Missing water

Politics and Social Issues
21

The republicans keeping Climate Change mostly out of the political spotlight is now changing and the Democrats are moving Climate Change out to the front burner as a political issue meant to rally the party and give the party a 2020 platform to run on. There is a congressional hearing Wednesday in the House Natural Resources Hearing on Climate change. And another hearing Wednesday, from the House Energy and Commerce Committees.

What is interesting. The hearings are not about Climate science. https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/428453-climate-change-on-front-burner-after-8-years-of-gop-rule

So basically, the democrats want to test the waters and are thinking about jumping into the Green Movement for 2020. And they have called America’s leading climate scientists who has claimed that Climate Change is less certain than popularly believed to testify.

The New Green Deal. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/04/green-new-deal-fossil-fuels-1142544

The New Green Deal. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/04/green-new-deal-fossil-fuels-1142544

22

Just a thought.

99.9% of the scientists for 3000 years believed in the aether winds. There was that one guy, the 0.1% who did not. And he was looked down upon as a total idiot. His name was Albert Einstein. Aether winds never did exist. Yet, today there are people still trying to prove the existence of aether winds. And no doubt, if the sun and not the CO2 turned out to be the driving force of climate change. There will no doubt be people who will always claim that CO2 is the driving force and not just a warming factor like our other gases.

The search for cancer was a lot like Climate Change in the first stages. We did not really know at the time what cancer was or what caused it. I went to a four-day convention in LA on the subject. And there were people there claiming that cancer was caused by everything you could think of under the sun. The common factor was that they all claimed to have the science to back it up.

23

That’s what libertarians do best, get lost in a ‘what if’ make believe world - and not even recognize it.

Back here on Earth we have evidence:

CO2 Science - Blue team: "Pruitt, it's certain as certain gets!

It’s the physics! Don’t you know?

https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2018/01/pruitt-agw-certain-as-certain-gets.html

“Atmospheric CO2 Science" is as certain as certain gets !

To understand that, you must learn about where our greenhouse gas understanding comes from. Namely intensive atmospheric studies made by no nonsense Air Force atmospheric scientists.

Nature doesn’t play tricks like people do, through careful study scientists have revealed one natural secret after another. Why in the world would atmospheric radiative transfer physics be any different? On top of all that, many nations studied greenhouse gases independently (we are talking about military secrets back then!) and all those experts came up with the same answers. …


<strong>CO2 Science - Pruitt, proof is in the pudding! Impossible Modern Marvels</strong>

https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2018/01/pruitt-proof-isin-modernmarvels.html

After explaining that the USAF scientists and technicians who established our "CO2 science" possessed impeccable credentials, we should also point out that if those scientists had been wrong, they would have been exposed in short order.

Why you ask?  Because of the increasing variety of modern marvels that would have been impossible had those studies not produced exquisitely accurate facts and figures.

The following was written to supplement the previous review of USA atmospheric research and to explain why a layperson can feel very comfortable trusting, heck believing, scientists, their atmospheric studies, and overall understanding.  …</blockquote>
24

Man-made climate change is not an existential threat on the time scale of the 21st century, even in its most alarming incarnation. You’re missing the social aspect of the spin that has been placed upon what the science is saying. The spin is a perception of a near-term apocalypse event.

People prefer ‘clean’ over ‘dirty’ energy – provided that the energy source is reliable, secure and economical. The omniscient social driven understanding of Climate Science is misguiding people to assume that current wind and solar technologies are adequate for powering an advanced economy. And we are many decades away from that being possible.

We went through sort of the same type of scientific omniscient on the geothermal drilling for steam driven energy back in the seventies. Had the alarmist scientists waited until the science was proven before making so many false predictions. Then geothermal-power would have been used instead of nuclear-power. And today we would be using the cleanest and cheapest energy source available that’s capable of producing the amounts of energy required.

