| Author | Message | ||
     Garryb |
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/deep -freeze-australia-swelters-heat-wave-21472020 Makes you wonder what summer will be like here? | ||
| Court |
Only kind of . . . . I've learned . . having been through several "hottest ever" and "coldest ever" cycles in my 60 years . . . I've come to ignore much of this tomfoolery that "something is changing". If it is . . . it seems to be eluding scientists . . , and be the sole domain of opportunist politicians. I've recently been appointed to a board of academics to design a curriculum in Environmental Risk Management for the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (arguably the world's premier source of scientific climate research) and one of the things I most enjoy about our meetings (have one at 4pm today) is visiting with the various scientists. I've suggested it be renamed as "Global Worming", Me? . . . I could care less what it does THIS summer. I'm more concerned about long-term (as in >500 year) cycles. | ||
| Garryb |
I thought you were involved in helping repair some serious weather related destruction. There are people around the world who seem much more impacted by weather than you I guess? Weather risk management is definitely a rapidly growing field. We've been waking up to 15-20 below for 3 days now. Madison predicts 200 water main repairs. Lots of frozen pipes here in homes. | ||
| Hootowl |
The earth is closer to the sun during the summer in the southern hemisphere than it is in the summer in the north because the earth's orbit is not circular. | ||
| Daddio |
Watermelon--  | ||
| Garryb |
Court, Hopefully you will be able to help us with our own weather risk management, cause right now I think my next place should be brick or stone with a steel roof and should be heat, cool and electric independent; and not next to a body of water. | ||
| Garryb |
Oh well, I think I've turned into a troll. Back to occasional lurking as Eriks new bike emerge. | ||
| Sifo |
Given that the weather Australia is experiencing is nothing but regional weather, I wouldn't expect it to translate directly into anything with summer weather in the US. There may be (probably are) a combination of ocean and atmospheric currents that are causing this weather in Australia at the moment. You might be able to find similar combinations in history and make some rough predictions based on that, but it has nothing to do with global warming and may well change dramatically to different ocean/atmospheric currents by our summer. Nice watermelon shark! | ||
| Aesquire |
Stone or plastic the important part is insulation. If you are worried about wind storms then brick or stone is a good idea, and style is your taste. The comp models the climate con folk are using are wrong. They failed to predict the last 17 years so they will not help with next year either. Me, betting on cold winters and hot summers. The solution for your house is the same. Good insulation & designed in passive solar. Smart blinds. Etc. | ||
| Aesquire |
Don't troll........ dialog. I am thinking metal roof too. | ||
| Just_ziptab |
Polar Vortex.............. What is the stupid buzzword going to be this Summer when we have a hot spell?  | ||
| Court |
>>> I think my next place should be brick or stone with a steel roof and should be heat, cool and electric independent; and not next to a body of water. I don't think you are a troll. I am working on a home, on 2 acres, that will be completely "off the grid" with the exception of a way oversized LP powered back-up electric system. Some of the modular stuff (I'd suggest looking at Blu-Homes to get a sense of what's out there) are really becoming high tech. I hope to do all I can with insulation but I'm going to rely on the sun and wind for a good deal of it. . . I'm a power hog. But . . .anyway. . . . (Message edited by court on January 09, 2014) | ||
| Chauly |
Garryb, You can't be a troll if you're making your own decisions based on the data you have at hand. (Well, if you choose to live under a bridge, you might be...:-) Someone pointed out that Mr. Gore predicted no ice caps by 2014, and I observed that the future beachfront property I picked out and bought with a 15-year note was just about paid off, but there's no ocean in sight! I feel duped... :-))) But that's an example (although TIC) of putting your money where your mouth is. If I see the very people making dire claims going off-grid, inland, and north, then I would think that they're onto something warm. If the opposite (i.e., moving south, insulating more, going underground and deep well, moving toward the desert, etc., then there's a "Mini-Ice Age" proponent. If they don't actually DO anything in their self-interest but ask for funding and power from and over me, then F***-em, they are charlatans. (Message edited by Chauly on January 09, 2014) | ||
| Aesquire |
