I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

[Mad Mike]

Skins24 forget "the timing. Why? Because you are unqualified to comment and I really don't care what you think about the subject. Go get a degree in climatology and write some peer reviewed papers. If you can do that and your papers pass review by your peers, I'll be happy to listen.

 

Meanwhile from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory:

 

First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface - News Center

 

 

The influence of atmospheric CO2 on the balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from the Earth (also called the planet’s energy balance) is well established. But this effect has not been experimentally confirmed outside the laboratory until now. The research is reported Wednesday, Feb. 25, in the advance online publication of the journal Nature.

The results agree with theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect due to human activity. The research also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today’s climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2.

 

 

“We see, for the first time in the field, the amplification of the greenhouse effect because there’s more CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb what the Earth emits in response to incoming solar radiation,” says Daniel Feldman, a scientist in Berkeley Lab’s Earth Sciences Division and lead author of the Nature paper.

“Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect,” Feldman adds.

 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory addresses the world’s most urgent scientific challenges by advancing sustainable energy, protecting human health, creating new materials, and revealing the origin and fate of the universe. Founded in 1931, Berkeley Lab’s scientific expertise has been recognized with 13 Nobel prizes. The University of California manages Berkeley Lab for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science. For more, visit www.lbl.gov.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Mad Mike

[PeterMP]

The Glaciers that melted before are the main reason for the sinking,but certainly subsidence both from soil composition and groundwater pumping add to it. 

 

I gave you answers ,just not the ones ya want.....the East will adapt or have wet feet.(or evolve )

 

a tidal wave will probably narrow the choices needed anyway

 

Wait, I thought we were going to spend to protect value:

 

"Ya spend to protect value and allow nature to claim the rest( raising Galveston, or dikes ect)"

 

There wasn't any OR.

 

Does the infrastructure in the East Coast not represent value now?

 

Come on!

 

We got value.  We are want to protect it.

 

Do we assume the models are right to do it?

Edited March 2, 2015 by PeterMP

[Skins24]

But as I've already pointed out that isn't the case. Yes surface temperatures are trailing projections, but precipitation

Precip increasing or decreasing? And where?

and Arctic sea ice melting are going faster than projections

Maybe. How fast was it originally projected?

Also, it seems all it take to slow that down is a couple of cool summers...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30399079

Looking at all of the data, there is a good as reason to believe that the models are under estimating the effects as over estimating them.

Well, I have been talking about the weather effects YET TO COME. So we will see.

I'm saying the positive effects of a warming climate (and there is absolutely no question anything considered alive does much better during warming periods) are underplayed and the negative effects overplayed. Have yet to see anything that disputes that...

Because it contradicts your argument.

Your argument is El Nino = rain in CA

CO2 induced warming = El Nino

so CO2 induced warming = rain in CA

My question is then, where's the rain in CA?

Exactly - to the question of where is the rain. What is going on in California is not abnormal. These types of droughts happen as part of a normal weather cycle. Meaning the warming so far has not been enough to disrupt normal weather cycles.

I did NOT equate El Nino to warming.

I said in predicting future weather events in a warmer climate, the closest hints we have are (east-based) El Nino events. No it's not going to be the same. Yes in some places there will be possibly drastic differences. Again, we'll see...

Side note:

At the surface level, 2014 was very very likely warmer than any El Nino year in history.

Technically worldwide. For the U.S. I have to check again but I believe we were in the 30s (like 34th warmest or something like that.) Edited March 2, 2015 by Skins24

[Larry]

. . . and there is absolutely no question anything considered alive does much better during warming periods

The rest of your post seems to contain an assortment of similar whoppers, but I figured that one was sufficient.

[PeterMP]

Precip increasing or decreasing? And where?

Precip is going up and faster than projections. Globally.

 

Maybe. How fast was it originally projected?

Also, it seems all it take to slow that down is a couple of cool summers...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30399079

Back to talking about weather?

The "increased" value after "cool" summers is just over 5 million km^2 (that's the Sept 2014 number), which is still well below the projections.

 

 

 

I'm saying the positive effects of a warming climate (and there is absolutely no question anything considered alive does much better during warming periods) are underplayed and the negative effects overplayed. Have yet to see anything that disputes that...

What you're ignoring is the impact of the CHANGE on human civilization and the costs of dealing with it.

 

It isn't better for the US or the human population as a whole if there are large scale changes in precipitation patterns.

