A Scientist, His Work and a Climate Reckoning

[kallend 1,626]

Quote

See "Enviro-Prediction" thread. Our guess is as good, or better than, grant funded scientists.

How did it compare with, say power company funded scientists on acid rain, or tobacco company funded scientists on the risks of smoking?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Like jet engines, lasers, GPS...

Yeah, Serendipity Happens.

It appears that you have little no knowledge of the way science and engineering work. However, ignorance IS curable.

So is arrogance

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Kennedy 0]

So now you're comparing them. Does that mean you are going to apply your comments on scientists to both sides. Or are you going to stick to past claims that big money only corrupts when supplied by private sources with an agenda, ad opposed to any source with an agenda?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

Let's check back on Dec. 31, 2040 to see what the climate has been like the last 30 years. Will it be warmer or cooler or stable?
Of course, what are you both willing to put up for it? Kind of like the Ehrlich bet...

Hey! Can you speed things up a little? 30 years from now my world is going to be either...
-a cold, dirty world, or
-a hot-as-hell world, or
-a very small chance of a warm, clean, sunny, wonderful world
...or somewhere in between depending on your religious views.

you forgot Ended . . . Over . . . Kaput . . . done . . . finished . . . and so on.
We actually only have a little less than 2 years left.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 1,626]

Quote

So now you're comparing them. Does that mean you are going to apply your comments on scientists to both sides. Or are you going to stick to past claims that big money only corrupts when supplied by private sources with an agenda, ad opposed to any source with an agenda?

Give some examples of government funded corrupt science comparable in scale and damage with the acid rain denial or the smoking is bad for you denial funded by big business.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Why would the winds be changing?

Well, because they are always changing might have something to do with it. On a day-to-day basis, winds change in velocity and direction. Same with season-to-season, year-to-year. Trends can be seen that indicate the wind direction that is seen most. Hence, a runway might be designated 12/30 because the prevailing winds are frequently that direction. But i they didn't change then windsocks wouldn't be on pivots.

One of the reasons winds may change has to do with Oscillations, as well. While the El Nino Southern Oscillation is the most well known, there are other oscillations, such as the North Atlantic Oscillation and even, yes, the Arctic Oscillation. Because these oscillations affect the prevailing winds, these oscillations cause the winds to change.

An Arctic Dipole Anomaly lets southern winds prevvail into the Arctic, resulting in a shifting of the ice pack and accelerated ablation of the ice due to the warmer winds. While some people claim that this Arctic Dipole is caused because it wasn't identified earlier, I find that it was not previously observed to be a specious argument for non-existence.

There are also other phenomena - weather phenomena - that cause winds to shift. This whole large snow event and cold in the Eastern US and europe has been attributed to a blocking high pressure system over Iceland. This high pressure system directed Arctic air around it and funneled it into Europe and North America where is met with warmer (and more humid) atmosphere to create the condition. This blocking high isn't a new thing. And as we all know, wind always blows from high pressure to low pressure.

Thus, we can imagine a situation where any ice forming under the blocking high gets blown to low pressure areas, resulting in increased ice formation and accumulation in the western and eastern Atlantic with the north/central Atlantic doesn't have much. But then the winds change again.

Inherent in your question is also the thought that "winds are changing due to global climate change." No, you didn't say it, but I'm reading that. My rejoinder is that if climate change is global (i.e., the whole globe is warming) then the wind patterns wouldn't be affected as much because you've got a high stasis.

On the other hand, localized climate change can certainly cause something like this. If, for example, you've got areas that are getting warmer and areas that are getting colder, one could expect the winds to change (energy moves from areas of low energy to areas of high energy, right?). Incidentally, we see this happening. For example, Canada is warming in some places and cooling in other places. This can and likely does cause some changes in the prevailing winds.

Thus, "warming" by itself can't really be blamed unless warming isn't happening everywhere. From a dynamics standpoint with physics as we presently understand it, there has to be warming and cooling to have the winds changing in a climactic sense.

Other than that, we haven't been able to keep and monitor winds and temperature in many of these places. How the hell do you put a weather station in the Arctic than can last? Put it on ice? No. The ice will melt and be pushed away, meaning that the weather station sinks or is someplace other than where it was put.

Can you just put a weather station on a buoy? No. Nobody want's to put a weather buoy out there in spring because they know that ice will destroy it (no matter what, a shitload of ice will be a common feature in the Arctic for our lifetimes. Even those who say Arctic will be ice free limit that prediction to September.)

So we have serious issues with detection, measurement and monitoring over the long term.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Like jet engines, lasers, GPS...

Yeah, Serendipity Happens.

It appears that you have little no knowledge of the way science and engineering work. However, ignorance IS curable.

