The rain was hammering the house all last night and now many areas are
flooded with some roads closed. As luck would have it, we've had a new
roof put on the house in the last few years and got some help to tar
around the chimney and plumbing stack in the bathroom in the last few
months. I looked for leaks in the ceiling but didn't find any. Here on
the mountain I'm sure we were on the high end of the rainfall. Not only
did it rain but the temperature was in the low 50's F. Darn that Global
Warming! o_O

This was a huge storm cutting across a number of states and I wonder
what some of the posters experienced over the past 24 hours with the
monster rain? ^_^

TDD

On 4/7/2014 8:20 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
The rain was hammering the house all last night and now many areas are
flooded with some roads closed. As luck would have it, we've had a new
roof put on the house in the last few years and got some help to tar
around the chimney and plumbing stack in the bathroom in the last few
months. I looked for leaks in the ceiling but didn't find any. Here on
the mountain I'm sure we were on the high end of the rainfall. Not only
did it rain but the temperature was in the low 50's F. Darn that Global
Warming! o_O

This was a huge storm cutting across a number of states and I wonder
what some of the posters experienced over the past 24 hours with the
monster rain? ^_^

TDD

Mention in today's paper:

http://www.delawareonline.com/story/...-rise/7405047/

Blames climate change. Same old BS.

On Monday, April 7, 2014 7:35:45 AM UTC-5, Frank wrote:

Blames climate change. Same old BS.

Stick with Fox news and you won't have to see it!

Per Bob_Villa:
Blames climate change. Same old BS.

Stick with Fox news and you won't have to see it!

From the slightly humor-impaired: that was tongue-in-cheek, right?
--
Pete Cresswell

On 4/7/2014 7:20 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
....

This was a huge storm cutting across a number of states and I wonder
what some of the posters experienced over the past 24 hours with the
monster rain? ^_^

0.15" in a couple of sprinkles Fri evening and Sat morning...another
band was promising last night until it all fell apart when got within
about 20 miles...

That's most measurable since a couple small snowfalls back in early
March...still no relief in sight for the 3-yr drought...

We'd be happy to take it...

--

On 4/7/2014 9:59 AM, dpb wrote:
On 4/7/2014 7:20 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote: ...

This was a huge storm cutting across a number of states and I
wonder what some of the posters experienced over the past 24 hours
with the monster rain? ^_^

0.15" in a couple of sprinkles Fri evening and Sat morning...another
band was promising last night until it all fell apart when got
within about 20 miles...

That's most measurable since a couple small snowfalls back in early
March...still no relief in sight for the 3-yr drought...

We'd be happy to take it...

--
Where are you located my friend? We had a serious drought here in
Central Alabamastan a while back with reservoirs getting low and crop
failures but now rainfall seems to be back to normal which means we're
getting a good bit. An old saying about Alabama weather is, "If you
don't like the weather, stick around, it will change." I've witnessed
"Climate Change" for more than 6 decades and I've seen that it evens out
and we wind up with an average climate over a number of years. I've seen
warm winters and very cold winters, the same for summers, some very hot
and some very mild. Climate changes, it's a normal thing for it to do. o_O

TDD

On 4/7/2014 11:23 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 4/7/2014 9:59 AM, dpb wrote:
....

That's most measurable since a couple small snowfalls back in early
March...still no relief in sight for the 3-yr drought...

....

Where are you located my friend? We had a serious drought here in
Central Alabamastan a while back with reservoirs getting low and crop
failures but now rainfall seems to be back to normal ...

Far SW KS...

As far as the widespread "don't like it, it'll change" saw, "you ain't
see'ed nuthin' yet" in that regards down there as compared to the High
Plains.

Spent 25 yr or so in E TN thru their "drought"...was more than our
annual average in the worst of years. Of course, in that hard red clay
and all that vegetation, it takes more but they don't really have an
appreciation for what real drought looks like. A shortage relative to
normal on occasion, yeah, that they get east of the Mississippi now and
again...

--

http://www.desmogblog.com/david-lega...-climatologist

On 4/7/2014 12:33 PM, dpb wrote:
....

As far as the widespread "don't like it, it'll change" saw, "you ain't
see'ed nuthin' yet" in that regards down there as compared to the High
Plains.
....

Just for the fun's of it, I looked at the past March for a point
somewhere in sorta' mid-Alabama outside of major metro area -- Alabaster
happened to show up quickly

SW KS deltas Mid AL deltas
Max High 78 F 82 F
Min High 8 F 70 F 43 F 39 F
Max Low 46 F 56 F
Min Low -5 F 51 F 29 F 27 F
Max Day swing 58 F (24-82F) 38 F (39F-77F)
Max Sust Wind 45 mph 24 mph
Max Peak Gust 54 mph 39 mph
Precip 0.05" 2.16"

Want some variation, come west, young man...

--

On Monday, April 7, 2014 1:04:16 PM UTC-5, Frank wrote:
http://www.desmogblog.com/david-lega...-climatologist

Nice...both those characters where in Big Oil's pockets! And you were saying something about government climatologists fellas?