25

“85% of the US is freezing at a time when we were told that we would never see snow again in the United States do to Climate Change.” The 1% of people who are 100% climate change deniers use .001% of all AGW quotes to support 99% of their claims that are 110% wrong.

“It comes from the people doing the Climate models. It turns out that clouds are hard to calculate in terms of math.” Of what terms should we use to calculate them?

“ Problem was I could not make the numbers work that California was using on the costs of wind generating.” Mike had trouble doing maths? I’m shocked.

26
99.9% of scientists wrong, MikeYohe and a handful of cherry picked Trump apologists right. I think I might be beginning to understand why it’s so quiet in here if toxicity come batshit lunacy of this level is extant.
Mike is the resident troll. Others have come and gone, but with CC around, Mike has plenty to respond to. Mike also relates everything to his personal version of gnostic history. He claims to have a garage somewhere with all of his sources but he's only ever linked to pseudo-science websites.

 

27
Man-made climate change is not an existential threat on the time scale of the 21st century
What's that even mean. Existential threat to whom and what? You think this complex lazy coddled society can survive as it's infrastructure gets nibbled away at? You think it's going to be easy building new cities while current one's start drowning? You think the moment the tundra melts it's going to be ready for the combines? Etc. Etc. Etc.

Oh and are you saying Mike that, if it only totally fuks up the 22nd century that’ll make it all okay?

http://www.joboneforhumanity.org/20_worst_consequences_of_global_warming
consequences of global warming
consequences of global warming1200×909 292 KB
28

At the rate the water is rising, the cities will need to be rebuilt anyway because of old age. Do, you understand that the water rises and falls naturally? Not only is the water moving, the land goes up and down and moves sideways. The land in some places is moving faster than the water.

It just so happens we are in the hottest part of the earth’s natural warming cycle. If we did not have sea rise. Then something would be wrong. The question on the table is how fast sea level rises. Twenty feet by 2100. That has now been change to a yard at most. And most likely going to be closer to sixteen inches or less. There are even reports today that say there may even be a decrease in sea level rise by 2100.

Are you ever going to get into GSM? Ask yourself. What happened to the people following Global Cooling? Did they change to Climate Change? Remember, the Global Cooling science has never been proven wrong. Just not complete. I found where many ended up. And that is with GSM.

In your neck of the woods. You got Boom, Boom, Diamond. A greenie that has been predicting what the effects of GSM on weather, hurricanes, earthquakes and volcanoes would be years before it started. And now that we are moving into the GMS cycles, Diamond has hit all home runs.

29

“99.9% of scientists wrong, MikeYohe and a handful of cherry picked Trump apologists right. I think I might be beginning to understand why it’s so quiet in here if toxicity come batshit lunacy of this level is extant.
Mike is the resident troll. Others have come and gone, but with CC around, Mike has plenty to respond to. Mike also relates everything to his personal version of gnostic history. He claims to have a garage somewhere with all of his sources but he’s only ever linked to pseudo-science websites.”

I’m sorry if I hurt your feeling Lausten. Do you believe in aether winds? Did you have a fish on the hook and I chased it away? Your fishing here has went down a lot. That’s for sure. Was it good fishing for you the several months I was not here? Then I showed up and ran everyone away. That’s your point isn’t it? Is that really what happened? Maybe the Far-Left is not really very progressive unless being progressive is just spending money and backing ideas that are just based upon movements and not science. If the colleges are producing kids that think communism is the path for America and they call themselves progressive. Then they must think that communists are progressive. Is that what you think too? I wonder how many people today are thinking that way? Hate America, love Communism. The trouble with movements is that they come and they go.

30

Missed Lausten question.

“It comes from the people doing the Climate models. It turns out that clouds are hard to calculate in terms of math.” Of what terms should we use to calculate them?