Oh excuse me...no scientist or engineer ever has stumbled on something unintended. Do some research...I'm sure you'll stumble on something applicable.

You seem to stumble over your arrogance at every step. Oooops, doesn't apply does it...you intend to be arrogant as a way of life which IS incurable.

But thanks again for the mind-reading fail.
Insert $0.25 and try again.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

Why would the winds be changing?

Well, because they are always changing might have something to do with it. On a day-to-day basis, winds change in velocity and direction. Same with season-to-season, year-to-year. Trends can be seen that indicate the wind direction that is seen most. Hence, a runway might be designated 12/30 because the prevailing winds are frequently that direction. But i they didn't change then windsocks wouldn't be on pivots.

I'm surprised a PhD didn't know these things already and had to ask...and a jumper to boot!

Oh, wait...don't tell me...trolling again, right?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[brenthutch 384]

Kalland proves the old axiom "those who can't do, teach.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why would the winds be changing?

Well, because they are always changing might have something to do with it. On a day-to-day basis, winds change in velocity and direction. Same with season-to-season, year-to-year. Trends can be seen that indicate the wind direction that is seen most. Hence, a runway might be designated 12/30 because the prevailing winds are frequently that direction. But i they didn't change then windsocks wouldn't be on pivots.

I'm surprised a PhD didn't know these things already and had to ask...and a jumper to boot!

Oh, wait...don't tell me...trolling again, right?

Isn't this the same argument when they are confronted and have to stand behind the statement "It's weather, not climate change or GW?"

Why isn't it working in their favor this time -

Blinders can be taken off, Liberalism cannot.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Blinders can be taken off, Liberalism cannot

THis is a stretch. This is not "liberalism." It's not "capitalism." It's where capitalism and socialism mix. THere's a lot of money to be made by these scientists and by venture capitalists. What does one do if one has a technology that cannot compete? It gets the government to mandate it.

THe scientists are interested in making $$$. Hey - it's their jobs and they want to get paid and want more work for themselves and more money.

Capitalism doesn't exist the way it once did. Only by having governments force windmills down our throats will windmills make any money. So when T Boone Pickens bought those windmills he made ads looking for political support to have government mandate them. Now he's closed shop, selling his windmills to Canada where they are forced to use them.

It's not liberals, per se.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,626]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why would the winds be changing?

Well, because they are always changing might have something to do with it. On a day-to-day basis, winds change in velocity and direction. Same with season-to-season, year-to-year. Trends can be seen that indicate the wind direction that is seen most. Hence, a runway might be designated 12/30 because the prevailing winds are frequently that direction. But i they didn't change then windsocks wouldn't be on pivots.

I'm surprised a PhD didn't know these things already and had to ask...and a jumper to boot!

Oh, wait...don't tell me...trolling again, right?

Isn't this the same argument when they are confronted and have to stand behind the statement "It's weather, not climate change or GW?"

Why isn't it working in their favor this time -

Blinders can be taken off, Liberalism cannot.

You have a serious comprehension problem.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,626]

Quote

Quote

Why would the winds be changing?

Well, because they are always changing might have something to do with it. On a day-to-day basis, winds change in velocity and direction. Same with season-to-season, year-to-year. Trends can be seen that indicate the wind direction that is seen most. Hence, a runway might be designated 12/30 because the prevailing winds are frequently that direction. But i they didn't change then windsocks wouldn't be on pivots.

One of the reasons winds may change has to do with Oscillations, as well. While the El Nino Southern Oscillation is the most well known, there are other oscillations, such as the North Atlantic Oscillation and even, yes, the Arctic Oscillation. Because these oscillations affect the prevailing winds, these oscillations cause the winds to change.

An Arctic Dipole Anomaly lets southern winds prevvail into the Arctic, resulting in a shifting of the ice pack and accelerated ablation of the ice due to the warmer winds. While some people claim that this Arctic Dipole is caused because it wasn't identified earlier, I find that it was not previously observed to be a specious argument for non-existence.

There are also other phenomena - weather phenomena - that cause winds to shift. This whole large snow event and cold in the Eastern US and europe has been attributed to a blocking high pressure system over Iceland. This high pressure system directed Arctic air around it and funneled it into Europe and North America where is met with warmer (and more humid) atmosphere to create the condition. This blocking high isn't a new thing. And as we all know, wind always blows from high pressure to low pressure.

Thus, we can imagine a situation where any ice forming under the blocking high gets blown to low pressure areas, resulting in increased ice formation and accumulation in the western and eastern Atlantic with the north/central Atlantic doesn't have much. But then the winds change again.

