Sunny and Warm Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 So no one wants to talk about the AMO?? There has to be tons of Peer Reviewed Papers on the AMO out there showing it's affects on Arctic Sea Ice loss. Please link me to them. I found nearly all of them in here: http://www.google.com/ Type in some key words and get lucky!! It works too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 That's skier for you. He's the B team. WeatherRusty is the A team. Hahah. It's unbelievable too. Once they start speaking in terms of economics, whatever knowledge they had regarding the climate becomes null and void. Absolutely no understanding of our current economic situation, nor the cost effectiveness of solar power. I just hope none of them are running businesses where others depend on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 Hahah. It's unbelievable too. Once they start speaking in terms of economics, whatever knowledge they had regarding the climate becomes null and void. Absolutely no understanding of our current economic situation, nor the cost effectiveness of solar power. I just hope none of them are running businesses where others depend on them. Skier is still quoting the classical definition of socialism to me over in AP forum. Like I didn't degree in economics in college, including courses in classical socialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Relating to declining AGW poll numbers... I wonder how Al Gore's recent "plug" as he calls it, of the new I-phone 5 reconciles within his "we must make drastic sacrifices...etc." wrt AGW?? Gotta be a few gigatonnes worth of CO2 to produce and operate....and can't people suffer with their I-phone 4's??? I think he makes some cash from Apple....doesn't he??? (/sarc) http://www.electroni...5.october.talk/ Point....as long as the AGW community who have legitimate scientific evidence to move the difficult to prove AGW hypothesis along, embrace a hypocrite and his loose cannon method of dissemination....the polls numbers will fall further for AGW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 I found nearly all of them in here: http://www.google.com/ Type in some key words and get lucky!! It works too. See, I got lucky on the first try. I know it's a WUWT article, which you don't respect, but I'm sure if you google the paper, you'll get as lucky as I did. There are many thousands of hits just like it on that site. Cheers. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/08/new-paper-barents-sea-temperature-correlated-to-the-amo-as-much-as-4%C2%B0c/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Skier is still quoting the classical definition of socialism to me over in AP forum. Like I didn't degree in economics in college, including courses in classical socialism. Why am I not surprised... By the way, how much CO2 does Friv release when he goes on one of his page long rants? And how bad do you think it is for the environment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 Relating to declining AGW poll numbers... I wonder how Al Gore's recent "plug" as he calls it, of the new I-phone 5 reconciles within his "we must make drastic sacrifices...etc." wrt AGW?? Gotta be a few gigatonnes worth of CO2 to produce and operate....and can't people suffer with their I-phone 4's??? I think he makes some cash from Apple....doesn't he??? (/sarc) http://www.electroni...5.october.talk/ Point....as long as the AGW community who have legitimate scientific evidence to move the difficult to prove AGW hypothesis along, embrace a hypocrite and his loose cannon method of dissemination....the polls numbers will fall further for AGW. ... and you know why the poll number will fall further?? Because of people like me on the street, on the internet, and in the workplace being able to say, "If AGW is so critical to control and requires your sacrifice, why does the spokesperson for AGW not follow his own advice? Must be a minor if not wholly fabricated issue by politicians again. We all know what politicians are like, right?". is there anyone in this thread that doesn't believe those three sentences above wouldn't resonate with a weary public?? Remember one of the Golden Rules. Perception is reality, and science cannot overcome it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 Why am I not surprised... By the way, how much CO2 does Friv release when he goes on one of his page long rants? And how bad do you think it is for the environment? You know, I sometimes honestly feel bad for him until his hostility for anyone that doesn't agree with him gets in the way. He writes these epistles, and for the life of me, I can never finish one of them. I usually parse through them and snag a few tidbits along the way. He burns a lot of CO2. He alone adds 1C to Arctic SST's and 30 degrees of wind direction change in the Fram Strait. <just kidding Friv> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 ... and you know why the poll number will fall further?? Because of people like me on the street, on the internet, and in the workplace being able to say, "If AGW is so critical to control and requires your sacrifice, why does the spokesperson for AGW not follow his own advice? Must be a minor if not wholly fabricated issue by politicians again. We all know what politicians are like, right?". is there anyone in this thread that doesn't believe those three sentences above wouldn't resonate with a weary public?? Remember one of the Golden Rules. Perception is reality, and science cannot overcome it. To his defense, I do think he was looking at a 10,000+ sq. ft. home before he bought his 6,500 sq. ft. more closet like abode:: So he did seem to sacrifice for the greater good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 To his defense, I do think he was looking at a 10,000+ sq. ft. home before he bought his 6,500 sq. ft. more closet like abode:: So he did seem to sacrifice for the greater good. how does one live in such deplorable conditions like that for the greater good? I am honestly only half the man he is; in house size, body size, and ego. