This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Cold Wind
Cold wind blowing today in the North East, fitting for the first day of winter. The whole country is having a bit of a cold spell. Even the poor folks in Palm Beach might see a frost (raises hell with the begonias).
I was feeling a bit sorry for the folks in the sun belt before I saw that it was down to –55F in Siberia. That’s cold, a fifty year low.
The topic of weather gets me to a story I’ve been following - the continuing drought in the mid-west. The odds say that two years of severe drought is unlikely, but that is what’s happening. The 30/90-day rainfall is a fraction of normal:
The lack of rain has many negative side effects. One is the water level on the Mississippi. The water is so low that ships, sunk and lost twenty-five years ago, are now visible.
A number of emergency steps are being taken to keeps the river navigable. Thirty miles south of St. Louis there is a rock formation that was once deep below water. Now it’s a risk to barge traffic, so they’re blasting it apart.
A more controversial step was taken to drain water from Lake Carlyle. The hope is that the extra water will raise the northern Mississippi by six inches. Not a big deal considering it's already down by 20 feet. The water drained from Lake Carlyle will keep the upper Mississippi navigable for, at best, another twenty days.
The river is already impaired; it’s getting worse by the day. There will be economic consequences to this. There are not enough trains and trucks to pick up the volume of goods that go by barge. Everything that goes up and down the river is going to get a fair bit more expensive in the very near future. A hell of lot of “stuff” gets floated up and down the Mississippi, so this is one to watch out for.
++
There is no connection between this weekend’s weather and climate change (It’ll be back in the 80s down in Boca next week), but I’ll jump to that topic anyway. For those of you who have strong feelings (either way) on matters of climate, there was an important development this week.
It appears that a significant motivation for Obama to nominate John Kerry as the next Secretary of State is that Kerry is going to lead a global effort to “Confront Climate Change”. The Hill has the story on this today (Link), some snippets from the article:
From Twitter:
“Confident John Kerry as state sec is good news for climate. Cross fingers his dedication will make climate a strategic priority. ” Hedegaard - E.U.’s commissioner for climate action.
“One of the most pressing challenges is to reverse potentially devastating climate change. Kerry understands the need to work closely with allies on the most pressing topics – including climate change.” Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.)
Quotes:
“I have absolute confidence that Secretary Kerry will be committed to action on climate change as he, is the most knowledgeable, passionate person to break the international logjams on this existential threat.” Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.)
“Sen. Kerry will bring vital expertise and knowledge on the issue of climate change as we endeavor to work toward a meaningful, balanced international agreement in 2015,” - Eileen Claussen, the president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.
“As Secretary, Senator Kerry will face numerous issues that are crucial to both the security of our nation and the future of our planet, including critical decisions on the Keystone XL pipeline.” - Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune.
“Senator Kerry could certainly teach the President a thing or two about how to make a clear and compelling case for climate action. That starts with saying no to the Keystone XL pipeline and then continuing to use the powers of the presidency to regulate emissions and promote clean energy.” - Jamie Henn, co-founder of the climate advocacy group 350.org .
“We need a leader with John Kerry’s experience and talent at the helm of the State Department. There is much more to do on all of these crucial challenges, from nonproliferation to climate change.” - Hillary Clinton.
I thought it was interesting that Obama did not mention Kerry’s role as "Climate Defender" when he announced his nomination. I guess Obama understood that this is a very hot topic, and if the plan is for his new Sec. State to put the nix on the Keystone pipeline; he had better keep his mouth shut until after Kerry's Senate confirmation.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
-Should the Secretary of State be leading a new global charge directed at climate change?
-Is there anything that might be done to influence the climate?
-Are humans responsible for climate change? Are Americans responsible for climate change?
-Does your opinion of Kerry, as Sec. State, change, now that you know that one reason he is getting the job is to push a climate agenda?
It’s cold out, I’m just trying to turn up the heat.
- advertisements -











Any of you giving me a down arrow care to put up your enlightened fact based reasons for disagreement? I thought not.
