Nonscience strikes again: 1.7 F degrees

[Interplanner]

Trying to rattle our sanity again, official government science says there is a crisis that the earth temperature rose 1.7F degrees in the 20th century. Due to human activity.

They might like to go find the "human activity" in the 1700s that caused Taku Lake, Alaska, to break through at the foot of that 50 mile glacier, releasing the Taku River, and flooding the area, which is still used as year 0 by some of native American date setting there. It's only the largest glacier, so no big deal if they lack explanation. That's what theories are for--to avoid explanations!

The government science nonsense can be defeated mathematically and easily. Let's say the high at the end of the 1900s was 71.7 degrees, 1.7 higher than year 1900. Let's say, to match, the low was at 31.7 in 2000, 1.7 higher than 1900. Big deal. Don't people know what averages mean anymore? What crisis?

There is no global crisis, thought there might be some local issues. We don't know why high pressure stuck over France in 2003 and several thousand perished in the heat in August. But it wasn't heat in November! We do know of the London Fog incident in the 50s, where we know that the concentration of coal heat in the absence of other movement created a respiratory tragedy. Those are not global crises, and the figure given by those wanting massive government is worthless.

We do know the violent storm count did not happen over the past decade, and in our region (Cascadia), all spring of last year, the official utilities posted temperatures 4-6 colder than the average for those months.

 

[gcthomas]

Do you understand the difference between weather and climate? It seems that that is part of your disconnect.

 

[Jonahdog]

That's what theories are for--to avoid explanations!

Well that shows a pretty clear lack of a basic understanding of science.

 

[MrDante]

Trying to rattle our sanity again, official government science says there is a crisis that the earth temperature rose 1.7F degrees in the 20th century. Due to human activity.

They might like to go find the "human activity" in the 1700s that caused Taku Lake, Alaska, to break through at the foot of that 50 mile glacier, releasing the Taku River, and flooding the area, which is still used as year 0 by some of native American date setting there. It's only the largest glacier, so no big deal if they lack explanation. That's what theories are for--to avoid explanations!

The government science nonsense can be defeated mathematically and easily. Let's say the high at the end of the 1900s was 71.7 degrees, 1.7 higher than year 1900. Let's say, to match, the low was at 31.7 in 2000, 1.7 higher than 1900. Big deal. Don't people know what averages mean anymore? What crisis?

There is no global crisis, thought there might be some local issues. We don't know why high pressure stuck over France in 2003 and several thousand perished in the heat in August. But it wasn't heat in November! We do know of the London Fog incident in the 50s, where we know that the concentration of coal heat in the absence of other movement created a respiratory tragedy. Those are not global crises, and the figure given by those wanting massive government is worthless.

We do know the violent storm count did not happen over the past decade, and in our region (Cascadia), all spring of last year, the official utilities posted temperatures 4-6 colder than the average for those months.

Next time try actually reading the stuff you are talking about. It would save you a lot of embarassment.

The 1.7 Deg F you go ona about is not the increase in the average surface tempature of the planet. The figure is actaully the increase in the average of daily highs and lows.

Take a hypothetical day where the daily low was 62F at 4 am. the tempature rises to 80F by 8am, is 89 by 9 AM and peaks at 95 at 3 PM. The median tempature for the day, the measurement you are talking about would be 78 F. a warm summer day. However the average tempature for the day would by 89F

 

[The Horn]

Interplanner, may I inquire as to where you got your doctorate in climatology ? I'd like to know .

 

[Interplanner]

Do you understand the difference between weather and climate? It seems that that is part of your disconnect.

Of course. There is no crisis, and yesterday the news was also saying the ozone hole is the smallest on record since the 80s. You can't change Taku with local weather. it had to have changed because of climate, which did change in the 1700s before man and cows, unless the moose farts were especially lethal that century. Taku is too big. It is as big as some US states.

For professional dissent from the climate crisis nonsense, see the lead meteorologist of MIT on his Prager U video. Or Patrick Moore (ex Greenpeace) 'Trees are the answer' there.

 

[Interplanner]

Next time try actually reading the stuff you are talking about. It would save you a lot of embarassment.

The 1.7 Deg F you go ona about is not the increase in the average surface tempature of the planet. The figure is actaully the increase in the average of daily highs and lows.

Take a hypothetical day where the daily low was 62F at 4 am. the tempature rises to 80F by 8am, is 89 by 9 AM and peaks at 95 at 3 PM. The median tempature for the day, the measurement you are talking about would be 78 F. a warm summer day. However the average tempature for the day would by 89F

Yes, and so if there were two readings a day there would also be the averaging of them. It doesn't matter how many times you read, it's still an average.

You don't need to glorify the science by claiming you have to have a PhD. You can just go read about Lake Taku breaking loose and you know things warm up now and then. It was way before anthros had anything to do with it (btw Obama made a fool of himself about Glacier Bay on this, quoting Hume anachronistically). You can't change Taku with local weather. It would have to change the climate, and sometimes it just does. There is no need for massive government hysterics to tell us to pedal bikes from this point on.