On 4/7/2014 3:47 PM, Bob_Villa wrote:
On Monday, April 7, 2014 1:04:16 PM UTC-5, Frank wrote:
http://www.desmogblog.com/david-lega...-climatologist

Nice...both those characters where in Big Oil's pockets! And you were saying something about government climatologists fellas?


Believe what you want to believe. U of DE prof was working for the
state. Then Governor Ruth Minner democrat was a political hack with a
GED that did not finish high school.

Per Oren:
Now. Will somebody give a me a link to any study (a single one) that
sates climate change is caused by man?

How about http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus?

More like a comprehendum of positions that a "study" per se... but I'd
have to think that it represents the views of many people with expertise
who have read studies that lead them to their positions.

Some quotes from that web page:
================================================== ======================
"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming
trends over the past century are very likely due to human
activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide
have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is
a partial list of these organizations....

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES

- American Association for the Advancement of Science
""The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by
human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to
society." (2006)3

- American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential
future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely
attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a
very serious problem." (2004)4

- American Geophysical Union
"Human-induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the
major influence on the global climate change observed over the
past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen
negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012,
2013)5

- American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the
scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global
climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant."
(2013)6

- American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant
cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is
human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse
gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane,
and nitrous oxide." (2012)7

- American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no
mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s
physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human
health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse
gases beginning now." (2007)8

- The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by
the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research
Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities
(mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) account for most of the warming
since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9


SCIENCE ACADEMIES

- International academies: Joint statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in
understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However
there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is
occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising
surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from
phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating
glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is
likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to
human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science
academies)10

- U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently
clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere." (2005)11


U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

- U.S. Global Change Research Program
"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to
human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints'
also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system,
including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric
moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments
and agencies)12


INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES

- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from
observations of increases in global average air and ocean
temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global
average sea level.”13

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since
the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in
anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”14

*IPCC defines ‘very likely’ as greater than 90 percent probability of
occurrence."
================================================== ======================
--
Pete Cresswell

Per The Daring Dufas:
I've witnessed
"Climate Change" for more than 6 decades and I've seen that it evens out
and we wind up with an average climate over a number of years.

Talk to the Pacific Islanders who have had to move to higher islands or
the mainland.

--
Pete Cresswell

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:02:49 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Oren:
Now. Will somebody give a me a link to any study (a single one) that
sates climate change is caused by man?

How about http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus?

More like a comprehendum of positions that a "study" per se... but I'd
have to think that it represents the views of many people with expertise
who have read studies that lead them to their positions.

Thanks. What I'd like to see is something other than opinions,
assessments, personal views, agendas, etc., etc.

If the science is "proven", then IMHO, it isn't science. Just a bunch
of hornswoggle.

The president has declared it to be "fact", the "science" is in. If
that is the case then why study it any more? I thought science is when
scientist question their own evidence.

I'm looking for a single scientist that is willing to _declare_ it as
fact and put his reputation on the line. I'm really not interested in
what people think about it. Or how they weasel around about it.

I still think this whole thing is a pyramid scheme, so money can be
redistributed. America has much cleaner air than in years past. China
and India are doing nothing. So America is supposed to pay for all the
world? Not in my world, sorry.

Per Oren:
I still think this whole thing is a pyramid scheme, so money can be
redistributed.

That would suggest a cabal that doesn't seem possible in it's
complexity. I have a pretty dim view of human nature, but that includes
people's ability to cooperate.

Exxon or the Koche brothers, I can see: they're bonded together by a
mutual desire to maximize profits.

But virtually the entire world community of scientists? What do they
stand to gain? I'd think vanishingly-few of them have any significant
economic interest/investments in alternative energy ventures. I would
think they are just trying to get published and not have their
colleagues rip what they've published to shreds.

China and India are doing nothing.

From what I've read, China and India are both running scared. For
starters, they are both heavily dependent on snow melt from the
Himalayas (SP?) which is no longer coming in the volume they have come
to depend on.

I've seen or read (can't recall which) articles on India's efforts to
build catch basins to help mitigate the problem on their side.

China, of course, is kicking the world's ass on production of
photovoltaics and windmills.

Of course, China is also building coal-fired power plants
hand-over-fist... and one could think they don't give a rat's ass about
the climate or air quality.

But in big cities, there's actually a class thing now where people of
means can afford to have the air in their house extensively filtered and
to send their kids to school where the air is likewise processed.... So
I would think that somewhere in the power structure, they see a serious
problem and are trying to figure out what to do.
--
Pete Cresswell

On 4/7/2014 8:53 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Oren:
I still think this whole thing is a pyramid scheme, so money can be
redistributed.

That would suggest a cabal that doesn't seem possible in it's
complexity. I have a pretty dim view of human nature, but that includes
people's ability to cooperate.

Exxon or the Koche brothers, I can see: they're bonded together by a
mutual desire to maximize profits.

