to copy that, and while doing so it is missing its OBLIGATIONS as required presently by LAW. Forget the CO2 crap!!! That science is SHODDY at BEST!!!
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Dec 7, 2016 17:56:39 GMT
MissouryBoy, can you give me a precis of what you see in those charts wrt the future or past? Begging the court's indulgence: The Schultz defence. If you look at the 357 year long-term trend of the CET for summer and winter you will note that winter temperatures have increased by 1.5 to 2 C (0.4 to 0.6 C per century) and summers have increased by about 1.0 C (0.3 C per century). This may broadly be termed the 'background warming' that Sig refers to. Yes, Central England is only one station, but its the longest continuously measured (note the term measured, regardless of the sobriety of the measurer on any given day, or otherwise). Does it represent the Earth? Hard to say ... but it may be a reasonable representation of N Atlantic maritime climates in terms of overall trend. What are the forces driving the 3.5 century trend? You tell me. There are 'wiggles' in the long-term trend, but no obvious sign of any dramatic change that could be definitively tied to human kind (my interpretation). You'll note that summer temps in 1772 were just as high as today. Will England die if this long-term trend is repeated over the next century or two? As for the shorter term, it never ceases to amaze me that 'everybody' accepts that our sun warms the Earth. Even the town drunk would agree that it'll be warmer when the sun 'comes up' and it'll be cooler when it 'goes down'. It's embedded in our genetics. Note those geese headed south. They don't need a scientist or a university or a prophet to tell them that winters' coming. They may even be able to discern the magnitude without the help of a single Ph.D. Imagine. But we (present company excluded?) do not seem to be able to wrap our heads around the possibility that our sun may vary its output/effects in areas we know little about ... even though we can see a rough relational representation in the record. Is it exact? No. The military develops contingency plans even for minor probabilities. We might be wise to start thinking about what we'll do if the growing season climate of the upper Great Plains and the Canadian prairies suddenly (3-10 years) changes and our current ag surplus becomes a big, fat negative. It's going to be easy enough to monitor. But it's not going to be easy to fix if worse comes to worse. Our currently zonkered climate modelers might even do something useful by attempting to model the agricultural effects of a return to conditions for which we have proxies ... let's say the 1880s. Who knows, they might even get rich on the commodity markets. And nary an excess btu to be found. Do you suppose that evolution could be a two-way street? We got smarter and dropped out of the trees. We got dumber and started hiding in imaginary closets?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 7, 2016 18:31:17 GMT
There are knowns, and then there are unknowns.
Anyone who thinks that at present, science grasps all the unknowns if going to be proven wrong at some point in the future.
CO2 is clearly a radiative gas. That is a "known". The potential effects of increasing CO2 are a hypothesis.
Definition of a hypothesis:
NOUN
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation: "professional astronomers attacked him for popularizing an unconfirmed hypothesis" synonyms: theory · theorem · thesis · conjecture · supposition · [more] philosophy a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.
It would serve EVERYONE well to understand said definition.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Dec 7, 2016 18:35:55 GMT
There are knowns, and then there are unknowns. Anyone who thinks that at present, science grasps all the unknowns if going to be proven wrong at some point in the future. CO2 is clearly a radiative gas. That is a "known". The potential effects of increasing CO2 are a hypothesis. Definition of a hypothesis: NOUN a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation: "professional astronomers attacked him for popularizing an unconfirmed hypothesis" synonyms: theory · theorem · thesis · conjecture · supposition · [more] philosophy a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth. It would serve EVERYONE well to understand said definition. I think that the "hypo" dispensing our daily 'fix' has confused some of us.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 7, 2016 18:36:29 GMT
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HypothesisA hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Dec 7, 2016 21:30:37 GMT
We in NZ have experienced the misdirection of resource from needed and wanted ecological issues to the CO2 pollution story. Yes Code the EPA is vital as is NASA but mission creep is the issue. Trump may set them on the rails but he always presents the risk of baby out with the bath water. The problem with the civil service of American government is always mission creep. There is rarely an economic motive and if there are not specific products required all the time, the motivated employee will attempt to carve out something (an area) for themselves by grabbing existing resources, attracting new resources, or aligning themselves with another that has a basket of resources. The unmotivated will merely lay there. Management is governmentally lax. You'd have to assassinate your boss's dog to get terminated or just seriously piss off a surperior. The USGS was a very interesting agglomeration of scientists mostly doing their own thing (singular or in a group). Exciting place to work in chushy budget times. Lots of small and large directed research groups that tend to drift from year to year on existing budgets that never (Ok, rarely) disappear. Within the 95% of everything is crud rule, small bits of real research were accomplished. Unless there is a crisis, there is little evaluation of whether the projects really measure up to any national priority, much less whether they need to be funded at all. That's just the way I saw it.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Dec 7, 2016 23:09:45 GMT
Can the word assassinate be used wrt a dog? Sig, get that dictionary out .... Thanks Missouri for the precis and thoughts. We're on the same page.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Dec 7, 2016 23:44:08 GMT
When President Nixon provided the legislation to establish the EPA, there was a real need for environmental improvements. There still is TODAY! But the EPA has become so damn fixated on CO2 that they have LOST their mission. Maybe it should have never been their mission in the first place. Yes environmental improvements were needed but the states generally do a good job once the problem becomes apparent, albeit it will take longer for all 50 states to get on board, but its more important to do it right and have somebody close to the problem fixing it than having someone ignorant working on the problem. I would think that certainly true in regards having a big federal bureaucracy as opposed to having the federal government operate with a few judges and law clerks, and perhaps facilitate meetings between the states to seek settlements of interstate issues. Then its totally insane having 2 agencies designated as responsible agencies, one at the state level and the other at the federal level. Then you have competition for relevancy, assuring overkill.
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Dec 8, 2016 0:54:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Dec 8, 2016 1:23:38 GMT
Mr Gore and his opinions must not have carried much weight.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Dec 8, 2016 3:14:57 GMT
[ Snip ] Then its totally insane having 2 agencies designated as responsible agencies, one at the state level and the other at the federal level. Then you have competition for relevancy, assuring overkill. True in the US, true in Oz. Will Trump live long enough to clean out the warrens?
|
|