 

If areas that are currently heavily populated have significant increases in drought, it isn't going to be good and dealing with it is going to be very expensive.

 

Which is how you ended up trying to make the ridiculous argument that CO2 induced warming is equivalent to El Nino affects.

 

 

Exactly - to the question of where is the rain. What is going on in California is not abnormal. These types of droughts happen as part of a normal weather cycle. Meaning the warming so far has not been enough to disrupt normal weather cycles.

The fact of the matter is that we don't know if the drought in CA is part of a normal weather cycle or not.  

 

It is possible it is, and it is possible it is not.

 

Especially if we you are going to argue that the models aren't any good, it is possible if CO2 levels were 320 ppm, there may or may not be a drought currently in CA.

 

Any other argument is dishonest.

 

 

I did NOT equate El Nino to warming.

I said in predicting future weather events in a warmer climate, the closest hints we have are (east-based) El Nino events. No it's not going to be the same. Yes in some places there will be possibly drastic differences. Again, we'll see...

Side note:

Technically worldwide. For the U.S. I have to check again but I believe we were in the 30s (like 34th warmest or something like that.)

You did.

 

You said:

 

"Our current best guess as to what will happen if we see extreme warming comes from east-based El Nino events and...droughts aren't the U.S.'s problem."

 

That's equating the two.  We are seeing extreme (surface) warming.  2014 was warmer than any El Nino year on record and guess what drought is a problem in parts of the US.

 

And no El Ninos are not the closest hints we have.  They aren't the best guess.

 

The models are doing a much better job of predicting what the results are going to be than El Ninos.  And it isn't even close.

 

The climate models say that you can see CO2 induced warming that generates really warm years (globally) AND have a CA drought.

 

El Ninos don't.

 

Climate models say that you have the warmest year for surface temperatures and not a huge spike in troposphere temperatures.  The history of El Ninos doesn't.

Edited March 2, 2015 by PeterMP

[Skins24]

Precip is going up and faster than projections. Globally.

Source?

Also, good!!

If that's the case temps will start falling or at least the rate they're going up will decrease dramatically!

Which is how you ended up trying to make the ridiculous argument that CO2 induced warming is equivalent to El Nino affects.

Nah, just your misinterpretation

The fact of the matter is that we don't know if the drought in CA is part of a normal weather cycle or not.

This a joke?

Normal weather cycle means....it happens in cycles. We can look back and see how often and how long droughts last. This is not outside of any normal drought cycles. Not yet at least.

Especially if we you are going to argue that the models aren't any good

Didn't say that. I said so far they have missed the mark because they didn't take into account factors that have significant impacts.

The models are doing a much better job of predicting what the results are going to be than El Ninos. And it isn't even close.

We'll see. Temps have not yet risen to the spike we can see during El Nino years.

Not disputing that at all but we still have 50-80 years or so to go barring any more unfactored circumstances. Glad you're so certain though.

The climate models say that you can see CO2 induced warming that generates really warm years (globally) AND have a CA drought.

El Ninos don't.

I'm arguing just for the sake of arguing but this really depends on what type of El Nino it is. Wet Cali comes from El Ninos that produce significantly warm the waters of the eastern Pacific. Other El Ninos can certainly encourage dry conditions in Cali.

[twa]

Wait, I thought we were going to spend to protect value:

 

"Ya spend to protect value and allow nature to claim the rest( raising Galveston, or dikes ect)"

 

There wasn't any OR.

 

Does the infrastructure in the East Coast not represent value now?

 

Come on!

 

We got value.  We are want to protect it.

 

Do we assume the models are right to do it?

 

Your value is under review

 

ya might use NO as a model in that some area is protected while outside the rest get wet.

can't protect it all.....just not worth it.

 

which specific models?

Like NO we will make judgement calls on storm surge heights.....best guesses while counting pennies(just as we do here)

 

ya might take care that those pennies are generated and not wasted....or not 

[PeterMP]

Source?

Also, good!!

If that's the case temps will start falling or at least the rate they're going up will decrease dramatically!

The IPCC report.

 

This a joke?

Normal weather cycle means....it happens in cycles. We can look back and see how often and how long droughts last. This is not outside of any normal drought cycles. Not yet at least.

That doesn't really mean that this drought would be occurring if CO2 levels were less than 320 ppm.

And let's be clear the drought was actually PREDICTED by some climate scientists tied to things that result from CO2 induced warming (e.g. decreased Arctic sea ice).