But virtually the entire world community of scientists? What do they
stand to gain? I'd think vanishingly-few of them have any significant
economic interest/investments in alternative energy ventures. I would
think they are just trying to get published and not have their
colleagues rip what they've published to shreds.
....

That's what they've got in it -- 90% of environmental research is funded
by government grants so in a "publish or perish" world the only way to
win a grant and therefore retain their professorship is to follow the
lead of the funding agency.

Now, being an engineer/physics guy meself, I don't think 90%+ really
intend this but it's the inevitable result of eventually succumbing to
the current research trend.

There's no way one can put any serious credence in the details of the
models over the time frames they're projecting--it's ludicrous.

--

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 21:14:12 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 4/7/2014 8:53 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Oren:
I still think this whole thing is a pyramid scheme, so money can be
redistributed.

That would suggest a cabal that doesn't seem possible in it's
complexity. I have a pretty dim view of human nature, but that includes
people's ability to cooperate.

Exxon or the Koche brothers, I can see: they're bonded together by a
mutual desire to maximize profits.

But virtually the entire world community of scientists? What do they
stand to gain? I'd think vanishingly-few of them have any significant
economic interest/investments in alternative energy ventures. I would
think they are just trying to get published and not have their
colleagues rip what they've published to shreds.
...

That's what they've got in it -- 90% of environmental research is funded
by government grants so in a "publish or perish" world the only way to
win a grant and therefore retain their professorship is to follow the
lead of the funding agency.

Now, being an engineer/physics guy meself, I don't think 90%+ really
intend this but it's the inevitable result of eventually succumbing to
the current research trend.

There's no way one can put any serious credence in the details of the
models over the time frames they're projecting--it's ludicrous.

So do you deny that the world is getting warmer or do you agree with
that but deny that human activity is significantly responsible?

I think that both are true, and as we all should know, more heat
equals more volatility so more extreme events. I do enjoy reading
folks talking about this being part of a natural cycle, like the
climate scientists aren't aware of the natural cycles.

Naturally the scientists are usually receiving grants from governments
- who else funds work that doesn't really have quick financial
rewards? Certainly not corporations that have a vested interest in
selling more fossil fuels.

As Pete said, if this is all some huge conspiracy by those horrible
leftists, I would think that some of the millions of people involved
would spill the beans.

I do hope that you are correct, and that we aren't heading for really
serious climate alterations, but I think that we are.

In article ,
dgk wrote:

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 21:14:12 -0500, dpb wrote:

Naturally the scientists are usually receiving grants from governments
- who else funds work that doesn't really have quick financial
rewards? Certainly not corporations that have a vested interest in
selling more fossil fuels.
But to suggest the government doesn't skew their funding and they
don't have vested interests is also a scam, since politicians are
involved. There is nothing inherently pure about government money,
either.
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
-- Aaron Levenstein

On 4/8/2014 8:49 AM, dgk wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 21:14:12 -0500, wrote:
On 4/7/2014 8:53 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
....

Now, being an engineer/physics guy meself, I don't think 90%+ really
intend this but it's the inevitable result of eventually succumbing to
the current research trend.

There's no way one can put any serious credence in the details of the
models over the time frames they're projecting--it's ludicrous.

So do you deny that the world is getting warmer or do you agree with
that but deny that human activity is significantly responsible?

I think that both are true, and as we all should know, more heat
equals more volatility so more extreme events. I do enjoy reading
folks talking about this being part of a natural cycle, like the
climate scientists aren't aware of the natural cycles.

....

I'm in the camp that there's nothing outside of of normal variability
observed and I'm far from convinced the models have the ability to
"prove" anything else.

The proponents are guilty of the same argument they complain of--that
they're using very short-term data to claim evidence of longterm change.

By historical data, we're still coming out of the last ice age so it's
not at all unlikely in my view that a period of warming could be
expected and since all the initial hoopla began the last number of years
have pretty much negated that trend, anyways.

That results have conclusively been shown to have been selectively
chosen to produce desirable results in studies and that the proponents
are also largely in favor of more governmental controls in general is
also the political and bias inside the movement aside from the "pure"
science issues.

I've previously likened it much as what I observed 20 and 30 yr ago
while consulting for the "fusion in 20 years" camp at the Princeton
Plasma Physics Lab and Rochester Lab for Laser Energetics where despite
the obvious difficulties it was a nearly religious belief in the program
that had evolved simply by being so closely involved that any result
that didn't fit or criticism was essentially overwhelmed by the momentum
of the effort. As we now know, we're _still_ 20+ yr away and likely,
imo, will be another 30 from now.

I expect in another 20 or 30 we'll discover this has all gone the way of
the "nuclear winter" of the late 50s and 60s.

--

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 09:49:44 -0400, dgk wrote:

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 21:14:12 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 4/7/2014 8:53 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Oren:
I still think this whole thing is a pyramid scheme, so money can be
redistributed.

That would suggest a cabal that doesn't seem possible in it's
complexity. I have a pretty dim view of human nature, but that includes
people's ability to cooperate.