It seems that you can go 90% energy efficient with a house and it pays off. The next 6-7% costs on a steep curve and the last push for pure off grid 100% efficiency is very pricey. Not usually worth it. But you can reduce your heating and cooling needs to a few thousand watts at 90-92%. @ 99% a few hundred. When you do the math it's reasonable to get to far cheaper than 'normal', but not all the way to MotherEarthNews dream home. As to body of water........ ocean coast not a good idea. Flood plain bad. Pond good. That lets you run a ground source heat pump. | ||
| Chauly |
You can do a ground loop heat pump in a bog or swamp as well, and get even more efficiency. I wish I had a good stream with fall for low-head hydro and a water ram. Instead, I just have a river, but I can't dam it, again... I plan on a concrete silo water tower with a windmill to fill it, and a drip-irrigation septic system for the orchard. | ||
| Aesquire |
Garry, I see you're in WI. So your needs are going to probably be for harsh winters, and summers like you've known all your life. If you lived in AZ you might want to plan for hotter summers, but since the reality of it is that the peak global hot years were 1934, and 1998, and it's been level if not lower, since. We don't have good temperature numbers for much earlier than the Aviation age. The British Empire has a much longer ocean temperature history, since they've been having buckets of water drawn from the sea, and a thermometer used, on all Naval ships for over a century. It was/is a long term research effort. If you rule the seas, you better know more about them. In modern times the US Navy is the expert in sub surface temps and currents, because submarines use them to hide and seek. The "Global Warming" con we mock here, often, is a political thing, as well as a big money maker for dishonest folk. Back in the 1970's we were all going to die in searing cold and the Ice Age Was Upon Us. As it turned out that hasn't happened, yet. I am as certain as anyone it will, but I have no idea when. I'm hoping to be long dead by then, but hey!, you never know. All I am SURE about is Ice Ages are periodic and related to orbital mechanics of the Earth & the Sun. Never has there NOT been an ice age, when they were due, and, golly gee, we're due. But hopefully not before we get some more good riding weather. ( and our Great Grandchildren may miss it too.... ) There is a thousand or at least a few centuries before it's really overdue and we have to wonder WTF. OTOH the slide may already have begun. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread503349/pg4  So.... in the 1970's we were going to freeze, and the Solution was to tax us, stop using fossil fuels and let the planet be run by unelected bureaucrats in the UN. You'd have to give up those pesky rights and freedoms for the good of mankind. In the 1990's we were going to boil, and the Solution was exactly the same. You go figure out for yourself if the Solution was the Goal, since the Solution has not changed no matter what the weather, climate or truth is. So, in WI, I'm betting harsher winters, and if I'm wrong....... you save a little money in energy costs. I'm also betting summers just like you're used to, so the same energy & money saving ideas will work as you have now, but you don't have to plan for 8 months of 110 degree heat. If I'm wrong, and the summers are cooler, you save money. If I'm wrong and the summers ARE hotter, you may be under powered in your air conditioner systems, but not much. So an energy efficient home is a great idea, and a worthy goal, NO MATTER WHO YOU BELIEVE. I just note I don't want your money, and they do. Your call. As far as severe storms go..... The First thing I noticed about the Climate Con folk is they told me that a warmer planet had worse weather. But as a student of history, that isn't ever what has happened. Cold climates give you bad storms, and worse weather. Hurricanes are a possible exception, but even they, as does all weather, are powered by heat differences, not what the temperature is. As to home design....... My house is badly set up for passive solar. If I had built it, it would be better insulated and oriented to the Sun so that a large part of my heating would be "free". Staring from scratch you can save a bundle with smart and not too expensive design. For cooling, having a large diameter pipe buried "around the house" to draw in conditioned air can save a lot. Your ground temps are probably about 53-55 year round? You have to put a bug and varmint screen/filter on the intake ( usually a wee dog house sized box to permit airflow when there's snow on the ground ) and provide for drainage, and humidity control, but pumping cool air into your house can really make AC cheaper. IMHO going full off grid costs a lot and is only worth it for a few people. If you want to live where there's just no power lines, that's your trade off. here's a lot of information on this available. Read a bunch of it, and do some figures, to determine what works for you. Please share your thought and Ideas. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.noaa.gov/features/01_economic/spaceweat her_3.html | ||
| Swampy |
When I was a child in elementary school...1960's, the science teachers taught us that we were heading for another ice age... | ||