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 China is already a significant power. It is because of their military. As for their economy, if you really wish to believe that their currency manipulation, real estate bubbles, and outrageous pay disparities b/w upper and lower income levels are signs that will point to increased power, think again. China will crash hard unless these issues are all addressed. To make this on topic, I will simply state that they are still the world's largest polluter and not just with CO2. You are defending a country which is doing a good job of polluting its beautiful countryside and endangering the health of its own people. China's ratio between rich and poor is the same as the U.S.'s. They are just poorer across the board. Their currency manipulation has helped them to grow not hindered it. Real estate bubbles are common in rapidly growing nations like South Korea back in the 70s. Today, South Korea is a wealthy nation. I don't know how you equate me saying that the Chinese economy is going to grow rapidly equates to me 'defending China.' One is a descriptive claim about reality, the other is a normative discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Do you think throwing those words together make you sound smart? This doesn't even make sense. I mean, you do know what I stated before was true and already proven by numerous independent and congressional inquiries. You are just hard-wired to find a need to debate everything you see from somebody you disagree with. The fact that ratings agencies underestimated systemic risk in the U.S. economy has absolutely nothing to do with the financial strength of Chinese solar firms. Assets held by banks are much harder to evaluate (especially when you don't know what those assets are) than looking at cash flow. Chinese solar firms have built solar plants all over the world and now dominate the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Hahah. It's unbelievable too. Once they start speaking in terms of economics, whatever knowledge they had regarding the climate becomes null and void. Absolutely no understanding of our current economic situation, nor the cost effectiveness of solar power. I just hope none of them are running businesses where others depend on them. I'm well aware of the cost effectiveness of solar panel. As I have frequently pointed out to people on this forum that think solar is the magic solution, solar is much less efficient (IE more costly) at present. Too expensive to meet our primary energy needs at present. This has nothing to do with whether Chinese firms are making money. They are. I am quite familiar with the solar industry, having followed it closely and invested in it over the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 China's ratio between rich and poor is the same as the U.S.'s. They are just poorer across the board. Their currency manipulation has helped them to grow not hindered it. Real estate bubbles are common in rapidly growing nations like South Korea back in the 70s. Today, South Korea is a wealthy nation. I don't know how you equate me saying that the Chinese economy is going to grow rapidly equates to me 'defending China.' One is a descriptive claim about reality, the other is a normative discussion. And all the while big ol' happy Green China keeps on mucking up their beautiful country with 19th century Industrial practices. Have you ever been there? As for your points regarding currency manipulation, I do not see what you think is good about it and probably never will. You do realize what eventually happens to a country that has been gaming others in order to export far more than they import? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Skier is still quoting the classical definition of socialism to me over in AP forum. Like I didn't degree in economics in college, including courses in classical socialism. I'm not the one quoting it to you. The entire PR subforum is explaining to you that Obama is not a socialist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 I'm well aware of the cost effectiveness of solar panel. As I have frequently pointed out to people on this forum that think solar is the magic solution, solar is much less efficient (IE more costly) at present. Too expensive to meet our primary energy needs at present. This has nothing to do with whether Chinese firms are making money. They are. I am quite familiar with the solar industry, having followed it closely and invested in it over the years. at the risk of taking my thread 100% off topic, what are your views on nuclear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 I'm not the one quoting it to you. The entire PR subforum is explaining to you that Obama is not a socialist. Many on AP have socialist leanings, so that is to be expected. Mainstream America knows differently. He can't hide from his policies and actions. But, enough with the politics here. This is climate science, and we need to discuss how you guys can do a better job of selling what you're shoveling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 how does one live in such deplorable conditions like that for the greater good? I am honestly only half the man he is; in house size, body size, and ego. At least he could have put in a solar panel or two....maybe a small windmill??? But instead I see 3 maybe 4 chimneys... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Many on AP have socialist leanings, so that is to be expected. Mainstream America knows differently. He can't hide from his policies and actions. But, enough with the politics here. This is climate science, and we need to discuss how you guys can do a better job of selling what you're shoveling. They can't. That is why they find a way to add politics. If this were simply an Environmental movement, you would think they would be just as skeptical of Big Government. It's not though, and they are really just Big Government acolytes. That is why the public is losing interest in them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 And all the while big ol' happy Green China keeps on mucking up their beautiful country with 19th century Industrial practices. You think we have it bad here? Have you ever been there? As for your points regarding currency manipulation, I do not see what you think is good about it and probably never will. You do realize what eventually happens to a country that has been gaming others in order to export far more than they import? You are continuing to equate me saying 'China will grow' with 'China is good.' I am simply stating the fact that China will become the world's biggest economy by 2022 (2018 in PPP terms). China's currency manipulation doesn't hurt them. It is a trade off they have accepted.. it lowers their ability to consume but at the same time it has created an export led economy which keeps unemployment low and encourages long-term growth. It suits their needs at present. Eventually they will want to shift towards greater domestic consumption levels which will require revaluing the Yuan. They have been slowly revaluing it over the years, but it is likely still significantly undervalued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 I found nearly all of them in here: http://www.google.com/ Type in some key words and get lucky!! It works too. You and Strongbad both have claimed the amo is the main driver in arctic sea ice. IF you would like to recant that statement now you can? Because if it's not the main driver then it won't stop the ice from melting out. which means you need a new theory to work with. The bottom line is, when you link me to something it means you have nothing to say about it. Which means you either know you have no argument or you really don't know how it actually affects the ice and you just take some