Exxon or the Koche brothers, I can see: they're bonded together by a
mutual desire to maximize profits.

But virtually the entire world community of scientists? What do they
stand to gain? I'd think vanishingly-few of them have any significant
economic interest/investments in alternative energy ventures. I would
think they are just trying to get published and not have their
colleagues rip what they've published to shreds.
...

That's what they've got in it -- 90% of environmental research is funded
by government grants so in a "publish or perish" world the only way to
win a grant and therefore retain their professorship is to follow the
lead of the funding agency.

Now, being an engineer/physics guy meself, I don't think 90%+ really
intend this but it's the inevitable result of eventually succumbing to
the current research trend.

There's no way one can put any serious credence in the details of the
models over the time frames they're projecting--it's ludicrous.

So do you deny that the world is getting warmer or do you agree with
that but deny that human activity is significantly responsible?

I think that both are true, and as we all should know, more heat
equals more volatility so more extreme events. I do enjoy reading
folks talking about this being part of a natural cycle, like the
climate scientists aren't aware of the natural cycles.

Naturally the scientists are usually receiving grants from governments
- who else funds work that doesn't really have quick financial
rewards? Certainly not corporations that have a vested interest in
selling more fossil fuels.

As Pete said, if this is all some huge conspiracy by those horrible
leftists, I would think that some of the millions of people involved
would spill the beans.

I do hope that you are correct, and that we aren't heading for really
serious climate alterations, but I think that we are.
Be prepaired for a massive El Nino over the next 18-24 months if
that bubble of very warm water in the south Pacific rises to the
surface - which it most likely will. Hang onto your hats - and
anything else that could blow away or blow down.

On 4/8/2014 11:27 AM, dpb wrote:
....

I expect in another 20 or 30 we'll discover this has all gone the way of
the "nuclear winter" of the late 50s and 60s.

Meanwhile, a generation or two will have made their livings doing their
work and some useful data will have been collected and some general
advances in understanding global climatology will undoubtedly be of some
longterm benefit. But, for the most part, it'll just turn out to have
been an academic exercise of no real import.

--

On 4/7/2014 8:20 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
The rain was hammering the house all last night and now many areas are
flooded with some roads closed. As luck would have it, we've had a new
roof put on the house in the last few years and got some help to tar
around the chimney and plumbing stack in the bathroom in the last few
months. I looked for leaks in the ceiling but didn't find any. Here on
the mountain I'm sure we were on the high end of the rainfall. Not only
did it rain but the temperature was in the low 50's F. Darn that Global
Warming! o_O

This was a huge storm cutting across a number of states and I wonder
what some of the posters experienced over the past 24 hours with the
monster rain? ^_^

TDD
Western NY had a slight rain on Monday, but nothing like that.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 4/7/2014 2:32 PM, dpb wrote:
....

Just for the fun's of it, I looked at the past March for a point
somewhere in sorta' mid-Alabama outside of major metro area -- Alabaster
happened to show up quickly

SW KS deltas Mid AL deltas
Max High 78 F 82 F
Min High 8 F 70 F 43 F 39 F
Max Low 46 F 56 F
Min Low -5 F 51 F 29 F 27 F
Max Day swing 58 F (24-82F) 38 F (39F-77F)
....

Actually, just noticed I reversed the Max High columns; the rest is correct.

SW KS deltas Mid AL deltas
Max High 82 F 78 F
Min High 8 F 70 F 43 F 39 F
Max Low 46 F 56 F
Min Low -5 F 51 F 29 F 27 F
Max Day swing 58 F (24-82F) 38 F (39F-77F)

--

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 13:29:15 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 4/8/2014 11:27 AM, dpb wrote:
...

I expect in another 20 or 30 we'll discover this has all gone the way of
the "nuclear winter" of the late 50s and 60s.

Meanwhile, a generation or two will have made their livings doing their
work and some useful data will have been collected and some general
advances in understanding global climatology will undoubtedly be of some
longterm benefit. But, for the most part, it'll just turn out to have
been an academic exercise of no real import.
What avoided the "nuclear winter" was an avoidance of nuclear
conflict.

What will be the cause of "climate change" going the way of "Nuclear
Winter"??

On 4/8/2014 7:07 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 13:29:15 -0500, wrote:

On 4/8/2014 11:27 AM, dpb wrote:
...

I expect in another 20 or 30 we'll discover this has all gone the way of
the "nuclear winter" of the late 50s and 60s.

Meanwhile, a generation or two will have made their livings doing their
work and some useful data will have been collected and some general
advances in understanding global climatology will undoubtedly be of some
longterm benefit. But, for the most part, it'll just turn out to have
been an academic exercise of no real import.
What avoided the "nuclear winter" was an avoidance of nuclear
conflict.

What will be the cause of "climate change" going the way of "Nuclear
Winter"??

That there likely really isn't any outside of general variation? If you
look over a longer period of time (like 10s of K years instead less than
a lifetime) it's pretty clear we've been in a remarkably and unusually
quiescent stage for quite a while...maybe it's time for a change; maybe
it isn't.