| Strokizator |
They also taught us that Christopher Columbus was a brave adventurer and that communism was bad. You had to worry about "what would the neighbors say?". If you stepped out of line, your pop gave you the belt. What else? | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/liftoff-spaceshiptw o-celebrates-new-year-test-flight-2D11767010 Got your ticket? Would you buy one? Use one if won in a contest? Strokizator, Communism IS bad. The Neighbors are still a worry. The belt is still common, but not PC. ( or often useful, IMHO ) Columbus WAS a brave adventurer. His math was wrong. If the America's hadn't been here, he would have been missing. Would have run out of food & water. Many scientists of the day thought the world was a ball. ( consensus not an issue ) The diameter had been well established by the Greeks, centuries before. Chris figured it smaller. He was wrong. Lucky bastard. Read the short story "Columbus Was A Dope" by Robert Heinlein. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/01/11/lightning-deaths-record-low/4411347/ Nothing to do with weather. It's that fewer people are outside anymore.   For the Physics fans.  | ||
| Reindog |
If you ever needed proof that Democrats are insane or insanely tyrannical, read on. Global warming is causing prostitution! Something has to be done!! These idiots never, never stop so they MUST be stopped by any means necessary at the appropriate time. Independent Journal Review House Democrats: Climate Change Turns Women Into Prostitutes by Emily Hulsey | On 10, Jan 2014 The Democratic party has found a new consequence of climate change: prostitution. Rep. Barbara Lee and twelve other House Democrats issued a resolution stating that climate change can cause food and water shortages, which could lead impoverished women to turn to prostitution as a means of income: “[I]nsecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and poor reproductive health,” it says. More broadly, the resolution says climate change will hurt “marginalized” women, such as refugees, sexual minorities, adolescent girls, and women and girls with HIV. It also cites Hurricane Katrina as evidence of how climate change can affect women, noting that the storm displaced “over 83 percent of low-income, single mothers” in the region. The purpose of the resolution was to call on Congress and the President to “recognize the effects on women, and to use ‘gender-specific frameworks in developing policies to address climate change.’” In the grand scheme of things, this resolution doesn’t really accomplish anything or make much of a difference. However, it does epitomize the way that our culture uses climate change as an explanation for everything these days, while masking (and therefore hindering) the real problem. YES, women who are living in poverty are more likely to resort to prostitution than those who are not. YES, among other factors, natural events such as droughts, hurricanes and famines do increase poverty. HOWEVER, the resolution fails to recognize that the aforementioned natural events have been affecting poverty since the beginning of time. Natural disasters are nothing new; they have been taking place for thousands of years and will, in all likelihood, continue to take place for thousands more. Their degree and severity will continue to ebb and flow; this is not something we can control. So instead of blaming the weather for increased prostitution and spending billions trying to prevent natural disasters from taking place, our government’s time would be better used addressing the core issue, poverty, which can be addressed by encouraging job growth. source: http://www.ijreview.com/2014/01/107526-house-democ rats-climate-change-turns-women-prostitutes/ (Message edited by reindog on January 12, 2014) | ||
| Aesquire |
Listened to an interesting discussion on NPR today. One scientist ( Geo-engineering, I'll call him G ) has proposed a "solar shield" of sulfate(?) droplets/particles to block the sun and give us time to deal with the "social" problems of our addiction to fossil fuels, with a goal toward zero CO2 emissions. Other scientist ( social engineering, I'll call him A for ••••••• ) tells us he's naive, and that politicians will control the experiment and may use it for not good. His definition of not good is they will keep using fossil fuels and won't do the social engineering he believes will save the Earth. Not surprising is his solution is the Authoritarian One. Absolute rule over your life by unelected elites who you have no choice but to obey.... for your own good. This is, I point out, the solution for Global Cooling and the Ice Age Cometh from the 1970's and Global Warming and the Seas Will Boil from the 1990's and is now Climate Change and We Don't Care What Reality Is from the 1990's on through the 21st century. I don't think A really believes he'll be in charge of the Global Elite, but It's obvious he wants to be a head minion. Scientist G says A is using ad hominem attacks and that in his book he warns