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/07/3370481/california-drought/

Now, I'm not saying that's proof that the CO2 induced climate change is causing the drought, but I do find it odd that your so quick to dismiss it.

(And I didn't originally bring up the CA drought to make a statement about climate change just to point out how observed conditions don't match up with the idea that El Ninos are good predictors of climate).

Didn't say that. I said so far they have missed the mark because they didn't take into account factors that have significant impacts.

You said they hadn't gotten a single thing right.

Which was false because they've gotten lot's of things right.

Every single thing that I know of that the models said would change significantly in 1988 have.

Every one.

 

We'll see. Temps have not yet risen to the spike we can see during El Nino years.

Not disputing that at all but we still have 50-80 years or so to go barring any more unfactored circumstances. Glad you're so certain though.

2014 was the warmest surface year on record. Warmer than any "spike" from a El Nino year.

We have 50-80 years to go until what?

Based on the last 30 years, climate models ARE TODAY RIGHT NOW out performing your El Nino hypothesis, and it isn't even close.

 

I'm arguing just for the sake of arguing but this really depends on what type of El Nino it is. Wet Cali comes from El Ninos that produce significantly warm the waters of the eastern Pacific. Other El Ninos can certainly encourage dry conditions in Cali.

When was the last time there was any kind of El Nino and CA was in a drought?

Realistically, I think I'm done here.

Like I said to your first post, it is like having a conversation about the origin of the universe with somebody that at least claims to reject the heliocentric nature of the solar system.

Edited March 2, 2015 by PeterMP

[Skins24]

That doesn't really mean that this drought would be occurring if CO2 levels were less than 320 ppm.

Actually, yes it does. To this severity? We'll never know but with ENSO neutral conditions, there isn't anything disrupting the cycle.

Now, I'm not saying that's proof that the CO2 induced climate change is causing the drought, but I do find it odd that your so quick to dismiss it.

Until this drought becomes abnormal, I have no reason to believe this one is any different.

Every single thing that I know of that the models said would change significantly in 1988 have.

Every one.

I really want to see this...

2014 was the warmest surface year on record. Warmer than any "spike" from a El Nino year.

2014 was warm in terms of avg. temp. Like 55.8 degrees instead of 55.4.

In El Nino event, we can see a spike in the order of a couple degrees.

We have 50-80 years to go until what?

Temps to rise a degree or two

When was the last time there was any kind of El Nino and CA was in a drought?

2010 was the last time. It's not unusual at all...

[PeterMP]

2014 was warm in terms of avg. temp. Like 55.8 degrees instead of 55.4.

In El Nino event, we can see a spike in the order of a couple degrees.

A spike of what? Global surface temperatures in 2014 were warmer than any El Nino year on record.

 

2010 was the last time. It's not unusual at all...

 

"Late spring storms smothered the Sierra in snow. The state's biggest reservoir is nearly full. Precipitation across much of California has been above average. By standard measures, California's three-year drought is over.

"From a hydrologic standpoint, for most of California, it is gone," said state hydrologist Maury Roos, who has monitored the ups and downs of the state's water for 50 years."

 

"Data from the state Department of Water Resources paint a vastly improved water picture. As of May 31, statewide precipitation was at 115% of average, reservoir storage was at 95% and runoff at 80%."

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/20/local/la-me-water-drought-20100620

 

That's from June of 2010.

If it isn't unusual, want to take another try?

I don't even know why I bothered to respond. I think you've said one right thing in this thread the whole time, and it isn't like you are going to change your mind.

But that was just so wrong I couldn't pass it up.

Edited March 2, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

 

That's from June of 2010.

I don't even know why I bothered. I think you've said one right thing in this thread the whole time, and it isn't like you are going to change your mind.

http://naturalresources.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=5921

The Man-Made California Drought

[Mad Mike]

 

http://naturalresources.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=5921

The Man-Made California Drought

 

 

More republican BULL****.   They put a denialist (Republican Rob Bishop) in position to raid the hen house as chairman of the committee on natural resources. Lets see who funds him shall we:

 

Rep. Rob Bishop: Campaign Finance/Money - Summary - Representative 2014 | OpenSecrets

 

And the #1 industry that pays him off? Drum roll please....... OIL AND GAS

 

And despite the moronic claim that re directing water *caused* the drought ...

 

Stanford scientists say drought linked to climate change

 

 

In a new study, a team led by Stanford climate scientist Noah Diffenbaugh used a novel combination of computer simulations and statistical techniques to show that a persistent region of high atmospheric pressure hovering over the Pacific Ocean that diverted storms away from California was much more likely to form in the presence of modern greenhouse gas concentrations.

