Originally Posted by Eric the Green

YOu are a global warming skeptic?

I'm an agnostic on the subject. My feelings summarized previously here:

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...946#post408946

Originally Posted by TeddyR

What reports Eric? Let's take flooding and the places you mentioned. Below are all instances of worse flooding than 2011.

I listen to the news. That's what the reporters said about all these disasters; they are on an unprecedented scale. They are 100-year events, or have never happened before. You apparently are not reading or listening, even to the links I gave.

Or, when you used the word unprecedented, were you just throwing it out there? Otherwise I read what you wrote as saying we have never had any floods this bad before 2011. Is that not what you meant? That is what you said. I have neither taken your words out of context nor have I changed them one bit. In your hysterical, self-righteous green frenzy, you exaggerated just a bit didn't you? Using weather to build the case for global warming is as silly as using astrology to build the case for how world affairs will unfold.

Then why does the IPCC and all climate scientists say that weather is more extreme today, and will get more extreme? You think climate science is astrology, silly boy?

It was perfectly clear that I was referring to the fact that extreme weather is worse, now that we have global warming, and will get worse if we don't act. I cited all the events from 2011 which prove this. There has never been a year like 2011. Just citing some floods that occurred in the past does not contradict the science.

It is people like you who set back the environmental movement. In your zeal to save the world, you trip all over yourself to offer up any proof, no matter how silly or half-baked.

By the way, it's you who needs to read your articles more carefully. It spoke of extreme weather in coming decades. It didn't say current weather conditions were tied to global warming. Silly little man.

It said exactly that. That is what climate science says. It is not half-baked. You are not reading the facts. It is obvious that one weather event proves nothing; it is the scale of what is happening overall. Don't confuse people by obfuscating this fact like Sarah Palin does. You are better than Sarah Palin.

People who set back the environmental movement are those who don't bother to read the facts, and would rather just assume things will go as they always have no matter what we humans do. It is not so. Read the facts, rather than just reacting to what I say.

I'm an agnostic on the subject.

Then you'd better read up, my son. Boomers know best.

Seriously, we don't have time for believing or not believing. The facts are clear.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

And if and when you can, buy a Tesla or Nissan Leaf!

Two problems.

1. Not all of us have a garage at home which we can use to charge our EV. Until they can solve that issue, that bars millions of people from getting one.

2. Most of my electricity comes from coal. Not sure if using coal-based electricity to charge up my EV is any greener than using petroleum.

I do drive vehicles that get high miles per gallon -- a Toyota Prius or a Honda Fit.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I listen to the news. That's what the reporters said about all these disasters; they are on an unprecedented scale. They are 100-year events, or have never happened before. You apparently are not reading or listening, even to the links I gave.

Sure, now you believe the media! That's rich.

Since you are unable to prove your point that 2011 is unprecedented for extreme weather, save something you heard Brian Williams saying, I guess it is something you just threw out there otherwise you'd provide a link that said 2011 saw the most extreme weather ever.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Then why does the IPCC and all climate scientists say that weather is more extreme today, and will get more extreme?

They aren't saying that about current weather Eric. Quote me a line from one of your links tha says that.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It was perfectly clear that I was referring to the fact that extreme weather is worse, now that we have global warming, and will get worse if we don't act. I cited all the events from 2011 which prove this. There has never been a year like 2011. Just citing some floods that occurred in the past does not contradict the science.

Still waiting for proof that 2011 is the worst ever. You can keep saying it, but it doesn't make it true.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

People who set back the environmental movement are those who don't bother to read the facts, and would rather just assume things will go as they always have no matter what we humans do. It is not so. Read the facts, rather than just reacting to what I say.

There are facts, but current weather conditions is not one of them. Move off the hysterical "extreme weather" line and you might start making sense. You do a disservice to the cause you are trying to advance by focusing on weather. That isn't where this game is being played other than by the uniformed.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

Sure, now you believe the media! That's rich.

Since you are unable to prove your point that 2011 is unprecedented for extreme weather, save something you heard Brian Williams saying, I guess it is something you just threw out there otherwise you'd provide a link that said 2011 saw the most extreme weather ever.



They aren't saying that about current weather Eric. Quote me a line from one of your links tha says that.



Still waiting for proof that 2011 is the worst ever. You can keep saying it, but it doesn't make it true.



There are facts, but current weather conditions is not one of them. Move off the hysterical "extreme weather" line and you might start making sense. You do a disservice to the cause you are trying to advance by focusing on weather. That isn't where this game is being played other than by the uniformed.

Besides, Global Warming is un-American and un-Christian and a left-wing plot to make us all live Green instead of high and large as God intended us to. Dirty rotten Watermelon conspirators.