ones word for it. Which is usually guys like Anthony Watts or Joe Bastardi who likely talk in vague generalities and post neat graphs with the sea ice decline coinciding with the positive amo, which is in part driven by how cold or warm the arctic itself is. For instance this season the Ice pack melted out a ton on the Atlantic side and moved so far towards 80N that a buffer was created between the cold arctic melt waters and the warm waters of the Barrents/North Atlantic. If I am wrong about my buffer idea then I will be corrected by someone with information and graphs or whatever it needs to be corrected, if they agree they will say so or tell me what they agree with or modify it. You come here and tell me this or that and then say nothing except tell me I can search for it. Or post the definition of the AMO and nothing else. I think you know much more than strongbad who has proven to either be putting us on or really is a noob in this area of forum debate. You are not. I believe you are denying the reality of this on purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 They can't. That is why they find a way to add politics. If this were simply an Environmental movement, you would think they would be just as skeptical of Big Government. It's not though, and they are really just Big Government acolytes. That is why the public is losing interest in them. I guess Bjorn Lomborg is a big government fan too huh. Not everything is as black as white as you make it. All free-market thinkers (Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Milton Friedman, Hayek etc.) acknowledge a significant role for government in the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Why am I not surprised... By the way, how much CO2 does Friv release when he goes on one of his page long rants? And how bad do you think it is for the environment? Why are you posting in a climate forum when you have already proven to barely know the basics of meteorology if that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Many on AP have socialist leanings, so that is to be expected. Mainstream America knows differently. He can't hide from his policies and actions. But, enough with the politics here. This is climate science, and we need to discuss how you guys can do a better job of selling what you're shoveling. My own political leanings have nothing to do with whether Obama is a socialist or not. That is simply a matter of definition. If socialism was an accurate description of Obama's beliefs, I would call him a socialist. If socialism were an accurate description of my beliefs I would call myself a socialist. I would have no problem calling Obama or myself a socialist if that were an accurate description. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 I guess Bjorn Lomborg is a big government fan too huh. Not everything is as black as white as you make it. All free-market thinkers (Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Milton Friedman, Hayek etc.) acknowledge a significant role for government in the economy. See any problems here? Anyhow, I guess you aren't a capitalist after all. Back on topic though, what are your thoughts on Nuclear? I believe Sunny asked you as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Why are you posting in a climate forum when you have already proven to barely know the basics of meteorology if that? Shoot, I guess I should check the rule books and get back to you. Now go write about this in your diary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 They can't. That is why they find a way to add politics. If this were simply an Environmental movement, you would think they would be just as skeptical of Big Government. It's not though, and they are really just Big Government acolytes. That is why the public is losing interest in them. The solution for the other side of this argument is really quite simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Shoot, I guess I should check the rule books and get back to you. Now go write about this in your diary. I am 29. How old are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 You and Strongbad both have claimed the amo is the main driver in arctic sea ice. IF you would like to recant that statement now you can? Because if it's not the main driver then it won't stop the ice from melting out. which means you need a new theory to work with. The bottom line is, when you link me to something it means you have nothing to say about it. Which means you either know you have no argument or you really don't know how it actually affects the ice and you just take some ones word for it. Which is usually guys like Anthony Watts or Joe Bastardi who likely talk in vague generalities and post neat graphs with the sea ice decline coinciding with the positive amo, which is in part driven by how cold or warm the arctic itself is. For instance this season the Ice pack melted out a ton on the Atlantic side and moved so far towards 80N that a buffer was created between the cold arctic melt waters and the warm waters of the Barrents/North Atlantic. If I am wrong about my buffer idea then I will be corrected by someone with information and graphs or whatever it needs to be corrected, if they agree they will say so or tell me what they agree with or modify it. You come here and tell me this or that and then say nothing except tell me I can search for it. Or post the definition of the AMO and nothing else. I think you know much more than strongbad who has proven to either be putting us on or really is a noob in this area of forum debate. You are not. I believe you are denying the reality of this on purpose. go down a couple posts and I linked you to a paper on the subject. To me, AMO and NAO are linked in signal generally(meaning decadel), and NAO does have an influence on wind patterns during the summer melt season re Fram Strait. AMO also has linkage to SST's in the North Atlantic. Some suggest the AMO is further linked to the Thermohaline circulation (NA current) that may have a ~70 cycle. Again, all interesting stuff and just now being studied in depth.. Sometimes you rush science too much Friv. 30 years ago when I was in college, we didn't have computers or the internet, and 8 track tapes were just out of style. Satellites didn't sit over the Arctic and everything we knew it seemed was anecdotal in nature. So, answers are coming. Have patience. In 20-30 years, you'll know things that you never imagined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 See any problems here? Anyhow, I guess you aren't a capitalist after all. Back on topic though, what are your thoughts on Nuclear? I believe Sunny asked you as well... No I don't see any contradiction between saying that capitalism is not black and white and saying that all free market thinkers acknowledge a role for government in the economy. Some things are black and white. Other things are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.