O.K. You do know that ice core isotope ratios show that the earth has been through dozens of heating and cooling cycles (completely glaciated vs no ice except at the poles) in which CO2 (and T too) was higher than current levels (sometimes thousands of ppm) Yet, in each case the level of free CO2 increases after the temperature T rises. So, if you undestand the idea of cause and effect then you understand increasing levels of CO2 is an effect of higher surface T (NOT A CAUSE). And here's something to challenge your "brain"-how is it we still have coral reefs after all these high CO2 episodes? Answer: Nature adapts-its called evolution.
And I'm going to teach you why CO2 is an effect not a cause. Its called Rault's law of gas solubility. You can "discover" this law by boiling a pot of water! See those bubbles coming off-that's gas! Higher T means less gas solubility in a liquid like H2O. And the oceans, comprising 75% of the surface area of the earth are the major storage mechanism of all gasses including CO2. So, increasing T, mostly from changes in the suns radiation output, angle of earth axis tilt and orbit are the CAUSE of the increased irradiance. Humans, have nothing to do with it its been happening for hundreds of millions of years and the earth and its flora and fauna are still here. (yes, 99% ever extant, are extinct, but that's evolution again)
Now you see the power of the scientific method of thinking. Amazing isn't it? As a experienced scientist I can assure you so-called climate science is a religion (belief, not evidence based) not science. Its all about control and making some bucks off suckers like you. Proponents of AGW even use terms like "deniers" (you know as in "how dare you deny the existence of Christ? and/or AGW")
Why isn't it a science? The only green house gas of significance is water, H2O (CH4, methane, would be a secondary effect in a good model of gas radiation absorbance/scattering). You know those water molecules which form clouds and thus either screen irradiance from the sun (wow, today is really cool and cloudy!) or prevent radiation loss at night (wow, tonight is really balmy with all those clouds up there). But to model the effect of water vapor on cloud formation and radiation forcing is impossible (you need to know the amount, spatial and temporal location as a function of time) and thus all the models used to "predict" a net increase in T are flawed. In fact, if you could do this you could predict the weather (a completely non-linear system with hundreds of positive and negative feedback loops) say tomorrow, or next week, or next month etc. Yet, we all know how well that works! Or, as I like to joke, they pull the predicted numbers out of their ass. Oh, and each water molecule has an Infrared absorbance cross-section nearly 100x that of CO2, so even if it wasn't present in orders of magnitude higher quantities than CO2, it would still be the only important variable in surface T.
If you use the wrong independent variible in your "model" you won't get scientific results. So, T= f(H2O, sun output, angle of tilt, orbital shape), not T=f(CO2). However, CO2=f(T) because of Rault's law. See the big difference? One is science, the other is belief, faith or religion.
JohnColtrane, your arguments and "facts" are largely either specious or flat-out wrong, or both. So much for your "scientific thinking".
First, there are NO ice core samples which demonstrate past CO2 levels higher than those of today. If you knew much about the subject, you would know that the ice core data only reflects, at most, atmospheric composition of the last 400,000 years, coving the last four major worldwide ice ages, and not only NOWHERE in that record was the level of prevailing atmospheric CO2 higher than today, in every period it was significantly lower (http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/ --- see especially this graph: http://www.planetforlife.com//images/icecore.gif). NEVER in the ice core records is there any evidence of atmospheric CO2 at levels of thousands of ppm --- that is a flat-out lie.
Your argument that the increasing levels of CO2 in the last ~150 years (amazingly, and perfectly, coinciding with the Industrial Revolution) are due to outgassing of carbon dioxide from the oceans due to higher temperatures is illogical and wrong on the face of it, as the oceans over the past century have become increasing acidic, not less acidic as your theory would presuppose. And even if the increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 were partially due to ocean outgassing due to the decreased solubility of CO2 at higher temperatures, that effect would not necessarily imply that human-generated CO2 did not play a role in causing those same higher temperatures, which is undoubtedly has:
Note in this discussion that my ONLY focus was on scientific facts --- I neither brought up, nor desire to bring up, nor agree with Al Gore or carbon credits or any other manifestation of statist-driven central planning under the guise of "global warming hysteria". But facts are facts, and need to be honestly recognized whether they might (arguably) play into one or another political agenda. To argue otherwise is the height of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.
