Politics & News

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Why is good weather not blamed on Global Warming?

It has been Beautiful in the desert southwest lately.

It seems that only bad weather events are blamed on global warming. But what about good weather?

How can GW only be responsible for the weather that we don't like?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Torsten · 36-40, M

Cause global warming is politicised and its used as a scare tactic.

whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M

@Torsten Please tell that to the people of northern New South Wales. Currently enduring a once in 500 year flood, afte enduring two once in a century floods, all in the last five years. I am sure they will vote against another one..😷

Torsten · 36-40, M

@whowasthatmaskedman i never said there is no such thing as climate change. The climate has changed long before humans were a thing and will be around when we are all gone.
What i am saying is that we only here negatives about it because it is a scare tactic now used by those with political agendas

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

@whowasthatmaskedman

whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M

@Thinkerbell I agree. But these are Americans we are talking about. Truth has been monetized..😷

Torsten · 36-40, M

@whowasthatmaskedman well when you just mention negatives and act like all climate change is negative due to those exaples, thats going into a convo under bad faith.
There was news a bit ago about antartica forming more ice after such a long time of it slowly melting away. Why are those who politicise climate change not talking about that more or the other positives that im sure is happening around the world?
Like i said its all scare tactics to push a agenda and money is normally the key goal here.

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

@whowasthatmaskedman

I'd say truth has been politicized, especially in the American MSM, on a scale worthy of Pravda. 🙄

And they did it so thoroughly ineptly, that they put Trump back in office.

whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M

@Thinkerbell The dumbing down of America has been happening since the seventies. Underfunding education, under resourcing housing health care and social programs for those most in need and the media pandering to everything for the well off and crumbs and placebos for the rest..Trump doesnt even like Sesame Street. Those puppets dont know their place.. Dont get me started on the drugs and the undocumentated labor playing a part to keep the pressure on.. No one trusts the information you are getting.. And everyone has a theory of what they are hiding. Beings as I am in the outside world, it is sad to see America falling behind so quickly.. But its just not my problem..😷

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

@whowasthatmaskedman

Public K-12 education spending in the US averages about US$16,000 per year per student, though it varies greatly from state to state, being about twice as high in New York.

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cmb

Average spending in Australia is almost exactly the same, about AU$25,000.

https://www.acara.edu.au/reporting/national-report-on-schooling-in-australia/school-expenditure

whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M

@Thinkerbell But where does the money go?. For a start, school lunches are just not a thing here. While states her are respnosible for the education (mostly), the standardization of the curriculum is much more closely managed and the examination standards are far more rigorous..Finally the TER scores (more or less your SATS as I understand it. Are national and good to every University. While the entry level may vary with demand. The same score applies to every student.😷

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

@whowasthatmaskedman

Where does the money go? About 2/3 is for teacher salaries and benefits.
Most of the rest is for building maintenance and debt service. Things like school lunch programs are only a few percent.

The biggest problem is the lack of rigor. Practically everyone passes, no matter how little they really know. That's why large fractions of students in the US can't properly read or do elementary math.

whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M

@Thinkerbell I agree on the lack of rigour. i wasnt going to bring it up, since my evidence was anecdotal. mostly from US teachers in poorer areas, so not representative. But what I hear is that failing to progress a student is often a black mark on the teacher, and can effect school funding. And since the teachers dont have a way of controlling or removing some truly horrendous students to allow the others to learn, its a catch 22 for them. Thats the very reason we invested so much money in our kids to send them to a school where a student could be. (and occasionally was) expelled, without even the need to offer a reason. And the parents were given no right of reply..And you signed the contract before they were allowed in.. The school took their name seriously..😷

DogMan · 61-69, M

@whowasthatmaskedman Currently enduring a once in 500 year flood, after enduring two once in a century floods.

I often wonder how they determine a once in a century flood, or 500 year flood. It sounds like they know there will
be bad floods every 100 or 500 years. How would they know? Have they had terrible floods approximately every
100 years and 500 years? Sounds like it has been happening for thousands of years.

ElwoodBlues · M

@Thinkerbell Waterfront mansions? To whom, exactly, are you referring?? Obama's house on Martha's Vineyard is several hundred feet back from the ocean. The adjacent body of water is called Tisbury Great Pond. And, due to Michelle's book sales, they are rich enough to depreciate that house over the next several decades as the sea encroaches, thus recouping their initial investment.