Inherent in your question is also the thought that "winds are changing due to global climate change." No, you didn't say it, but I'm reading that. My rejoinder is that if climate change is global (i.e., the whole globe is warming) then the wind patterns wouldn't be affected as much because you've got a high stasis.

On the other hand, localized climate change can certainly cause something like this. If, for example, you've got areas that are getting warmer and areas that are getting colder, one could expect the winds to change (energy moves from areas of low energy to areas of high energy, right?). Incidentally, we see this happening. For example, Canada is warming in some places and cooling in other places. This can and likely does cause some changes in the prevailing winds.

Thus, "warming" by itself can't really be blamed unless warming isn't happening everywhere. From a dynamics standpoint with physics as we presently understand it, there has to be warming and cooling to have the winds changing in a climactic sense.

Other than that, we haven't been able to keep and monitor winds and temperature in many of these places. How the hell do you put a weather station in the Arctic than can last? Put it on ice? No. The ice will melt and be pushed away, meaning that the weather station sinks or is someplace other than where it was put.

Can you just put a weather station on a buoy? No. Nobody want's to put a weather buoy out there in spring because they know that ice will destroy it (no matter what, a shitload of ice will be a common feature in the Arctic for our lifetimes. Even those who say Arctic will be ice free limit that prediction to September.)

So we have serious issues with detection, measurement and monitoring over the long term.

Nice try with lots of words, but you need to explain a consistent trend in "winds changing" lasting for decades for your "explanation" to make any sense.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why would the winds be changing?

Well, because they are always changing might have something to do with it. On a day-to-day basis, winds change in velocity and direction. Same with season-to-season, year-to-year. Trends can be seen that indicate the wind direction that is seen most. Hence, a runway might be designated 12/30 because the prevailing winds are frequently that direction. But i they didn't change then windsocks wouldn't be on pivots.

One of the reasons winds may change has to do with Oscillations, as well. While the El Nino Southern Oscillation is the most well known, there are other oscillations, such as the North Atlantic Oscillation and even, yes, the Arctic Oscillation. Because these oscillations affect the prevailing winds, these oscillations cause the winds to change.

An Arctic Dipole Anomaly lets southern winds prevvail into the Arctic, resulting in a shifting of the ice pack and accelerated ablation of the ice due to the warmer winds. While some people claim that this Arctic Dipole is caused because it wasn't identified earlier, I find that it was not previously observed to be a specious argument for non-existence.

There are also other phenomena - weather phenomena - that cause winds to shift. This whole large snow event and cold in the Eastern US and europe has been attributed to a blocking high pressure system over Iceland. This high pressure system directed Arctic air around it and funneled it into Europe and North America where is met with warmer (and more humid) atmosphere to create the condition. This blocking high isn't a new thing. And as we all know, wind always blows from high pressure to low pressure.

Thus, we can imagine a situation where any ice forming under the blocking high gets blown to low pressure areas, resulting in increased ice formation and accumulation in the western and eastern Atlantic with the north/central Atlantic doesn't have much. But then the winds change again.

Inherent in your question is also the thought that "winds are changing due to global climate change." No, you didn't say it, but I'm reading that. My rejoinder is that if climate change is global (i.e., the whole globe is warming) then the wind patterns wouldn't be affected as much because you've got a high stasis.

On the other hand, localized climate change can certainly cause something like this. If, for example, you've got areas that are getting warmer and areas that are getting colder, one could expect the winds to change (energy moves from areas of low energy to areas of high energy, right?). Incidentally, we see this happening. For example, Canada is warming in some places and cooling in other places. This can and likely does cause some changes in the prevailing winds.

Thus, "warming" by itself can't really be blamed unless warming isn't happening everywhere. From a dynamics standpoint with physics as we presently understand it, there has to be warming and cooling to have the winds changing in a climactic sense.

Other than that, we haven't been able to keep and monitor winds and temperature in many of these places. How the hell do you put a weather station in the Arctic than can last? Put it on ice? No. The ice will melt and be pushed away, meaning that the weather station sinks or is someplace other than where it was put.

Can you just put a weather station on a buoy? No. Nobody want's to put a weather buoy out there in spring because they know that ice will destroy it (no matter what, a shitload of ice will be a common feature in the Arctic for our lifetimes. Even those who say Arctic will be ice free limit that prediction to September.)

So we have serious issues with detection, measurement and monitoring over the long term.

Nice try with lots of words, but you need to explain a consistent trend in "winds changing" lasting for decades for your "explanation" to make any sense.

He will make sense if you do it first

Oh wait

He already does

Never mind

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]Nice try with lots of words, but you need to explain a consistent trend in "winds changing" lasting for decades for your "explanation" to make any sense.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

This whole large snow event and cold in the Eastern US and europe has been attributed to a blocking high pressure system over Iceland. This high pressure system directed Arctic air around it and funneled it into Europe and North America where is met with warmer (and more humid) atmosphere to create the condition. This blocking high isn't a new thing. And as we all know, wind always blows from high pressure to low pressure.