Today's SEATTLE TIMES shows how much of a propaganda machine is going. It happened to snow Friday and will tomorrow, but on top of the article about this unusual cooling is the glorious announcement that the world is in a crisis because of the 1.7. So guess what they called the article about the local snow? SNOW JOB. Yet that is exactly what the climate science is, one huge snow job, and even the leading meteorologist at MIT dissents from most of what the massive-government hystericals think is happening. See his Prager U video on that.

 

[MrDante]

Yes, and so if there were two readings a day there would also be the averaging of them. It doesn't matter how many times you read, it's still an average.

its NOT an average. it is a midpoint between the daily high and low

 

[User Name]

See his Prager U video on that.

.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Interplanner, may I inquire as to where you got your doctorate in climatology ? I'd like to know .

Why does he need one?

 

[gcthomas]

For professional dissent from the climate crisis nonsense, see the lead meteorologist of MIT on his Prager U video. Or Patrick Moore (ex Greenpeace) 'Trees are the answer' there.

That's the weather/climate distinction again: Lindzen is a fossil fuel funded meteorologist, not a climatologist, so he doesn't really count as professional opposition. And he is, by personality, a public contrarian, who still doesn't think that the data supports a string link between tobacco and long cancer, which is just the same as his position on climate change.

But even he is nor confident in his assertions, He has spent years offering a beer that the works well be violet in twenty years time than it is today, but he demand 50 to 1 odds in his favour. Low confidence indeed!

 

[Interplanner]

You are trying to say that climate is something other than lots of weather data and patterns. Ie, that it should be the domain of computer models, which is a ridiculous route to take. These theoreticians have carefully chosen words to avoid dealing with certain realities: they call Taku "insensitive". it means nothing to them that "Hole in the Wall" (the side glacier of Taku, that is as large at its separation line as a cross-section of downtown Seatte) came into existence in the 20th century and they call the 13 years absence of hurricanes "anecdotal." That the Antarctic ice exploration ship plied the waters at the lowest point of the year and got stuck in ice and announced how the ice was receding.

They are massive Statist hysterics. So that all money and value is in the hands of the state. "One mind, one state, all equal." They want Light rail costing 880M per mile. People to be on bikes or fined, etc. A new racket in Seattle is 'daring' to get a car registration ticket. The fees for the 880M per mile Light rail are being charged to vehicle registrations in the area, but not being paid. People are just daring the system, hoping not to get caught. Massive Statism is so cool.

 

[Jonahdog]

You are trying to say that climate is something other than lots of weather data and patterns. Ie, that it should be the domain of computer models, which is a ridiculous route to take. These theoreticians have carefully chosen words to avoid dealing with certain realities: they call Taku "insensitive". it means nothing to them that "Hole in the Wall" (the side glacier of Taku, that is as large at its separation line as a cross-section of downtown Seatte) came into existence in the 20th century and they call the 13 years absence of hurricanes "anecdotal." That the Antarctic ice exploration ship plied the waters at the lowest point of the year and got stuck in ice and announced how the ice was receding.

They are massive Statist hysterics. So that all money and value is in the hands of the state. "One mind, one state, all equal." They want Light rail costing 880M per mile. People to be on bikes or fined, etc. A new racket in Seattle is 'daring' to get a car registration ticket. The fees for the 880M per mile Light rail are being charged to vehicle registrations in the area, but not being paid. People are just daring the system, hoping not to get caught. Massive Statism is so cool.

Statist hysterics. Hysterical in itself.
Other than that, your posts tend to wander off into all sorts of different areas without providing any facts. Quite the Gish Gallop. Makes spouting off easy. Ignorant but easy.

 

[Interplanner]

1.7 as a "crisis" is ignorant but easy. 1.7 is not going to change anything and has not changed anything. It is a fraud to make federal and global government massive.

When you go with these people and make government massive because fossil fuels are a disaster, you build Light Rail that costs 880M per mile, and the bill falls on the car driver's registration fees in the area, and they are hurting to evade it, risking tickets for not paying it. Nothing about that is an ignorant statement; it is the exact situation on the ground.

30 years ago NatGeo tried to show what would happen to the Cascades due to acid rain. Nothing happened. Nothing has happened. This happens (is orchestrated) all the time by massive statists seeking massive state control for the environment which is the new 'moral' standard, now that same-sex marriage is approved and the rape-validating researcher Kinsey has control of the US sexually. Like the UW Ph.D. researcher who can't answer me about what the average person would see at the tops of the Olympics due to nitrogen-rich air from fertilizer applications. That was sort of the make-up purpose for the mile high remote research monitor at Obstruction Point, which I visit every year for 40 years now, which was originally supposed to be measuring the acid from ITT Rayonier's mile upwind 10 miles. Nothing happened. The state deconstructed the mill, the community money is gone, homeless people kill each other in the outskirts of the grounds where the mill was, and most young adult males live hopeless lives. Thanks.