--

On 4/8/2014 8:07 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 13:29:15 -0500, dpb wrote:

I expect in another 20 or 30 we'll discover this has all gone the way of
the "nuclear winter" of the late 50s and 60s.

What avoided the "nuclear winter" was an avoidance of nuclear
conflict.

What will be the cause of "climate change" going the way of "Nuclear
Winter"??

How about avoiding giving elected officials any power
to make decisions?

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

Oren posted for all of us...

And I know how to SNIP

I still think this whole thing is a pyramid scheme, so money can be
redistributed.


Sure it is! And Al Gore is the recipient.

--
Tekkie

The Daring Dufas posted for all of us...

And I know how to SNIP


On 4/7/2014 9:59 AM, dpb wrote:
On 4/7/2014 7:20 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote: ...

This was a huge storm cutting across a number of states and I
wonder what some of the posters experienced over the past 24 hours
with the monster rain? ^_^

0.15" in a couple of sprinkles Fri evening and Sat morning...another
band was promising last night until it all fell apart when got
within about 20 miles...

That's most measurable since a couple small snowfalls back in early
March...still no relief in sight for the 3-yr drought...

We'd be happy to take it...

--
Where are you located my friend? We had a serious drought here in
Central Alabamastan a while back with reservoirs getting low and crop
failures but now rainfall seems to be back to normal which means we're
getting a good bit. An old saying about Alabama weather is, "If you
don't like the weather, stick around, it will change." I've witnessed
"Climate Change" for more than 6 decades and I've seen that it evens out
and we wind up with an average climate over a number of years. I've seen
warm winters and very cold winters, the same for summers, some very hot
and some very mild. Climate changes, it's a normal thing for it to do. o_O

TDD

My adage: Don't mess with Mother Nature.

--
Tekkie

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 20:53:19 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 4/8/2014 8:07 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 13:29:15 -0500, dpb wrote:

I expect in another 20 or 30 we'll discover this has all gone the way of
the "nuclear winter" of the late 50s and 60s.

What avoided the "nuclear winter" was an avoidance of nuclear
conflict.

What will be the cause of "climate change" going the way of "Nuclear
Winter"??

How about avoiding giving elected officials any power
to make decisions?
The power of elected officials to make ANY change, muchless change to
mother nature's temper, is extremely limited at best.

On 4/8/2014 9:56 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 20:53:19 -0400, Stormin Mormon
What will be the cause of "climate change" going the way of "Nuclear
Winter"??

How about avoiding giving elected officials any power
to make decisions?
The power of elected officials to make ANY change, muchless change to
mother nature's temper, is extremely limited at best.


In the US, our elected reps have been changing the
laws, tax structure, the way people purchase medical
care, and have enacted arbitrary and burdensome
laws and penalties like photo enforced traffic lights,
taxes and fees which are too numerous to mention.
Due to all that change, the US economy is tragic.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 4/7/14 7:20 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
The rain was hammering the house all last night and now many areas are
flooded with some roads closed. As luck would have it, we've had a new
roof put on the house in the last few years and got some help to tar
around the chimney and plumbing stack in the bathroom in the last few
months. I looked for leaks in the ceiling but didn't find any. Here on
the mountain I'm sure we were on the high end of the rainfall. Not only
did it rain but the temperature was in the low 50's F. Darn that Global
Warming! o_O

This was a huge storm cutting across a number of states and I wonder
what some of the posters experienced over the past 24 hours with the
monster rain? ^_^

TDD


Probably about .05" to .08" a few days ago in south central
Nebraska. We are abnormally dry according to the U.S. Drought Monitor.
Western Nebraska is in a stage of drought. The monitor is here if
you're interested. http://tinyurl.com/ltov5dh
I heard stories a few days ago about our government trucking salmon
to their spawning grounds.

On 4/7/2014 2:32 PM, dpb wrote:
On 4/7/2014 12:33 PM, dpb wrote:
...

As far as the widespread "don't like it, it'll change" saw, "you ain't
see'ed nuthin' yet" in that regards down there as compared to the High
Plains.
...

Just for the fun's of it, I looked at the past March for a point
somewhere in sorta' mid-Alabama outside of major metro area -- Alabaster
happened to show up quickly

SW KS deltas Mid AL deltas
Max High 78 F 82 F
Min High 8 F 70 F 43 F 39 F
Max Low 46 F 56 F
Min Low -5 F 51 F 29 F 27 F
Max Day swing 58 F (24-82F) 38 F (39F-77F)
Max Sust Wind 45 mph 24 mph
Max Peak Gust 54 mph 39 mph
Precip 0.05" 2.16"

Want some variation, come west, young man...