that the politicians will control whatever anyone comes up with and that Geo-enginnering our planets climate can be misused for war, for economic war and to take power. That he understands and warns about such abuses of science as a way to dominate and has done so for decades. Science dude A says he's not making ad hominem attacks and them repeats his attempt to discredit G, with ad hominem attacks. Says he's not calling G naive than calls him naive again. ( standard evil guy leftist/Alinsky/marxist tactics ) At this point I'm pretty much sure that Scientist A and I should never be in the same room, since it's illegal to kick the crap out of someone just because he's an evil bastard that lies about you to your face.... ( pity, but true ) I like Science guy G, since he actually has a grasp on reality, if not one I agree with, since his premise is that the IPCC reports ( which are known to be wrong ) are factual. I also really, really, really don't like his idea of installing a solar shield in the atmosphere, since I don't think he has an off switch figured out. If I understand his concept, it's a man made version of "the year without a summer" using industrial scale pollution pumping into the upper atmosphere, instead of the historical version which was a whopping great big volcano. ( which pumped Godzilla scale pollution into the upper atmosphere ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer Naturally, since I'm of the "Deniers" ( those who question the Prophet Gore, aka those who ask questions like, Why does your prediction not match want happened, and Why are we still listening to you when you've lied to us every year? ) I think it would be a good idea to study things a bit longer to determine what the real cause effect, and trends really are. ( since they keep lying to me year after year ) I Really have Double Plus Ungood feelings about anything that would cool off the planet for a few years, or longer, JUST IN CASE we have a solar minimum. And/or a Volcano. Or 3. In my study of history, amatuer and dilettante that I am, I point out that warm is good. Cold is bad. And the last time it was cold for a whole year, people died. ( see wiki link above ) Yet I have seen no evidence that climate warmer than the cool 1970's but not as hot as, say, Rome, or the Viking Age, is a bad thing. In fact, warmer than today seems to be ideal. I'm open to discussion on the subject, unlike scientist A. According to NPR, this is what you need to know. http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/12/16/251437395 /global-warming-explained-in-about-a-minute And the "I wished I'd Thought Of That!" of the day. This dude sells green appearance for multinational industry. http://www.npr.org/2013/12/24/256744610/future-ser ies-climate-change | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.npr.org/2013/12/03/248474721/ready-or-n ot-quick-climate-changes-worry-scientists-most Story is pretty short, but... Short form for the lazy, They want to do some actual data collection. Which is smart, and good. They complain that they are not getting data, are not measuring the ice caps, or the greenhouse gases in the arctic. Also true. They want money, so are basing their plea for funding on the idea that abrupt climate change is terribly disruptive and works on thresholds and abrupt jumps. That are hard to predict. Also true. What it tells ME is that we really need to do more research before "doing something" about Climate. Anthony Barnosky, a professor of integrative biology at the University of California, Berkeley, says abrupt change is the bigger worry. "When you think about gradual changes you can kind of see where the road is and know where you're going," Barnosky said at a news conference unveiling the report Tuesday. "When you think about abrupt changes and threshold effects, the road suddenly drops out from under you. And it's those kinds of things we're suggesting we need to anticipate in a much more comprehensive way." Scientists know about some potential problems that could change the planet dramatically in a matter of years or decades. For example, sea level could quickly rise by as much as 25 feet if the West Antarctic Ice Sheet were to crumble into the sea. Yet committee chairman James White, an earth scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder, says we're not watching that ice sheet very carefully to measure how much warming seawater is weakening the ice. "We should be measuring ocean temperatures near the ice sheet," White said. "We should be measuring, far better, where the outlets are — where the glaciers go into the ocean. We don't do that." I strongly worry about terraforming a planet I'm living on. | ||
| Torquehd |
Ha... The past couple weeks, I've been looking into the possibility of future life on Mars. The whole terraforming thing... While it seems like a badass idea, I think it will require some major time and effort to find a better solution than the current offerings of scientists. I've seen more than one "scientist" say that the best way to warm up the planet is to pollute the atmosphere, since it's obviously working here on earth... only, it's really not. With all of the exposition of the global warming farce, i think we're further from Mars than some would like to think. But, I still think the idea of terraforming Mars is just awesome and I'd love to be on the cutting edge and make a buck or two off the process. | ||