 

[Interplanner]

JonahDog,
I don't care to debate facts further if you can't at least say that massive state control is evil. If that is your position, you'll be on ignore, as you should be by everyone here. I will not 'make' them do that by massive control, I will just appeal that it is the only sensible position. Massive states massacre millions. Minimal states do not. Thanks.

 

[Jonahdog]

JonahDog,
I don't care to debate facts further if you can't at least say that massive state control is evil. If that is your position, you'll be on ignore, as you should be by everyone here. I will not 'make' them do that by massive control, I will just appeal that it is the only sensible position. Massive states massacre millions. Minimal states do not. Thanks.

Lets have no state control. Make you feel better? When the Columbia River catches fire as many rivers did in the 1960's will you be happy.
You should have lived in the Adirondacks when acid rain affected lakes and other water bodies.
And lets pour as much N fertilizer as we can everywhere. We can deal with the algal blooms and resulting fish kills due to lack of O2 later, right?
And for some reason you hate light rail.

 

[Interplanner]

Lets have no state control. Make you feel better? When the Columbia River catches fire as many rivers did in the 1960's will you be happy.
You should have lived in the Adirondacks when acid rain affected lakes and other water bodies.
And lets pour as much N fertilizer as we can everywhere. We can deal with the algal blooms and resulting fish kills due to lack of O2 later, right?
And for some reason you hate light rail.

here's a massive government responding to the Columbia gorge fire this summer: Kate ____, gov of Oregon, decided not to bring in the Global Supertanker the first day because the fire was 'federal' problem. Thanks Kate. Then when $1.5B in timber burnt she says: 'well, it wasn't really $1.5B anyway, because it wasn't cut.' When this kind of person gets in ANY massive government position, this is what happens. The public's common sense is considered idiotic and a know it all with as much forestry experience as Hilary decides what to do.

How does a river catch fire?

Most good forestry wants to thin, thin, thin, and that would reduce housing costs and create jobs. Instead we have millions of western acres at risk of exploding, high housing and jobs lost.

Yes, I'm sure there are some exceptions when there are concentrations of industry, but my point was that here was a Ph.D. who could not answer why a remote sensing station: 1, never found any trace of the dreaded outfall of the ITT Rayonier photographic paper production residue, and 2, could not explain why it would need to test for N rich in the Olympics. I mean, you could just write 0 on all the forms for that question, right? But this 'scientist' and her supervisor could not dare let the public have a say in what she was doing.

I did not say I hated light rail, I said I hated people being told it was going to solve something that it can't. with all the daring not to pay fees, the planners obviously did the massive 'we know better than you' trick in their campaign, and now the people in the corridor have to pay off a 13B project. Ever run a business and sold things for $1 while forcing the public to pay $10 for each sale? yeah right, it really works. Environmental improvement? Nil.

So you can't say massive state control is evil, that it has all the glory of the history of Stalin, Mao, Pot to embellish it? wow, great.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Lets have no state control. Make you feel better? When the Columbia River catches fire as many rivers did in the 1960's will you be happy.
You should have lived in the Adirondacks when acid rain affected lakes and other water bodies.
And lets pour as much N fertilizer as we can everywhere. We can deal with the algal blooms and resulting fish kills due to lack of O2 later, right?
And for some reason you hate light rail.

You want massive state control and don't care if it takes a Stalin or Mao to accomplish it. You cite rivers catching on fire from no state control to justify your position. Our country was at a peak of economic growth in the 60s that started after WW2 due to a loosening of state control through tax cuts and lighter business regulations. You want to continue to live in the 30s with massive poverty and starvation?

The country responded to the river fires by putting in new regulations. They went overboard though by giving us the EPA with almost unlimited power without oversight from the American people.

Your kind wants to use atomic bombs on ant hills when just a little poison will do the trick and then you go back and cite the ant hills as justification for unlimited power when people try to rein it in.

 

[Jonahdog]

How does a river catch fire?

GOOGLE the Cayahoga river.

 

[Jonahdog]

You want massive state control and don't care if it takes a Stalin or Mao to accomplish it. You cite rivers catching on fire from no state control to justify your position. Our country was at a peak of economic growth in the 60s that started after WW2 due to a loosening of state control through tax cuts and lighter business regulations. You want to continue to live in the 30s with massive poverty and starvation?

The country responded to the river fires by putting in new regulations. They went overboard though by giving us the EPA with almost unlimited power without oversight from the American people.

Your kind wants to use atomic bombs on ant hills when just a little poison will do the trick and then you go back and cite the ant hills as justification for unlimited power when people try to rein it in.

So great economic growth is wonderful. got it. I expect you like to breath smoggy air too, huh. Let the market forces work? Is that your solution?
Is there a specific EPA regulation that bothers you the most? Tell us what it is.