And once again ... he said repetitively ...

Weather is not climate. Climate is not weather.

Weather is highly variable.

Climate is highly stable.

To expand a bit. One of the principle variables that scientists are trying to measure is AVERAGE temperature. And by how much does this vary in the climate models? BY fractions of a degree. Now, compare this to the temperature of weather. Need I say more?

Sorry - making a comment off the top of my head, can't remember title nor author. It has been suggested that hurricanes play an important role in moving heat from the tropics to other latitudes. There seems to be, globally, about the same number of hurricanes each year, though there seems to be shifting between different oceans from year to year. Perhaps that approximate number is the right one for the job. But what if the global temperature goes up? Will that require more hurricanes? And how would they be distributed? Will we see more hurricanes in seas which we don't associate them with now?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Two problems.

1. Not all of us have a garage at home which we can use to charge our EV. Until they can solve that issue, that bars millions of people from getting one.

That issue has been solved. Nissan provides the charging equipment, and charging stations.
Where do you put your car?

2. Most of my electricity comes from coal. Not sure if using coal-based electricity to charge up my EV is any greener than using petroleum.

I do drive vehicles that get high miles per gallon -- a Toyota Prius or a Honda Fit.

Good you are doing well. I think changing to electric cars needs to be done now anyway. Since both things need to be phased out soon, why wait for one until the other happens?

Originally Posted by TeddyR

Sure, now you believe the media! That's rich.

Since you are unable to prove your point that 2011 is unprecedented for extreme weather, save something you heard Brian Williams saying, I guess it is something you just threw out there otherwise you'd provide a link that said 2011 saw the most extreme weather ever.

I thought the IPCC report was a good start on that. If it didn't say so, it certainly implied so. They forecast extreme weather because so much more of it is already happening because of GW.

There are facts, but current weather conditions is not one of them. Move off the hysterical "extreme weather" line and you might start making sense. You do a disservice to the cause you are trying to advance by focusing on weather. That isn't where this game is being played other than by the uniformed.

Weather disasters are the most pressing threat we face from global warming. That is clear from the IPCC report.

I have already posted a lot of data on GW. There are many links on the subject of extreme weather. Here's a youtube video (though it also includes earthquakes which of course are not GW related):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFxVbR53AB0

Here's a report on US worst-ever weather disasters in 2011:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...disasters.html

Here is one about 2011 being a record-breaking year for extreme weather:
http://ascendingstarseed.wordpress.c...ther-extremes/

Worst weather ever video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_wDJFac8L0

More on the USA from scientists:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/special-rep...ring-extremes/

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I thought the IPCC report was a good start on that. If it didn't say so, it certainly implied so. They forecast extreme weather because so much more of it is already happening because of GW.


Weather disasters are the most pressing threat we face from global warming. That is clear from the IPCC report.

I have already posted a lot of data on GW. There are many links on the subject of extreme weather. Here's a youtube video (though it also includes earthquakes which of course are not GW related):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFxVbR53AB0

Here's a report on US worst-ever weather disasters in 2011:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...disasters.html

Here is one about 2011 being a record-breaking year for extreme weather:
http://ascendingstarseed.wordpress.c...ther-extremes/

Worst weather ever video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_wDJFac8L0

More on the USA from scientists:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/special-rep...ring-extremes/

Read a few posts up Eric. TnT expresses it very well.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

Read a few posts up Eric. TnT expresses it very well.

Neither he or you understand i guess. Pity, it's so easy....

by the way, nice response to my post (not)

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

by the way, nice response to my post (not)

Busy now, but happy to debunk tomorrow.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That issue has been solved. Nissan provides the charging equipment, and charging stations.
Where do you put your car?


Good you are doing well. I think changing to electric cars needs to be done now anyway. Since both things need to be phased out soon, why wait for one until the other happens?

My daughter has a Leaf. Her workplace (UCSF Medical) has a free charging station for electric cars, and she has such a station at home in Pacifica. Considering her daily commute and the lack of public transportation from Pacifica to San Francisco, any savings in that area is all to the good.

My questions about electric cars are:

1. Where does the electricity come from? Out here, it's coal. In some regions, it's hydro. In others, I'm sure, it's nuclear. It matters, both ecologically and economically.

2. What sort of infrastructure is required to support it? And - in earthquake country, it's not unknown for the grid to go down, which would leave electric car owners stranded.

In all fairness, I'm a bit sensitive to that because at one period here in Albuquerque in this neighborhood we'd have roughly one power failure a year, generally a drunk driver hitting a power line, but also lightning doing the same thing, so I got used to having alternatives to loss of electricity. Too many eggs in one basket, Mrs. Little Red Hen!