The research, published on Sept. 29 as a supplement to this month's issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, is one of the most comprehensive studies to investigate the link between climate change and California's ongoing drought.

 

 

The move to re-direct water in the midst of a drought may need to be rethought. But re-directing that water did NOT cause it.

 

 

And while denialists like to claim that science keeps getting things wrong.....

 

Game Over for the Climate - NYTimes.com

 

By JAMES HANSEN Published: May 9, 2012

 

 

Over the next several decades, the Western United States and the semi-arid region from North Dakota to Texas will develop semi-permanent drought, with rain, when it does come, occurring in extreme events with heavy flooding. Economic losses would be incalculable. More and more of the Midwest would be a dust bowl. California’s Central Valley could no longer be irrigated. Food prices would rise to unprecedented levels.

 

If this sounds apocalyptic, it is. This is why we need to reduce emissions dramatically. President Obama has the power not only to deny tar sands oil additional access to Gulf Coast refining, which Canada desires in part for export markets, but also to encourage economic incentives to leave tar sands and other dirty fuels in the ground.

 

James Hansen directs the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and is the author of “Storms of My Grandchildren.”

 

At least you got one thing right this time. It *IS* man made.

 

If I had a mic right now I would drop it. 

[Skins24]

That's from June of 2010.

Wow. Droughts don't last forever and as the article stated the late spring storms brought an end to it - meaning there were drought conditions to begin with. Also by June we were transitioning to La Nina!

Heading into 2010 however it was certainly El Nino and certainly drought conditions out west (remember the Olympics? Remember the 2000 inches of snow we got on the east coast? That only happens if there's a ridge out west)

https://cloudyandcool.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/west_drought_monitor_011210.png?w=500&h=371

If it isn't unusual, want to take another try?

'66, '86-'87, '02, '06-'07, etc.

[twa]

context helps Mikee...the drought existed and snowmelt runoff did not reach there.

 

btw oil and gas money fund most everything....including the Dems

[PeterMP]

Wow. Droughts don't last forever and as the article stated the late spring storms brought an end to it - meaning there were drought conditions to begin with. Also by June we were transitioning to La Nina!

Heading into 2010 however it was certainly El Nino and certainly drought conditions out west (remember the Olympics? Remember the 2000 inches of snow we got on the east coast? That only happens if there's a ridge out west)

https://cloudyandcool.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/west_drought_monitor_011210.png?w=500&h=371

'66, '86-'87, '02, '06-'07, etc.

 

The storms came before late spring.

 

"The recent wave of storms to hit California is being related to El Niño conditions. The National Weather Service long-range forecast has the wet pattern continuing through March.

 

The storms could help California reach its monthly moisture average by the end of this week.

Forecasters say next week will bring a break in the storms, but the National Weather Service forecasts wet weather in California from now through March."

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2010/jan/20/its-official-el-nino-california/

 

That's Jan 2010.

 

And yes then we immediately flipped back over to La Nina and a new drought started and that's where we stand today.

 

And when you start to appeal to 2007, that isn't generally considered El Nino year.

 

We have to start getting into a little more detail related to the original point.

 

http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~pierce/elnino/history.html

 

For example, there was a (weak) El Nino in 2006, but by the end of 2006, it was ending and by the end of 2007, we're in a La Nina.

 

And the La Nina was stronger than the El Nino.

 

But rain falls were reasonable in 2006 (the drought starts in 2007), and yes there was a period of time in 2007 when ENSO existed.

 

http://blog.sfgate.com/gleick/2011/06/16/the-california-drought-2007-2009-myth-versus-reality/

 

"Crop yields remained high throughout the drought period, only dropping below 2006 levels (a wet year) once and for a single crop category (field and seed crops) in the last year of the drought."

 

But temperatures in 2007 also weren't very high because the ENSO like-El Nino conditions were weak, and it was also partially dominated by a La Nina.

 

El Nino conditions that cause significant increases in temperature cause rains in CA.

(and realistically, that was actually your original point.  You've actually flipped your argument.)

 

If you want to call every case where the ENSO is positive an El Nino, then yes you can find cases of drought in CA in which there is an El Nino.

 

But that isn't typical and it counter acts your original point.

 

If every case in which the ENSO goes positive is an El Nino, then El Nino's are still awful predictors because they don't even predict warm temperatures.