Swing and a miss; care to try again??

P.S. I find it odd that you are focused on the behavior of a handful of very wealthy people rather than the statements of tens of thousands of scientists.

Fact is, anthropogenic global warming slash climate change is accepted by a YUGE segment of the scientific community. Would you accept the consensus opinion of the American Physical Society AND the American Chemical Society? How about the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and at least 15 other national organizations of publishing scientists? See https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M

@DogMan Thats a very good question, for which I dont have an answer. And clearly (assume for a moment climate is changing, for whatever reason) those numbers are going to shift over time through statistical analysis and standard deviations.😷

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

@ElwoodBlues

"Waterfront mansions? To whom, exactly, are you referring??"

Actually, I was referring to Biden's climate czar, who (like most Democrats) has a tin ear for the impression his behavior makes on the public. Kerry has recently lived in waterfront mansions both on Nantucket Island and on Martha's Vineyard.

In a typical show of immodesty, Kerry's new digs seem to be larger than the previous ones, though they are farther from the shoreline than the old mansion was, insuring that the glacial pace of sea level rise has no chance whatever of affecting him during his lifetime. 🤭

ElwoodBlues · M

@Thinkerbell Oh, you mean the Nantucket property that Kerry put on the market NINE YEARS ago??? The one his wife had owned since 1982🤣😂

That's ANOTHER swing and a miss🤣😂🤣😂

In a typical show of immodesty

As if a Tяump supporter like yourself found "immodesty" in any way objectionable!!

And you continue to duck my questions about the climate topic that you raised. The fact is, anthropogenic global warming slash climate change is accepted by a YUGE segment of the scientific community. Would you accept the consensus opinion of the American Physical Society AND the American Chemical Society? How about the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and at least 15 other national organizations of publishing scientists? See https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Why do you continue to ignore this vast scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change?

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

@ElwoodBlues

In your haste to chant the standard "old news" lefty mantra concerning topics the left would rather bury, you neglected to comment on the recent climate czar's tin ear for public relations, or that he has a very long history of favoring waterfront mansions (owned, of course, by his wealthy wife).

As for "the vast scientific consensus" on climate change, let's suppose they are entirely correct (although Freeman Dyson didn't think so, but that's also "old news," right Ellie?). That still doesn't obviate the fact that Kerry had a tin ear for public relations, if his purpose was to get the general public to believe what he was telling them. No, he just liked pontificating at climate junkets and flying to and from them on his wife's private plane.

And you, as usual, dodged. 🤭

"And the codger never faltered, never once the left-line altered,
Always fudged and always paltered..."

ElwoodBlues · M

@Thinkerbell says

or that he has a very long history of favoring waterfront mansions

And what's wrong, exactly, with purchasing a property with a beautiful view if you can afford it?? This is a "tin ear" only from your jealous perspective.

Freeman Dyson didn't think so,

Wrong again🤣😂😝🤣😂

Dyson agreed that technically humans and additional CO2 emissions contribute to warming. However, he felt that the benefits of additional CO2 outweighed any associated negative effects.

ANOTHER swing and a miss!!!

No, he just liked pontificating at climate junkets and flying to and from them on his wife's private plane.

... while purchasing carbon offsets, a variation on "cap and trade" that prominent republicans used to favor until they lost their collective minds regarding the climate.

Sorry, the only hypocrisy here is looking at you in the mirror.

The issue you raised is the issue you are STILL avoiding: that anthropogenic global warming slash climate change is accepted by a YUGE segment of the scientific community. Would you accept the consensus opinion of the American Physical Society AND the American Chemical Society? How about the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and at least 15 other national organizations of publishing scientists? See https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Why do you continue to ignore this vast scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change?

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

@ElwoodBlues

And yet again, you dodged on every point, Ellie. 🤭

"And the codger never faltered, never once the left-line altered,
Always fudged and always paltered..."

https://e360.yale.edu/features/freeman_dyson_takes_on_the_climate_establishment

ElwoodBlues · M

@Thinkerbell Did you actually read your link??