 

Any method, even if it is wrong. Then it can be proven wrong and fixed. The math used is that clouds have so little effect that it is not a factor. So, it boils down the amounts used are only based upon a fact that the air only holds x amount of water. And it does not take in the sun cycles that are also thought to have so little effect that it is also not a factor.

Simple. This is really as simple as it gets. If you don’t have the science. Then you don’t use models to do the predictions until you are ready with the data. There is a term that is known in the industry for this. It is – garbage in, garbage out.

Today they are researching the clouds. The droplets and closeness are different at different parts and heights of the global. The affects of sun and the sun cycles are being studies. We wasted three decades getting started because someone said clouds and the sun have so little affect that its measurements are not even a factor compared to the CO2.

If it turns out that the sun is the driving factor and the clouds are the thermostat. And the CO2 is a warming blanket. Then science has to explain why it took them thirty years to check this out when other scientists and weather specialist have been making this claim all along.

What it has taken to get movement of money to fund these issues, is that weather cycles change charts are matching sun cycles charts going back thousands of years. So, what is the reason for that? If the IPCC was doing a good job. We would not and should not be talking about this.

31
That’s for sure. Was it good fishing for you the several months I was not here? Then I showed up and ran everyone away. That’s your point isn’t it? Is that really what happened?
No. That's not my point. And I'm not going to unravel your posts and try to figure out what you're asking. I'll just take all this as rhetorical and let you live in the bubble you have created for yourself.

 

32
If the IPCC was doing a good job. We would not and should not be talking about this.
Just gotta do this one. Not to try to get through to Mike, but to work out the logic of this illogical statement. What it boils down to is a claim the current state of the scientific community is completely corrupt. IPCC is getting the funding to do its research, but people like Mike think they are totally wrong. Mike and Co. know of people who are getting it right, but they DON'T get the funding and the recognition, despite them being able to make their case. Or can they? Is it that they COULD prove clouds are the issue, but they just aren't getting that darn funding and all that nice press that the IPCC gets? The implication is, science funding and science media are so broken that they are just sucking all the money and making it impossible for the REAL scientists to get their voices heard. That is, anything that is factual, on the merits of the evidence, is silenced. That is, science is not what it says it is. It is not an unbiased, non-political system that is designed to filter the prejudices out and bring us closer to the truth. There is a way to get to the truth, but only special people like Mike know it.

 

33

Incidentally worth pointing out is that IPCC is not a research organization!

IPCC’s mandate is to collect, organize and compile climate studies. Which they are doing very well.

IPCC is under relentless propaganda attack by folks like Mike Yohe who have absolutely no respect for honesty or assessing all the facts, torturing however they want to cram it into their little bubble of perception.

34

Got it all figured out do ya. I have stated for years that I backed the IPCC. Did so because they were the clearing house for data of the scientists and organized the data in a method for the general public to understand. After declaring my backing of the IPCC several dozen times here. I thought it would only be correct to state when that status changed. Today I am following Dr. Curry, who is up to date with the actions of the IPCC and other science that I am interested in such as climate models, government and the directions Climate Change is going as well as the latest information on Global Warming.

The IPCC did report the point of no return. We had to stop the CO2 levels before we reached a certain level or we would have run a way greenhouse warming affect. Time went by and nothing got done. We reached the point of no return. The IPCC just moved the point of no return up a couple of degrees and started the clock running again.

The predictions that had a high consensus started out using five to seven year predictions. Then went to ten year. Then twenty year. Then 2050 and now 2100. The only prediction that has been correct is the increase of C02 levels. Sea level rise has been wrong seven times now. One would think that the IPCC would keep score of these predictions for the public. I mean if you are going to publish reports that scare the hell out of the public. Then let the public know when those reports and predictions are wrong and keep a time line and transparency for the public.

The terminology should be kept by the IPCC. The reporters and science writers are still getting the Global Warming data mixed with the Climate Change data. There are over 100,000 reports and articles written each year. One would hope the IPCC would take on the challenge of indexing and rating the data so the public would know the science from the political data.