 

You really are arguing to argue now without even trying to be accurate or make a logical argument with respect to your points.

 

I'm done with this.

Edited March 2, 2015 by PeterMP

[Mad Mike]

context helps Mikee...the drought existed and snowmelt runoff did not reach there.

btw oil and gas money fund most everything....including the Dems

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01

 

 

 

 

Political donations from the industry - which includes gas producers and refiners, natural gas pipeline companies, gasoline stations, and fuel oil dealers - have taken on an increasingly conservative tint over the past two decades. In the 2012 cycle, 90 percent of its contributions went to the GOP.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

Edited March 2, 2015 by Mad Mike

[mcsluggo]

The US would most certainly be a winner when it comes to climate change. More dust and wind shear in the Atlantic mean less hurricanes. Less dramatic weather mood swings transitioning from winter to spring mean less tornadoes for the mid west. And if climate change causes more El Nino events, less west coast droughts. Even Alaska becomes more livable. Everyone wins!

In all seriousness, the US would indeed thrive in a warmer climate. I don't see how we wouldn't.

 

Canada, (and Russia) for the win

[mistertim]

I'd just like to add that I find it hilarious that the argument seems to have gone from "Man made global warming doesn't exist" to "Ok well maybe it does, but is it really that bad?" and now to "Well, global warming would be a good thing for us!"

 

 

Carry on.

Edited March 2, 2015 by mistertim

[twa]

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01

 

 

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

 

how am I wrong?

 

Funny ya think a congresscritter from a oil/gas producing state would not receive more.

 

take the keystone voters

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/01/keystone-senate-yea-votes-seven-times-more-oil-gas-money/

While some of the disparity between the amounts received by the yea versus nay voters can be explained by a longstanding partisan tilt of the oil and gas industry — since 1990, 79 percent of the industry’s campaign contributions have gone to Republicans — the nine Democrats who sided with the GOP received significantly more from the industry than their party colleagues. On average, Democrats who voted for S.1 received $140,193 from the oil and gas industry, while those who voted no, received just $82,595.

[ZRagone]

So how's that lawsuit coming?

Edited March 2, 2015 by ZRagone

[Burgold]

the nine Democrats who sided with the GOP received significantly more from the industry than their party colleagues. On average, Democrats who voted for S.1 received $140,193 from the oil and gas industry, while those who voted no, received just $82,595.

I guess it takes a little more to buy someone's soul than just continuing to pay for it.

[twa]

I guess it takes a little more to buy someone's soul than just continuing to pay for it.

 

Most just rent space, not sure politicians have a soul left to sell

[Skins24]

Peter:

Go back and read what you said and read what I said. This tangent has nothing to do with what was originally being talked about. You said El Ninos can't bring drought. While true with most El Ninos -

I'm arguing just for the sake of arguing but this really depends on what type of El Nino it is. Wet Cali comes from El Ninos that produce significantly warm the waters of the eastern Pacific. Other El Ninos can certainly encourage dry conditions in Cali.

When El Ninos are concentrated center Pac or western Pac, we see different patterns. I simply gave several examples of drought conditions during an El Nino.

The 2009-2010 El Nino started in June and was a healthy 1.6 ONI. They saw months without precip.

FROM YOUR OWN LINK re 2007! It mentions a stronger drought '77-'78, guess what? El Nino. And a longer drought '87-'92, guess what? All El Nino years. THAT was my only point with that.

[Mad Mike]

In Florida, Officials Ban Term ‘Climate Change’ | Florida Center for Investigative Reporting

 

 

The state of Florida is the region most susceptible to the effects of global warming in this country, according to scientists. Sea-level rise alone threatens 30 percent of the state’s beaches over the next 85 years.

DEP officials have been ordered not to use the term “climate change” or “global warming” in any official communications, emails, or reports, according to former DEP employees, consultants, volunteers and records obtained by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting.But you would not know that by talking to officials at the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the state agency on the front lines of studying and planning for these changes.

The policy goes beyond semantics and has affected reports, educational efforts and public policy in a department that has about 3,200 employees and $1.4 billion budget.

“We were told not to use the terms ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming’ or ‘sustainability,’ ” said Christopher Byrd, an attorney with the DEP’s Office of General Counsel in Tallahassee from 2008 to 2013. “That message was communicated to me and my colleagues by our superiors in the Office of General Counsel.

[Skins24]

Florida....Enough said.