Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,588
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

JB's Climate Challenge


bobbutts

Recommended Posts

Headline of the National Review Article says "former NWS met." To my knowledge, Bastardi never worked for the NWS, did he ?

From his Accuweather bio

"Joe was born in Providence, R.I., and grew up in College Station, Texas, and Somers Point, N.J. His father is also a meteorologist. Bastardi received a Bachelors of Science degree in Meteorology from the Pennsylvania State University, where he was a member of the varsity wrestling squad. The day after his graduation, he started his career at AccuWeather,"

(Bolding mine}

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here’s what I don’t get. Why aren’t there any mets out there that see 3rd possibility besides “it’s warming” or “it’s cooling”? If there is one thing we know about past climate its that short term cycles are superimposed on longer cycles. I for one happen to think that long term (looking toward 2100 and beyond) we are warming BUT that shorter cycles, like the PDO, which are superimposed on this longer scale cycle, will result in a slight cooling over the next 10-20 years followed by another 20-30 years or so of warming comparable to the last 20 or so years of the 20th century.

In other words, in the march toward a warmer climate 100 years from now it will be 2 steps forward, 1 step back…

Nothing like journalists doing their research. Sigh.

For my part, I am in the camp that believes global cooling is going on right now. Of course, that can fit neatly into the sphere of "Climate Change", but that is another argument for another time and board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing like journalists doing their research. Sigh.

For my part, I am in the camp that believes global cooling is going on right now. Of course, that can fit neatly into the sphere of "Climate Change", but that is another argument for another time and board.

I can agree that the globe may be cooling as a whole, but Januaries have deffinately warmed in Ottawa over the past three decades, as I posted in another thread. Having said this, perhaps the incoming temperature regime might take people back to the Januaries of the early 1980s?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's most like what actual climate scientists think. The hard part is figuring out the relative contributions of each of these... if one uses some fairly advanced statistical analyses, this can be done pretty well though. PDO, AMO, NAM, etc. all have significant impacts on the global temperature. But even if the total global temperature goes down a bit at times, the AGW component of the signal can still increase. Too many people consider AGW by looking at the total field, not the separate trends from each of the different modes. JB is clearly one of them.

Here’s what I don’t get. Why aren’t there any mets out there that see 3rd possibility besides “it’s warming” or “it’s cooling”? If there is one thing we know about past climate its that short term cycles are superimposed on longer cycles. I for one happen to think that long term (looking toward 2100 and beyond) we are warming BUT that shorter cycles, like the PDO, which are superimposed on this longer scale cycle, will result in a slight cooling over the next 10-20 years followed by another 20-30 years or so of warming comparable to the last 20 or so years of the 20th century.

In other words, in the march toward a warmer climate 100 years from now it will be 2 steps forward, 1 step back…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes; that is the hard part...Qualitatively, I think it can be said with a fairly high degree of confidence that man made CO2 emissions have contributed to warming but quantitatevely I don't think it can be known with high confidence how much this contribution has been. It could be minor meaning we don't have a lot to be concerned about or it could be more significant. This uncertainty that still exists is, IMO, the real inconvenient truth since as soon as the public hears the message that "its uncertain" they are much less willing to take action that may be necessary to prevent possible disaster.

That's most like what actual climate scientists think. The hard part is figuring out the relative contributions of each of these... if one uses some fairly advanced statistical analyses, this can be done pretty well though. PDO, AMO, NAM, etc. all have significant impacts on the global temperature. But even if the total global temperature goes down a bit at times, the AGW component of the signal can still increase. Too many people consider AGW by looking at the total field, not the separate trends from each of the different modes. JB is clearly one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What possible disaster? This is my biggest problem with all of this climate change b.s. yes, the climate may be changing, but so what? Sea levels rise? They've been rising for thousands of years. Greenland melts, and we plunge into an ice age? Buy a coat. And who are we to say that the current state of the atmosphere is somehow ideal in the first place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

What possible disaster? This is my biggest problem with all of this climate change b.s. yes, the climate may be changing, but so what? Sea levels rise? They've been rising for thousands of years. Greenland melts, and we plunge into an ice age? Buy a coat. And who are we to say that the current state of the atmosphere is somehow ideal in the first place?

They say that it's Third World countries, such as those in Africa which will bear the brunt of climate change, i.e. droughts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What possible disaster? This is my biggest problem with all of this climate change b.s. yes, the climate may be changing, but so what? Sea levels rise? They've been rising for thousands of years. Greenland melts, and we plunge into an ice age? Buy a coat. And who are we to say that the current state of the atmosphere is somehow ideal in the first place?

We are probably close to committing ourselves to 30+ feet of sea level rise at this point (barring climate engineering). If we keep emitting at the rate we're going at (and accelerating) we will commit ourselves to the temperatures at which the greenland ice sheet has melted in the past, which is enough ice to cause 30 feet of sea level rise. It will take several hundred years to melt, but if you can't cool the climate back down, there's nothing we can do about it.

The sea level rise has already begun to accelerate over the last 50 years, and is going to accelerate more.

The other major serious issues include droughts that damage agriculture, disruption to natural ecosystems upon which humans are dependent, species extinction, near-complete loss of coral reefs due to bleaching, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...