--
Why heck feller, you folks don't have any mountains to break up all that
wind. You listed Alabaster which is 75 miles South of me here in Eastern
Birmingham. I live on Ruffner Mountain just outside of Ruffner Mountain
Park and Nature Preserve. This neighborhood is filled with trees and
every critter native to the area. My roommate had an African parrot in a
cage on the front porch so the green squawker and talker could look out
the windows and not be bored like he was inside the house. It wasn't
unusual for us to hear a loud "Wham!" from the front
of the house and when we looked, there was a stunned owl on the ground
that had just flown into the window trying to get itself a tasty green
feathered meal. Every morning starts with the calls of every variety of
bird from the nature preserve and Sandy, my Rotthuahua, loves to chase
the squirrels that infest the area along with every other sort of four
legged critter you can imagine. There are fox and coyote in the area but
I've never seen any. ^_^

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruffner_Mountain_Park

http://ruffnermountain.org/

TDD

On 4/8/2014 8:49 AM, dgk wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 21:14:12 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 4/7/2014 8:53 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Oren:
I still think this whole thing is a pyramid scheme, so money
can be redistributed.

That would suggest a cabal that doesn't seem possible in it's
complexity. I have a pretty dim view of human nature, but that
includes people's ability to cooperate.

Exxon or the Koche brothers, I can see: they're bonded together
by a mutual desire to maximize profits.

But virtually the entire world community of scientists? What do
they stand to gain? I'd think vanishingly-few of them have any
significant economic interest/investments in alternative energy
ventures. I would think they are just trying to get published
and not have their colleagues rip what they've published to
shreds.
...

That's what they've got in it -- 90% of environmental research is
funded by government grants so in a "publish or perish" world the
only way to win a grant and therefore retain their professorship is
to follow the lead of the funding agency.

Now, being an engineer/physics guy meself, I don't think 90%+
really intend this but it's the inevitable result of eventually
succumbing to the current research trend.

There's no way one can put any serious credence in the details of
the models over the time frames they're projecting--it's
ludicrous.

So do you deny that the world is getting warmer or do you agree with
that but deny that human activity is significantly responsible?

I think that both are true, and as we all should know, more heat
equals more volatility so more extreme events. I do enjoy reading
folks talking about this being part of a natural cycle, like the
climate scientists aren't aware of the natural cycles.

Naturally the scientists are usually receiving grants from
governments - who else funds work that doesn't really have quick
financial rewards? Certainly not corporations that have a vested
interest in selling more fossil fuels.

As Pete said, if this is all some huge conspiracy by those horrible
leftists, I would think that some of the millions of people involved
would spill the beans.

I do hope that you are correct, and that we aren't heading for
really serious climate alterations, but I think that we are.

There are a few things that man has done that could be contributing
factors. In third world countries, rain forests are being cleared to
open land up for cattle farming and cow farts contain a lot of green
house gases. Pesticides that are very effective against termites have
been banned which keep termites from eating "man made" wooden structures
and the termites fart a lot of greenhouse gasses. Of course,
7 billion human beings are farting out a lot of greenhouse gasses. So it
can be assumed that most farts are the fault of mankind and are one
of the biggest contributors to global warming. ^_^

TDD

On 4/9/2014 6:30 AM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 4/7/14 7:20 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
The rain was hammering the house all last night and now many areas
are flooded with some roads closed. As luck would have it, we've
had a new roof put on the house in the last few years and got some
help to tar around the chimney and plumbing stack in the bathroom
in the last few months. I looked for leaks in the ceiling but
didn't find any. Here on the mountain I'm sure we were on the high
end of the rainfall. Not only did it rain but the temperature was
in the low 50's F. Darn that Global Warming! o_O

This was a huge storm cutting across a number of states and I
wonder what some of the posters experienced over the past 24 hours
with the monster rain? ^_^

TDD


Probably about .05" to .08" a few days ago in south central Nebraska.
We are abnormally dry according to the U.S. Drought Monitor. Western
Nebraska is in a stage of drought. The monitor is here if you're
interested. http://tinyurl.com/ltov5dh I heard stories a few days
ago about our government trucking salmon to their spawning grounds.

I see the drought tongue sticking into Central Alabamastan and I think
conditions have improved since a few years ago when reservoirs got low
and there were some crop failures. I haven't heard anything in the news
lately about any drought conditions in my area. ^_^

TDD

Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 4/7/14 7:20 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
The rain was hammering the house all last night and now many areas are
flooded with some roads closed. As luck would have it, we've had a new
roof put on the house in the last few years and got some help to tar
around the chimney and plumbing stack in the bathroom in the last few
months. I looked for leaks in the ceiling but didn't find any. Here on
the mountain I'm sure we were on the high end of the rainfall. Not only
did it rain but the temperature was in the low 50's F. Darn that Global
Warming! o_O

This was a huge storm cutting across a number of states and I wonder
what some of the posters experienced over the past 24 hours with the
monster rain? ^_^

TDD


Probably about .05" to .08" a few days ago in south central
Nebraska. We are abnormally dry according to the U.S. Drought Monitor.
Western Nebraska is in a stage of drought. The monitor is here if
you're interested. http://tinyurl.com/ltov5dh
I heard stories a few days ago about our government trucking salmon
to their spawning grounds.