The next IPCC assessment report is due in three years. We have had five reports so far in thirty years. Do they really need 600,000 reports and articles before they have enough data to do a report. Dr. Curry reports on any major issues on a real time bases. Hum.

35

Climate Alarmist Admits Current Sea-Level Rise Is Much Lower than Average during House committee meeting.

 

“Apparently somewhere between 21,000 and 7,000 years ago we had a very significant rise in sea levels, much more than the 2-feet-per-century average of the overall 21,000-year period. Did humans cause that?” asked Brooks.

“No, they did not,” replied Kopp.

“Would it be fair to say that it was global warming?” Brooks said.

“Yes, it would be,” replied Kopp.

“And what is it that caused that global warming?” asked Brooks

“Changes in Earth orbit and amplified changes in carbon dioxide,” Kopp said.

In a statement of his own, Brooks said that the “average long-term sea level rise rate is three times greater than the eight-inch sea level rise the Earth has seen” since the Industrial Revolution.

“Not surprisingly, climate change alarmists, aided and abetted by a partisan media, never share this historical scientific data with the public,”

 

Anthropogenic vs. Nature is not being understood by the general public. Here is an example of Earth’s orbit and an increase in carbon dioxide that is not Climate Change. It is Global Warming. They finally got it right at this House Committee meeting. But I’ll bet you that most of the general public reading the text of the meeting really did not get it. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30. That’s right its been thirty years now guys.

If the sea level rise was three times of what it is today. Would that not take more heat than what we have today to cause that high level of ice melting over many centuries? This is not rocket science here. Heat melts ice. Ice turns to water. The water must go somewhere.

Point being. How much of this political ink that came out yesterday of an alarmist talking to a politician do I believe? I can wait three years for the IPCC or read a hundred different takes that will be written this coming week. Or I can get Dr. Curry’s advice in a couple of days. You better believe I will be happy with the advice of America’s top Climate expert.

36

What’s not to understand Mike?

Humanity has been burning unimaginably huge, as in geologically huge, amounts of fossil fuels that for hundreds of millions of years had been sequestered away - which in turn made the evolution of our contemporary biosphere possible.

Now we are digging up millions of years worth of sequestered CO2 and injecting it into our atmosphere and oceans - so much so that our atmosphere’s insulation (Mike you do realize (appreciate) its our atmosphere that provides the insulation between Earth’s biosphere and freezing black of space?) regulator has shot up from around 280 ppm when the steam engine was invented to 410 ppm and rising rapidly.

Mike, why not pick a nice comfortable day - walk around the block with a light jacket on. Now put on a heavy winter coat and walk around the block. See if holding in extra heat doesn’t make a significant difference to the way your body is feeling.

Warming our global heat and distribution engine, warms our cryosphere, warm our cryosphere and it melts, melt our cryosphere and that water will seek the ocean. What’s so difficult to grasp? And don’t forget warming water also expands and our oceans have definitely been warming and expanding. Simple, deniable but unavoidable physicals!

We have a biosphere that evolved under a specific narrow band of physical conditions - these are being radically altered. But, you don’t want to believe significant upheaval isn’t already happening and that the tempo of infra-structure destroying events can only increase, given today’s geophysical reality.

and so on and so forth . . .

 

You could always try a little serious education: http://forecast.uchicago.edu

37
America's top climate expert.
Pray tell how do you arrive at that conclusion???
38

And about that missing water, we know where it is:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C6&as_vis=1&q=nuisance+flooding+2019+&btnG=

39

Answers all questions.

Viewed by our government has a top climate expert.

Does it have to live off taxpayers’ dollars.

Respected by Industries whose businesses are highly affected by weather.

Not afraid to make predictions.

Has been very correct on her predictions.

Has the respect of many scientists.

40

Years of record-breaking heat. Massive ice melts. And no climate change sea level rise, just flooding. Can’t you do better than this.