Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skywatcher who wrote (32492)	2/18/2011 2:25:34 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Respond to of 36917

Reality is quite a good measure: <They point out that such programs cannot fully capture the complexity of the real world. Mainstream scientists acknowledge that point to a degree but contend that the programs are becoming more accurate. They also note that the programs are the only tools available to answer questions about how much humans are influencing the climate. > The temperature increase has been less than 1 degree over 100 years so the effect is not particularly dire. Probably a good effect because plants like CO2 and people like plants. Probably keeping reglaciation at bay too. Mqurice

To: Skywatcher who wrote (32492)	2/19/2011 10:26:44 AM
From: Alastair McIntosh	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

the likelihood of extreme precipitation on any given day rose by about 7 percent over the last half of the 20th century The article does not address the level of uncertainty in their analysis. Even if there is a 7 percent variability from natural atmospheric variability there is no reason to attribute it to rising CO2. Judith Curry, a mainstream climate scientist stated: I find this kind of analysis totally unconvincing, and it does not recognize the role of natural internal variability such as the Arctic Oscillation, La Nina, etc in producing floods. None of the recent floods are extreme in historical context. From Roger Pielke Sr., another leading climate scientist: The Nature paper as well as media coverage is selective on attributing reasons for an increase in extreme precipitation even if this is a robust finding. Of concern is the incomplete reasoning that they provide for explaining the increase in extreme precipitation, where Min et al write “Here we show that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases have contributed to the observed intensification of heavy precipitation events found over approximately two-thirds of data-covered parts of Northern Hemisphere land areas.” We (Pielke et al.)have published recently on the role of land use change, by itself, as a possible explanation of an increase in extreme precipitation in certain regions. The model study reported in Nature ignored this possibility. Our papers on this subject, under the leadership of Faisal Hossain, include: Have large dams altered extreme precipitation patterns during the last Century? Eos, Vol. 90, No. 48, 453-454. Copyright (2009) American Geophysical Union pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com The influence of large dams on surrounding climate and precipitation patterns. Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, doi:10.1029/2010GL046482, in press. pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com Dam safety effects due to human alteration of extreme precipitation. Water Resources Research, 46, W03301, doi:10.1029/2009WR007704. pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com Excerpts from the 2010 paper read: “For southern Africa and southern Europe, dams [and the associated landscape changes that result in its vicinity] appeared to have increased extreme precipitation (P99 events) by as much as 20% during the last century. Stations in southern India are found to have experienced a modest increase in the P99 value (Figure 3). In the U.S., the P50 (mean) and P99 values are found similarly sensitive to the effect of dams.” “Our study seems to indicate that the impact of large dams on extreme precipitation is clearly a function of surrounding mesoscale and land use conditions [e.g., see Pielke et al., 2007; Douglas et al., 2009], and that more research is necessary to gain insights on the physical mechanisms of extreme precipitation alteration by dams. The changes in land use, for example from added irrigation, add a significant amount of water vapor into the atmosphere in the growing season, thereby fueling showers and thunderstorms [e.g., see Pielke and Zeng, 1989; Pielke et al., 1997; Pielke, 2001].?” It appears that the focus of much of the media and in Nature is to promote a narrowly confined explanation for increases in extreme precipitation (as being due primarily to added CO2 and a few other greenhouse gases). They have ignored other explanations due to human forcings as well as the role of natural variability in extreme precipitation weather events. pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com

To: Skywatcher who wrote (32492)	2/20/2011 10:50:36 AM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

NASA Climate Scientist: Global Warming Does Not Cause Extreme Weather Events Read here. The crazed crowd of AGW believers, fanatics, disciples and propagandists have for years wrongly claimed that global warming causes more severe weather events. As C3 readers are very aware, the actual empirical evidence does not support that claim whatsoever. In addition, even the AGW theory does not support the claim that global warming will cause extreme weather. That last sentence is verified by a statement from Gavin Schmidt, a very prominent NASA climate scientist: "There is no theory or result that indicates that climate change increases extremes in general." As Luboš Motl (one of the world's premier physicists) explains in his article, the global warming theory better supports the claim that less severe climate extremes will be the result of warming. Why? AGW theory calls for the polar areas to warm more rapidly than the tropical areas. That result means the temperature difference between polar and tropics is lessened. If the temperature difference shrinks, the potential for severe weather shrinks also. In a nutshell, that is actual weather science that all scientists agree on. Soooo, why does the speculation persist that global warming causes more severe weather despite known science and empirical evidence? Well, the UN's IPCC political agenda requires a propaganda strategy of continuous lies and misconceptions to take root and thrive. Otherwise, it becomes very difficult to convince policymakers and the public to go along with draconian economic policies that reducing CO2 emissions require. And, as the crazed belief in the Soviet Union proved conclusively in the 20th century, leftists/liberals relish in the 'Big Lie' concept, in all its anti-science trappings. c3headlines.com motls.blogspot.com