In North West Nebraska Panhandle we received .01" and we are very dry
with the wind and dirt blowing every day.

On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 12:27:29 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
On 4/8/2014 8:49 AM, dgk wrote:

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 21:14:12 -0500, wrote:

On 4/7/2014 8:53 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

...



Now, being an engineer/physics guy meself, I don't think 90%+ really

intend this but it's the inevitable result of eventually succumbing to

the current research trend.



There's no way one can put any serious credence in the details of the

models over the time frames they're projecting--it's ludicrous.



So do you deny that the world is getting warmer or do you agree with

that but deny that human activity is significantly responsible?



I think that both are true, and as we all should know, more heat

equals more volatility so more extreme events. I do enjoy reading

folks talking about this being part of a natural cycle, like the

climate scientists aren't aware of the natural cycles.



...



I'm in the camp that there's nothing outside of of normal variability

observed and I'm far from convinced the models have the ability to

"prove" anything else.



The proponents are guilty of the same argument they complain of--that

they're using very short-term data to claim evidence of longterm change.



By historical data, we're still coming out of the last ice age so it's

not at all unlikely in my view that a period of warming could be

expected and since all the initial hoopla began the last number of years

have pretty much negated that trend, anyways.



That results have conclusively been shown to have been selectively

chosen to produce desirable results in studies and that the proponents

are also largely in favor of more governmental controls in general is

also the political and bias inside the movement aside from the "pure"

science issues.



I've previously likened it much as what I observed 20 and 30 yr ago

while consulting for the "fusion in 20 years" camp at the Princeton

Plasma Physics Lab and Rochester Lab for Laser Energetics where despite

the obvious difficulties it was a nearly religious belief in the program

that had evolved simply by being so closely involved that any result

that didn't fit or criticism was essentially overwhelmed by the momentum

of the effort. As we now know, we're _still_ 20+ yr away and likely,

imo, will be another 30 from now.



I expect in another 20 or 30 we'll discover this has all gone the way of

the "nuclear winter" of the late 50s and 60s.



An even better comparison is the big hoopla in the 70's about the
*cooling* trend. You had the "experts" in climate science warning that
we could be entering a mini ice age. Time Magazine ran a cover story in
1977, "How to Survive the Coming Ice Age". Now the climate change camp
will immediately claim that today we know so much more, better models, etc.
But the same thing could have been said in 1977 compared to 1940, etc.

That said, my position from about 2000 on was that we should
take simple cost effective steps to reduce carbon emissions, where
practical and possible. A simple example would be better insulation
for houses, higher efficiency furnaces, etc. Given that that we have
apparently had some of the hottest years here over the past decade,
I would normally say we should probably ratchet up trying to reduce
CO2 more aggressively. But the thing for me that indicates we can
still wait is that global warming has stopped for the last decade.
We're still near the peak, hence still having some years that are among
the hottest on record, but if you look at a 100 year chart, it's
flattening out for the last 10 years and appears like it could roll
over and go back down.

http://www.climate.gov/news-features...ng-past-decade


Also, carbon emissions have steadily increased
during that period, yet temperature has flattened out. If the temp
curve breaks out on the upside from the 10 year consolidation, then
I'd ratchet up the CO2 reduction program.

The problem with any aggressive response is that it's going to be
costly. For example, we have plenty of cheap nat gas and replacing
it with something else is going to be more costly. This is particularly
bad since US industries, jobs, etc are at a disadvantage to places like
China. If you put us at a further disadvantage, while China burns
cheap coal and does what they want, the consequences to that are
more predictable IMO, than global warming. So, I'd give it a few more
years. I guess you can call me a global warming agnostic.

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 19:52:23 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 4/8/2014 7:07 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 13:29:15 -0500, wrote:

On 4/8/2014 11:27 AM, dpb wrote:
...

I expect in another 20 or 30 we'll discover this has all gone the way of
the "nuclear winter" of the late 50s and 60s.

Meanwhile, a generation or two will have made their livings doing their
work and some useful data will have been collected and some general
advances in understanding global climatology will undoubtedly be of some
longterm benefit. But, for the most part, it'll just turn out to have
been an academic exercise of no real import.
What avoided the "nuclear winter" was an avoidance of nuclear
conflict.

What will be the cause of "climate change" going the way of "Nuclear
Winter"??

That there likely really isn't any outside of general variation? If you
look over a longer period of time (like 10s of K years instead less than
a lifetime) it's pretty clear we've been in a remarkably and unusually
quiescent stage for quite a while...maybe it's time for a change; maybe
it isn't.


Isn't it amazing that the guys who study climate aren't aware that
this is just normal variation? You'd think that they might actually
know what the normal variation would be. I think they do.

The Daring Dufas posted for all of us...

And I know how to SNIP


On 4/8/2014 8:49 AM, dgk wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 21:14:12 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 4/7/2014 8:53 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Oren:
I still think this whole thing is a pyramid scheme, so money
can be redistributed.