Nevertheless, I now expect this post to receive any number of down-arrows from the scientifically illiterate no-nothings who increasingly swarm this forum.
EDIT: Typically for the no-nothings who downvoted this post, no counterargument is supplied or even attempted --- because none can be made. Cowards AND idiots.
@ PUD
Doing YOUR homework would be nice too.
One small thing where you are wrong, SMALL thing granted. N Hemisphere air conditions little affect S Hemisphere air masses. Why? Because they do NOT mix very much. Put all the CO2 you want (CHINA is No. 1!) and it affects Peru and Argentina very little.
EDIT:
There is virtually NO Fukushima fallout (air or ocean water) in the S Hemisphere for similar reasons.
You did fine. Ignore the jar-heads they are just scared shitless and can't have a coherent thought on the matter.
1) "Jarheads" is a nickname for a military man.
2) What is there to be "scared" of if we DON'T believe in (catastophic) climate change, you're the "chicken-little" that's scared shitless.
(it reminds me of the inaccuracy of the term "homophobic". The LAST group of males one needs to be afraid of, wouldn't you say?)
3) There is no "climate change" (at least not in the terms you mean).
How's that for a coherent thought.
Y2K, Mayan Apocalypse, climate change !
"Just so you know, there is a good chance that at least some of the comment posters on threads like this are actually paid corporate or" Soros "think-tank shills"
Coug and Dex,
Don't look under the bed......DON'T DO IT !!!!
LOL
So I guess that makes your comments Al Gore paid.
No no I do it for the sex: My wife gets steamy when I jump on here and kick all your asses around the Interweb.
Look there she's giving me the signs. Hubba hubba. Okay feckers figure it out on yer own I'm off to bed and my rewards.
We're only in it for the pussy!
Not so cougarish by my standards, more like a domesticated felis silvestris with a mental impairment...
I'm really sorry you feel that way. But, whatev's.
On the off chance you are being paid to feel that way and you are here on the clock: Fuck the fuck off you degenerate puking cunt.
This is why I stated that there is no hope. There are too many ignorant people who see the world only within the confines of their backyard and in the timescale of their attention span. Still waiting for some scientific rebutal....that will never come. Fools
PUDknocker, I do not deny the climate is changing...it always has been and always will be changing.
What I strongly disagree with is the way "they" want to deal with climate change, whether man has all, or nothing, to do with it. Taxes and wealth redistribution? Really? Many of us will fight that to the death every time.
BTW, you asshatery of a tone in your posts does not make for great debate.
Deal with the issue by proposing incentives for people to be green and clean.
"pudknocker"?? take some of your own advice sir. I don't care if you like my tone or not. I do not and did not make any statement about who what or how to deal with any of the issues under discussion. I only care about the science. I also don't think that there is a single meaningful thing that can or will be done so frankly I don't give a shit what anyone does or says...I know full well that it's too late.
The greatest thing mankind has to fear is the next ice age, which has pretty good evidence to support it's coming. If evidence of the size of the ice sheets on the North American continent are correct then glogal temperatures will be plummeting soon and naturally and then myself I would prefer a bit of shall we say a "running start" on the next one. That's just me though.
It is total inflammatory bunk that's why, not worth the pixels it is displayed on.
For factual information by learned people of science read this.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/11/29/open-climate-letter-to-un-se...
To admit even the possibility that they could be wrong makes people very unhappy, and these AGW people are no different.