Other than that, we shall see.

It's a little challenging to get behind electric cars as a Solution, knowing what coal mining for electricity does to the mountains and people of the Applachians. (Of course not enough to quit computers and the net!)

OTOH, as cool technology, they are kind of awesome. It would be fun to build one of those homemade dragsters that snaps axles and beats supercars.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That issue has been solved. Nissan provides the charging equipment, and charging stations.
Where do you put your car?


Good you are doing well. I think changing to electric cars needs to be done now anyway. Since both things need to be phased out soon, why wait for one until the other happens?

My car is parked in an outdoor parking lot. I live in a courtyard, farthest from the road. The parking lot extends about halfway to the farthest townhouses and garden apartments, so my car is the equivilant of about half a block from my townhouse.

I will not get an EV until my electricity comes from a cleaner source than coal.

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly (anomaly from 1979-2008 mean).

Northern hemisphere Sea Ice Extent (1900-2010).

Multiple sources of data from multiple agencies indicate similar trends.

Originally Posted by RyanJH

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly (anomaly from 1979-2008 mean).

Northern hemisphere Sea Ice Extent (1900-2010).

Multiple sources of data from multiple agencies indicate similar trends.

Warmer in arctic, colder in antarctic according to last three decades of satellite data. See my post here.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Warmer in arctic, colder in antarctic according to last three decades of satellite data. See my post here.

James50

Climatologist consensus exists that sea ice (Northern Hemisphere) is more important to climate models than land ice (Southern Hemisphere). Almost all sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere melts in the summer. The fact that the Southern Hemisphere has larger annual average sea ice extents indicates colder winters - not necessarily colder overall temperatures.

One would have to look at the changes in average Southern Hemisphere land ice extent for overall global temperature correlations. There is simply less data on Southern Hemisphere sea / land ice extent for a variety of reasons. However, one recent study to do so indicates a significant loss of Southern Hemisphere land ice extent from 2002 to 2009 (source). Admittedly this may be too short a timeframe to support a global climate warming hypothesis but the important points are:

1. Southern Hemisphere land/sea ice extent data does not counter (and possibly supports) a global climate warming hypothesis.
2. Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent data overwhelmingly supports a global climate warming hypothesis.

Originally Posted by RyanJH

Climatologist consensus exists that sea ice (Northern Hemisphere) is more important to climate models than land ice (Southern Hemisphere). Almost all sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere melts in the summer. The fact that the Southern Hemisphere has larger annual average sea ice extents indicates colder winters - not necessarily colder overall temperatures.

One would have to look at the changes in average Southern Hemisphere land ice extent for overall global temperature correlations. There is simply less data on Southern Hemisphere sea / land ice extent for a variety of reasons. However, one recent study to do so indicates a significant loss of Southern Hemisphere land ice extent from 2002 to 2009 (source). Admittedly this may be too short a timeframe to support a global climate warming hypothesis but the important points are:

1. Southern Hemisphere land/sea ice extent data does not counter (and possibly supports) a global climate warming hypothesis.
2. Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent data overwhelmingly supports a global climate warming hypothesis.

Satellite data covers vastly more of the globe (96% twice a day according to the article) than any other method. It also removes any possibility of the urban heat island effect. Why do you think the overall temperature is not climbing as expected?

James50

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

My daughter has a Leaf. Her workplace (UCSF Medical) has a free charging station for electric cars, and she has such a station at home in Pacifica. Considering her daily commute and the lack of public transportation from Pacifica to San Francisco, any savings in that area is all to the good.

My questions about electric cars are:

1. Where does the electricity come from? Out here, it's coal. In some regions, it's hydro. In others, I'm sure, it's nuclear. It matters, both ecologically and economically.

2. What sort of infrastructure is required to support it? And - in earthquake country, it's not unknown for the grid to go down, which would leave electric car owners stranded.

In all fairness, I'm a bit sensitive to that because at one period here in Albuquerque in this neighborhood we'd have roughly one power failure a year, generally a drunk driver hitting a power line, but also lightning doing the same thing, so I got used to having alternatives to loss of electricity. Too many eggs in one basket, Mrs. Little Red Hen!

Other than that, we shall see.

You are missing the most important question Badger: What is the difference in energy efficiency between the power generated via internal combustion (that is the electrical power plant is the engine in the car) and power generated at a remote power plant, then transmitted, then stored in batteries local to the car. Which is the more efficient process for generating and using electricity? An internal combustion engine that burns fuel directly local to the vehicle, or a a vehicle that requires electricity to be generated at a remote plant (first loss of energy efficiency) then transmitted via power grid lines (second loss of energy efficiency), then transmitted through your house electrical system (third loss of energy efficiency), then stored in batteries inside the vehicle to be used later (fourth loss of energy efficiency).