Thus, we can imagine a situation where any ice forming under the blocking high gets blown to low pressure areas, resulting in increased ice formation and accumulation in the western and eastern Atlantic with the north/central Atlantic doesn't have much. But then the winds change again.

Holy cow! I wrote that a couple of days ago and now look what was released just today!
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2011/010511.html

Quote

Repeat of a negative Arctic Oscillation leads to warm Arctic, low sea ice extent

Arctic sea ice extent for December 2010 was the lowest in the satellite record for that month. These low ice conditions are linked to a strong negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation, similar to the situation that dominated the winter of 2009-2010.

I'm sad to say that despite the low ice extent in the Atlantic, the northwest passage looks pretty well socked in with ice. We'll have to see how the ice recovers with the dissipation of that blocking high and ask ourselves how this will affect ice extent this summer.

This is not hard to look at. It doesn't take a Ph.D. to figure out what the heck is going to happen. Another interesting thing to look at is the purple median lines for 1979-2000. Not quite there, but it's still looks fairly close in those areas that weren't hammered by a repeating event (oscillation).

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,626]

Quote

Consider me to be a accused of rape and consider you to be a Texas prosecutor. Maybe in thirty years there will be enough evidence to cause a reasonable doubt in your mind. Go on. Tell me how my explanation that there are plenty of alternative explanations is ridiculous. Shoot. Had the guy been convicted on computer model evidence then there would have been no need for actual raw DNA data. DNA evidence showing he didn't do it? it would be impossible if the computer models showed that he did...

Shitty analogy.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

Consider me to be a accused of rape and consider you to be a Texas prosecutor. Maybe in thirty years there will be enough evidence to cause a reasonable doubt in your mind. Go on. Tell me how my explanation that there are plenty of alternative explanations is ridiculous. Shoot. Had the guy been convicted on computer model evidence then there would have been no need for actual raw DNA data. DNA evidence showing he didn't do it? it would be impossible if the computer models showed that he did...

Shitty analogy.

Just because you disagree with it doesn not make it as you would describe it.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 1,626]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Consider me to be a accused of rape and consider you to be a Texas prosecutor. Maybe in thirty years there will be enough evidence to cause a reasonable doubt in your mind. Go on. Tell me how my explanation that there are plenty of alternative explanations is ridiculous. Shoot. Had the guy been convicted on computer model evidence then there would have been no need for actual raw DNA data. DNA evidence showing he didn't do it? it would be impossible if the computer models showed that he did...

Shitty analogy.

Just because you disagree with it doesn not make it as you would describe it.

You miss the point.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 384]

Kallend lets get back to the point. Do you think that the fish die off in the Chesapeake from the cold was due to the warm?
http://musicifi.com/gossip/Massive-Fish-Kill-in-the-Chesapeake-Bay-Is-American-Wildlife-Cursed-4471331.html

You must be so smart that you think that Socrates and Plato were morons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQNHBUqfLnM
[url]

[brenthutch 384]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQNHBUqfLnM

sorry

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Consider me to be a accused of rape and consider you to be a Texas prosecutor. Maybe in thirty years there will be enough evidence to cause a reasonable doubt in your mind. Go on. Tell me how my explanation that there are plenty of alternative explanations is ridiculous. Shoot. Had the guy been convicted on computer model evidence then there would have been no need for actual raw DNA data. DNA evidence showing he didn't do it? it would be impossible if the computer models showed that he did...

Shitty analogy.

Just because you disagree with it doesn not make it as you would describe it.

You miss the point.

What point? You had a point to make?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[billvon 2,400]

>Do you think that the fish die off in the Chesapeake from the cold
>was due to the warm?

Do you think that weather is the same as climate?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Do you think that the fish die off in the Chesapeake from the cold
>was due to the warm?

Do you think that weather is the same as climate?

Of course not - everyone knows that any pattern that doesn't support AGW is 'weather' and everything else is 'climate'.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>Do you think that the fish die off in the Chesapeake from the cold
>was due to the warm?

Do you think that weather is the same as climate?

Again, no.

But when weather is hapening that we were told was a thing of the past, then people start getting pissed off. When Hansen said that thew Russian summer was a weather event, but a weather event that wouldn't have happened without global warming then the door gets opened. If hot weather is caused by global warming then cold weather must be either caused by global warming or happen in spite of global warming.

Hot weather is now attributed to global warming. Cold weather? Bahhh. That's just weather.

My wife is hotter than your wife.