A little more research on your part would reveal to you that the "met" report has been totally discredited. There are 10's of thousands of scientists in complete agreement not that votes are taken to confirm scientific thesis. Half knowledge is a very dangerous thing. Data mining is a very dangerous thing too. Do your homework
Concensus is just a way for many people to be wrong together. That reminds me is it still true that no one has ever been fired for buying IBM. It also reminds me of bubbles; tech, housing, tulips.
Temperature warmer than average? That's global warming! Colder than average? That's global warming too. Statistically average? Global warming. Wetter than normal? Global warming. Dryer than normal? Global warming. Etc Etc.
There's a pattern emerging there....
And you think deniers are close minded. BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
.
"...the General Secretary then resumed his seat, to thunderous applause."
The Club of Rome's predictions are still on track.
If figures. Can you imagine how much of an economic downer broad new Federal rules on drilling, fracking, water treatment, limited LNG exports etc. would be? Just what we need to crush any hint of a recovery based on cheap domestic energy.
Does seem to be 'our dear leaders' plan.
If Obummer was trying to forment a civil war,he couldn't do better than
he is.
Here comes Kerry's worldwide farting ban, anyone who fails to obey will be blown apart by a depleted uranium missile fired from a MQ-1 Predator...
The gubbermint is counting on your ignorance!
A functioning ecosystem has economic value, like transportation on the Mississippi. As it changes, man made and not, there will be economic consequences, and possibly benefits to exploit.
Yep. Time to invest in farmland in Siberia...
warm in Frisco. I'll start here:
By David Waggoner
October 13, 2011
“You fucking fuck, I’ll squash you like an ant,” said angel investor Ron Conway to a tech entrepreneur who’d fallen out of Conway’s favor. (see “The Scariest Man in Silicon Valley,” Jay Yarow, Business Insider, May 12, 2011).
Known as the Godfather of Silicon Valley, Conway has been the playground bully for many years in the tech world. He was an early investor in Google, Facebook, Twitter and Paypal. He parties with Henry Kissinger and Arnold Schwarzenegger. His typical advice to CEOs: fire people.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the guy isn't made out of Kevlar, correct?
Just checking.
Steroids make bigger killzones.
The sky is growing, the sky is growing. Just to add to the end of the climate change debate.
"War on Drugs"----------------------------------> more Gubmint (and drugs)
"War on Poverty"--------------------------------> more Gubmint (and poverty)
"War on Terror"----------------------------------> more Gubmint (and Terror)
"War on Climate Change"-----------------------> __________________________
(fill in blank)
war on guns > more guns and of course new expanded atf division of enforcement
unless, of course, thisis the last straw - hmmmm.
texas, hear i come; last hope of right to liberty...
Ok so now he's telling us the .gov is going to try to "fix" the climate?!? Oh boy now we're fucked!
I like your oxymoronic handle, CompassionateFascist!
My efforts to understand the human driven climate change debate ended up feeling like a dog chasing its own tail:
http://www.marijuanaparty.ca/forum/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=CMPmarijuanapa...
Basically, the whole world is controlled by huge lies, backed up by lots of violence. The financial system is the most important manifestation of that runaway fraud, backed by force, social reality. It is difficult to wrap one's head around the magnitude of the almost infinite tunnel of deceit that runs through and through our civilization. Therefore, of course, I would fill in the blank in the way that you suggest, namely, the "solutions" will be fakes, with ulterior purposes. All of the alleged solutions to the alleged problems look deliberately designed to backfire from every perspective, other than to make the ruling elites more wealthy, and more powerful, and more able to control other people.
When it comes to actually understanding the climate, half the data is missing, and most of the other half is not reliable, due to the distortions caused by the funding of the so-called science, on all sides of the debate that I have been able to ferret out, or winnow through. Also, the climate models appear to be full of presumptions which are dubious. From a scientific point of view, the main point, I believe, is that we do NOT understand the Sun, which is the prime mover of all the rest of the weather and the climate. I recommend taking a serious look at the Thunderbolts of the Gods Web site, about the electric universe theory. That does a great job of demonstrating the degree to which we surely do NOT understand how the Sun works, and have no good ways to predict what the Sun is going to do.