See the difference?

Electrical vehicles are dreadfully inefficient once you factor in the entire process of delivering energy to the vehicle in question. More inefficiency means more waste which ultimately means even more fuel consumed per unit of energy created. The only purpose electric cars really serve is to ease the consciences of a few guilt-riddled, naive people with extra money to burn.

Electric cars themselves are a bit of a euphemism. All cars are "electric" when it comes right down to it. Again, the ultimate discussion should be how is the electricity generated and at what efficiency is that electricity delivered.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

You are missing the most important question Badger: What is the difference in energy efficiency between the power generated via internal combustion (that is the electrical power plant is the engine in the car) and power generated at a remote power plant, then transmitted, then stored in batteries local to the car. Which is the more efficient process for generating and using electricity? An internal combustion engine that burns fuel directly local to the vehicle, or a a vehicle that requires electricity to be generated at a remote plant (first loss of energy efficiency) then transmitted via power grid lines (second loss of energy efficiency), then transmitted through your house electrical system (third loss of energy efficiency), then stored in batteries inside the vehicle to be used later (fourth loss of energy efficiency).

See the difference?

Electrical vehicles are dreadfully inefficient once you factor in the entire process of delivering energy to the vehicle in question. More inefficiency means more waste which ultimately means even more fuel consumed per unit of energy created. The only purpose electric cars really serve is to ease the consciences of a few guilt-riddled, naive people with extra money to burn.

Electric cars themselves are a bit of a euphemism. All cars are "electric" when it comes right down to it. Again, the ultimate discussion should be how is the electricity generated and at what efficiency is that electricity delivered.

But then you have to factor in the costs of extracting, refining and transporting the petroleum to the gas station, and from there into the car.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

My questions about electric cars are:

1. Where does the electricity come from? Out here, it's coal. In some regions, it's hydro. In others, I'm sure, it's nuclear. It matters, both ecologically and economically.

Again I point out that not converting one aspect of energy which we need to convert right now, is not an excuse for not converting another aspect of energy which we need to convert right now. I've read figures that the energy savings would still be high, comparing the decrease in oil used to the increase in coal used, but I need to research that again.

2. What sort of infrastructure is required to support it? And - in earthquake country, it's not unknown for the grid to go down, which would leave electric car owners stranded.

In all fairness, I'm a bit sensitive to that because at one period here in Albuquerque in this neighborhood we'd have roughly one power failure a year, generally a drunk driver hitting a power line, but also lightning doing the same thing, so I got used to having alternatives to loss of electricity. Too many eggs in one basket, Mrs. Little Red Hen!

Yes, once in a great while the electricity might be down, and you might need to use public transit or a taxi. But it's so rare it doesn't seem like a big problem. Gasoline supplies have also been known to run out, and that is more likely to happen in the future. If an infrastructure is needed that we don't have now, it can and will be built.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I will not get an EV until my electricity comes from a cleaner source than coal.

But it is long past time that we insisted upon this.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But it is long past time that we insisted upon this.

IF an infrastructure is needed? Oh, Eric, an infrastructure is always needed for anything more complicated than heading out cross-country on foot.

Originally Posted by James50

Satellite data covers vastly more of the globe (96% twice a day according to the article) than any other method. It also removes any possibility of the urban heat island effect. Why do you think the overall temperature is not climbing as expected?

James50

First, I think the overall temperature IS climbing - as expected, although some may argue over the scale of the expected climb.

Second, your linked post references an article you cited as a reason to be agnostic toward a warming global climate hypothesis. You stated that the northern hemisphere was warmer but the southern hemisphere was colder resulting in a net wash. However your cited article contains this graphic. Inside your own cited data, there is a marked increase in average golbal warming over the thirty-three year time frame of the study.

Third, your cited study measures temperatures across 96% of the globe in high altitudes only - different than surface temperatures. The authors don't understand why the high altitude temperatures are not even higher than they are as this would be consistent with "climate change models." This doesn't change the fact that overall, even they measured an overall warming trend - not a wash.

Fourth, I didn't want to get into the surface temperature debate. Northern sea ice extent data is considered relevant by almost all climatoligists. It has been consistently and accurately measured over an extremely long timeframe (see previous posts for graphics). A little digging will bring up several articles that indicate that Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent reduction is thirty years ahead of what the global warming models predicted - the same models that indicate the high altitude global temperatures should be warming faster than they are per your references.

Finally, its not hard to conclude that the climate models do not model the climate as well as we would like them to but that, even by your data, the warming global climate hypothesis has sufficient support that it is hard to be 'agnostic' about it.