| Ducbsa |
The "explanation in a minute" just makes unsupported assertions. What I don't understand is how the non-rise in temperature and the failure of the models is reconciled by the Warmists. I have seen it called a "pause", but that relies on the gullible to forget that there hasn't been a rise to pause from. Can you image where we would be if we only had the MSM to give us information? The NPR page has China being lauded for being a leader in Urbanism. Jeez, what else can they do with the millions that are leaving farming? I'll like Urbanism when Algore sells his new seaside (irony alert) mansion and moves to a one bedroom apartment. | ||
| Blake |
Black is white, up is down, wrong is right... Liars masquerading as "journalists", propagandists pretending to be "scientists". The corruption of honor, integrity, and principle for leftist control; sorry they call it "Progressivism". Like all their other intentional deceptions, it is a willful lie, well unless your idea of "progress" is a fundamental transformation away from unalienable individual rights in favor of Marxist totalitarianism. | ||
| Aesquire |
Torque, When it comes to pollution warming things up, it does, if it's the right kind of pollution. Soot. When England went from coal fires in every house to electric heat, it changed the climate. It got colder. Same thing in Europe. Lots of soot keeps things warm. ( the mechanism isn't that hard to explain... think about it ) This was a factor in the 1970's cold spell, although how big a factor is not exactly known. Yep, Western Civilization cleaned up it's act, and it got colder. I'm all for terraforming another planet, and Mars looks like the easiest. Divert a few comets, build giant atmosphere machines, grow plants, It'd be the Biggest engineering job in history. I'm just cautious about changing our own in a big way. See Quark's comment above. One MAJOR reason I question this crap is that a "solution" for Global Warming might be a genocidal or even civilization ending final solution if the Earth is really cooling. Or vice versa. I want better data than the massaged and faked stuff I see coming out of the Hadley CRU & Dr. M Mann's faked graphs. If you change the theory to match the data, it's science. If you change the data to match the theory, it's fraud. There's a lot of fraud. I don't believe a damn thing Exxon tells me either. Dubsca, It really does appear that between the late 1970's ( a cold period ) and the late 1990's that the planetary temperature went up a fraction of a degree F. The bad news is it seems to have stopped, or fallen back, and the worse news is the Global Climate Con folk can't be trusted to tell you, since they've lied, a lot, all the time, for decades. Remember it's not easy to calculate the whole planet's average temperature. The changes they claim are tiny, and simply choosing to use Tokyo noon temps or Tokyo morning temps can change the result more than reality. Plus there's the whole bit about the weather stations at the Airport have shown "rising" temps since the Airport in most cities isn't out in the farmer boonies anymore. It's in the Suburbs, and the empty field where the box with the thermometers is now a parking lot in an industrial park. Next to the AC unit. By the BBQ. Where the boss warms up his Lexus for an hour so it's always ready to punch it up to 80 on the ramp. Of the Xpressway that now runs by the Airport. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/fallac ies.html There was a web site with lots of pictured of weather stations in weird places. When they were installed, years ago, it was a good place. Not today. I wasn't joking about the BBQ or the AC unit. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/13/1972 -cru-chief-said-that-earth-would-definitely-cool-o ver-the-next-two-centuries/ Blake, I should argue with your point, but you are correct. Here's a good explanation of the Vostok Ice cores and how the science works. http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/gctext/Inquiries /Inquiries_by_Unit/Unit_8a.htm | ||
| Aesquire |
Freeman Dyson is one of the great minds of the 20th century. Can you say "Trinity"? "Dyson Sphere"? | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/23/opinion/bear-apophis -asteroid/ It astounds me that people simply don't believe the Earth will ever be hit by a big rock. There's still a lot of them whizzing around, and we've been hit by big rocks & comets since the formation of the planet. I suppose it's a combination of bad movies, lack of science education, and the fact that it's outside most folk's experience. The recent bolide in Russia? can't happen here. ? ( If you think that's 6000 years ago based on Lord Kelvin's work, we can discuss that ) |