The bigger background problem to everything else about the human effects on climate is that civilization IS controlled by the people who were the best at being dishonest, and backing that up with violence, and ALL of their "solutions" to problems were always operating inside of that context. Therefore, while some of the problems they address may well be real and important, the "solutions" they propose seem invariably designed to backfire in every ways, except to make the people at the top of the social pyramid system even more wealthy and powerful.
Basically, the problem with doing anything about human and industrial ecology is that the central feature of those are the death controls, or the murder system, that backs up the money system's debt controls. Therefore, any genuine resolutions to the basic human and industrial ecology problems MUST have the murder system death controls as the central feature of everything else, because that is what those ARE already!
The real human ecology and political economy is ALREADY controlled by those people who were the best at being dishonest, and backing that up with violence in the past. Therefore, when those people raise an issue, through the mainstream mass media that they also control, and when their political puppets adopt those issues, and when many of the masses of muppets start to parrot those talking points, ALL of that is wrapped up in the long, long history of triumphant frauds, which are the backbone of our whole financial accounting system, that controls everything else our society is doing!
Therefore, any genuine solutions to human and industrial ecology problems, which would make it theoretically possible to understand their effects upon the natural ecologies, and the climate, etc., MUST be based on the FACTS that those were all controlled by the murder systems, that made the money system exist as it does today. The history that made War King, then morphed to make Fraud King. It inside of that context that all of the public debates about human driven climate change appear to be shows put on by the Fraud Kings, whose real purposes have little to do with actually solving the objective problems, but a lot to do with making the established social pyramid system even steeper than it already is!
The human impact on the natural environment is practically impossible to do anything constructive about, because society is actually controlled by the biggest bullies, and their bullshit social stories almost totally dominate everything that civilization actually does, creating a narrative that is pretty well perfectly backwards in every possible way.
Any realistic set of solutions to the impact of human beings and their activities upon the planet as a whole has as its necessarily central feature the death controls, and murder systems, which actually govern the emerging global civilizatioon, and which does so through those who were the best at deceits in the past being currently in control of the financial and governmental systems at the present time. Understand yourself, and understand your enemy! "We have met the enemy, and he is us!" Hah! That tickles my macabre sense of humour, because irreverantly laughing evil is about the only defence system that I have which is still even slightly working.
The point is that understanding the natural environment as a whole must be done through energy laws, and general systems theory, HOWEVER, when we apply those ideas to human society itself, it becomes plainly obvious that society is controlled by the people who are the best at being dishonest, and backing that up with violence. That is the REAL context in which any attempts to understand and resolve human driven climate change problems actually occur ... Civilization is dominated by the people who are the best professional liars and immaculate hypocrites, and the human driven climate change issue brings that fact forwards, because a scientific understanding of the impact of people upon the climate SHOULD also have a scientific understanding of the human ecology and economic activities ... BUT, such a scientific understanding discovers that was done through the history of militarism, where those who were the most successful at deceits prevailed in the past! The monetary system that controls our behavior is the main symbolic manifestation of the triumph of deceits controlling civilization in the past, and therefore, any alleged "solutions" like a carbon tax, etc., inevitably manifest inside of that overall context!
Excellent post (nice to see a thunderbolts ref too).
You write "Civilization is dominated by the people who are the best professional liars and immaculate hypocrites", however, that is only the case because of the belief in the State. And the State has it's roots deep in religion and history. Religion began with the King is god and has evolved over the centuries into the Institution is god. So long as that is believed the vile in society will be drawn to the power. The power of the god the State is to kill not only without consequence but also, often, with celebration.
An English gentleman whose name I forget, postulaed that human's can be roulgy divided into groups of 10%-20%-40%-20%-10%. The groups have the following characteristics:
10 - Will do the right (moral-cooperative-ethical) thing even if it costs them dearly.