That would suggest a cabal that doesn't seem possible in it's
complexity. I have a pretty dim view of human nature, but that
includes people's ability to cooperate.

Exxon or the Koche brothers, I can see: they're bonded together
by a mutual desire to maximize profits.

But virtually the entire world community of scientists? What do
they stand to gain? I'd think vanishingly-few of them have any
significant economic interest/investments in alternative energy
ventures. I would think they are just trying to get published
and not have their colleagues rip what they've published to
shreds.
...

That's what they've got in it -- 90% of environmental research is
funded by government grants so in a "publish or perish" world the
only way to win a grant and therefore retain their professorship is
to follow the lead of the funding agency.

Now, being an engineer/physics guy meself, I don't think 90%+
really intend this but it's the inevitable result of eventually
succumbing to the current research trend.

There's no way one can put any serious credence in the details of
the models over the time frames they're projecting--it's
ludicrous.

So do you deny that the world is getting warmer or do you agree with
that but deny that human activity is significantly responsible?

I think that both are true, and as we all should know, more heat
equals more volatility so more extreme events. I do enjoy reading
folks talking about this being part of a natural cycle, like the
climate scientists aren't aware of the natural cycles.

Naturally the scientists are usually receiving grants from
governments - who else funds work that doesn't really have quick
financial rewards? Certainly not corporations that have a vested
interest in selling more fossil fuels.

As Pete said, if this is all some huge conspiracy by those horrible
leftists, I would think that some of the millions of people involved
would spill the beans.

I do hope that you are correct, and that we aren't heading for
really serious climate alterations, but I think that we are.

There are a few things that man has done that could be contributing
factors. In third world countries, rain forests are being cleared to
open land up for cattle farming and cow farts contain a lot of green
house gases. Pesticides that are very effective against termites have
been banned which keep termites from eating "man made" wooden structures
and the termites fart a lot of greenhouse gasses. Of course,
7 billion human beings are farting out a lot of greenhouse gasses. So it
can be assumed that most farts are the fault of mankind and are one
of the biggest contributors to global warming. ^_^

TDD

Something smells about this post...

--
Tekkie

On 4/9/2014 7:25 PM, Tekkie® wrote:
The Daring Dufas posted for all of us...

And I know how to SNIP


On 4/8/2014 8:49 AM, dgk wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 21:14:12 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 4/7/2014 8:53 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Oren:
I still think this whole thing is a pyramid scheme, so
money can be redistributed.

That would suggest a cabal that doesn't seem possible in
it's complexity. I have a pretty dim view of human nature,
but that includes people's ability to cooperate.

Exxon or the Koche brothers, I can see: they're bonded
together by a mutual desire to maximize profits.

But virtually the entire world community of scientists?
What do they stand to gain? I'd think vanishingly-few of
them have any significant economic interest/investments in
alternative energy ventures. I would think they are just
trying to get published and not have their colleagues rip
what they've published to shreds.
...

That's what they've got in it -- 90% of environmental research
is funded by government grants so in a "publish or perish"
world the only way to win a grant and therefore retain their
professorship is to follow the lead of the funding agency.

Now, being an engineer/physics guy meself, I don't think 90%+
really intend this but it's the inevitable result of
eventually succumbing to the current research trend.

There's no way one can put any serious credence in the details
of the models over the time frames they're projecting--it's
ludicrous.

So do you deny that the world is getting warmer or do you agree
with that but deny that human activity is significantly
responsible?

I think that both are true, and as we all should know, more heat
equals more volatility so more extreme events. I do enjoy
reading folks talking about this being part of a natural cycle,
like the climate scientists aren't aware of the natural cycles.

Naturally the scientists are usually receiving grants from
governments - who else funds work that doesn't really have quick
financial rewards? Certainly not corporations that have a vested
interest in selling more fossil fuels.

As Pete said, if this is all some huge conspiracy by those
horrible leftists, I would think that some of the millions of
people involved would spill the beans.

I do hope that you are correct, and that we aren't heading for
really serious climate alterations, but I think that we are.

There are a few things that man has done that could be
contributing factors. In third world countries, rain forests are
being cleared to open land up for cattle farming and cow farts
contain a lot of green house gases. Pesticides that are very
effective against termites have been banned which keep termites
from eating "man made" wooden structures and the termites fart a
lot of greenhouse gasses. Of course, 7 billion human beings are
farting out a lot of greenhouse gasses. So it can be assumed that
most farts are the fault of mankind and are one of the biggest
contributors to global warming. ^_^

TDD

Something smells about this post...

There is at least one arrogant P.L.L.C.F. net cop who has written that
all my posts stink. ^_^

TDD

On 4/7/2014 4:10 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per The Daring Dufas:
I've witnessed "Climate Change" for more than 6 decades and I've
seen that it evens out and we wind up with an average climate over
a number of years.

Talk to the Pacific Islanders who have had to move to higher islands
or the mainland.

Could you post some names and contact information so I can communicate
with them about it? Perhaps a website or forum? o_O

TDD