20 - Will do the right thing if it costs them-but at the margin are swayed by the direction of the whole.
40 - Will do what is generally accepted-go with the flow-in Economics they are the "margin"
20 - Will do the wrong (selfish, immoral, unethical, uncooperative) thing provided the costs are hidden or low-but at high cost are swayed by the direction of the whole.
10 - Will do the wrong thing regarldless of cost.
The State draws the bottom 30% and they are the most likely to succeed in grasping and holding it's reigns. As the bottom 30 gain power, their acts become more destructive as the bottom 20 follow the bottom 10. The middle 40 follow the lead. And even the top 20 make the wrong choice due to the cost, or they stop trying and disengage.
I believe civilisation is NOT the State. That is the real quibble I have with your statement I quoted.
You forgot Nixon's War on cancer and the current War on Obesity ....
Bruce you must be heading off on holidays because your climate topic could keep the ZH community busy till the new year
but to respond to some of your questions, Obama needs and wants not only to leave a legacy but to set himself up for his next big job and of all the themes that resonate on a global basis 'Climate' is at the top of the list -Whilst one might think that hunger or disease should take top place, Climate trumps them both as it can be pointed to as a cause of hunger and disease and most importantly it is a voodoo science where nothing can be proved.
Obama will not only try and disarm America but he will sign it up to the United Nations Climate initiatives and in doing that will win the praise of the world, enrich his banker friends who are in the carbon business and lay the foundation for his appointment as sec gen of the UN as his darling wife Michelle takes aim at 2016.
mhmmmm... How many US prezs did ever become UN sec gens?
Zero?
How many UN resolutions were ever relevant to the US or the world without both US houses agreeing?
Zero?
Where does this new "UN allergy" come from? All those UN drones and UN black helicopters circling Texas? And how many exist in the world?
Zero?
Yes, a lot of this carbon trading stuff is hideous idiocy, but a lot of this new UN propaganda in the US is simply absurd
It gives the impression that the average citizen of Ghana has a better grasp of reality in international affairs
Ghordius, +100 for you. I have acquaintances who really believe the propaganda that the UN is going to enforce its will on the poor little helpless US. The USA does not spend a trillion dollars a year on "defense" and then allow the capital of the planet to be anywhere other than Manhatten. Remind me again, what city is it that hosts the HQ of the UN?
Oh, and for all you folks going on and on about a one world currency - it has already arrived: it's called the petrodollar. If you live in the US, have all the food you can eat, and all the gasoline you can burn, you are a beneficiary of the American Empire. YOU are complicit in the Novo Ordo Seclorum; don't try to feed me your exculpatory bullshit.
D's had fillibuster proof majorities 2009-2011, did they adress climate change or any of the pressing issues they claim to be so dedicated to resolving? Couldn't even pass a budget during that time.
Why liberals are AGW-oids.
It is part of their hunter-gatherer cultural heritage. Their lives were completely dependent on nature. They survived because of what nature gave them, not from what they produced, but from what they received. When they became intellectually capable, they began to look at nature like it was a deity, a life-giver. If it no longer existed, they no longer existed.
Hence, they are overly protective of it, even irrationally so.
I really like your comment.
I had an on-going argument with an ex about the word "organic". She would never accept anything that humans did as part of the natural order.
Any compound with a cabon atom in it is organic.
Diamond? Carbon tetrachloride? Graphite?
Diamond? Carbon tetrachloride? Graphite?
Exactly! That was the whole point I was trying to relay. C-H-O, and sometimes N. In other places C is replaced with Si.
Try to tell someone that octane is organic and they will think you are crazy!
Thanks. I've come across behaviors like that, too.
BTW, was she pro-choice?
Yes, she is. Funny you ask, too. The last time I saw her was shortly after we broke up. She told me she was pregnant and wanted money for an abortion. I knew she was lying and told her to get a quote and I'd write a check payable to Planned Parenthood delivered by me upon completion. Lousy short con artist she was.