Yale Environment 360: First of all, was that article substantially accurate about your views?

Freeman Dyson: It’s difficult to say, “Yes” or “No.” It was reasonably accurate on details, because they did send a fact-checker. So I was able to correct the worst mistakes. But what I could not correct was the general emphasis of the thing. He had his agenda. Obviously he wanted to write a piece about global warming and I was just the instrument for that, and I am not so much interested in global warming. He portrayed me as sort of obsessed with the subject, which I am definitely not. To me it is a very small part of my life. I don’t claim to be an expert. I never did. I simply find that a lot of these claims that experts are making are absurd. Not that I know better, but I know a few things. My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have. I think that’s what upsets me.

... I guess one thing I don’t want to do is to spend all my time arguing this business. I mean, I am not the person to do that. I have two great disadvantages. First of all, I am 85 years old. Obviously, I’m an old fuddy-duddy. So, I have no credibility.

And, secondly, I am not an expert, and that’s not going to change. I am not going to make myself an expert. What I do think I have is a better judgment, maybe because I have lived a bit longer, and maybe because I’ve done other things.

Honestly, "I don’t claim to be an expert. I never did." That's not a very strong objection to vast amounts of climate research and modeling. Also, why are you ignoring his later work??

Dyson, 2015, on tour for his book Dreams of Earth and Sky

What I would like to emphasize is that human actions have very large effects on the ecology, which have nothing to do with the climate. Carbon dioxide is what we're producing in big quantities and putting into the atmosphere. This happens to be a very good fertilizer for all kinds of vegetation, good for wildlife, good for agricultural production, so it has many benefits. And this is something you have together with the climate effects, which are much less certain, so it's a question of drawing a balance. I'm just saying I don't understand it and neither does anybody else.

Freeman Dyson was a great physicist (not quite great enough to win a Nobel) but why do you elevate his "skepticism therefore don't change CO2 output" above the consensus "the possibilities are worrying enough that we should reduce CO2"??

Why this one "I am not an expert and that’s not going to change" guy and not the experts and not the consensus opinion of the American Physical Society AND the American Chemical Society? How about the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and at least 15 other national organizations of publishing scientists? See https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

@ElwoodBlues

Of course I read it, and (with your usual predilection for partisan fudging), you did not tell the whole story.

Dyson: I think the difference between me and most of the experts is that I think I have a much wider view of the whole subject. I was involved in climate studies seriously about 30 years ago. That’s how I got interested. There was an outfit called the Institute for Energy Analysis at Oak Ridge. I visited Oak Ridge many times, and worked with those people, and I thought they were excellent. And the beauty of it was that it was multi-disciplinary. There were experts not just on hydrodynamics of the atmosphere, which of course is important, but also experts on vegetation, on soil, on trees, and so it was sort of half biological and half physics. And I felt that was a very good balance.

And there you got a very strong feeling for how uncertain the whole business is, that the five reservoirs of carbon all are in close contact — the atmosphere, the upper level of the ocean, the land vegetation, the topsoil, and the fossil fuels. They are all about equal in size. They all interact with each other strongly. So you can’t understand any of them unless you understand all of them. Essentially that was the conclusion. It’s a problem of very complicated ecology, and to isolate the atmosphere and the ocean just as a hydrodynamics problem makes no sense.

Thirty years ago, there was a sort of a political split between the Oak Ridge community, which included biology, and people who were doing these fluid dynamics models, which don’t include biology. They got the lion’s share of money and attention. And since then, this group of pure modeling experts has become dominant.

I got out of the field then. I didn’t like the way it was going. It left me with a bad taste.

Syukuro Manabe, right here in Princeton, was the first person who did climate models with enhanced carbon dioxide and they were excellent models. And he used to say very firmly that these models are very good tools for understanding climate, but they are not good tools for predicting climate. I think that’s absolutely right. They are models, but they don’t pretend to be the real world. They are purely fluid dynamics. You can learn a lot from them, but you cannot learn what’s going to happen 10 years from now.

What’s wrong with the models. I mean, I haven’t examined them in detail, (but) I know roughly what’s in them. And the basic problem is that in the case of climate, very small structures, like clouds, dominate. And you cannot model them in any realistic way. They are far too small and too diverse.

So they say, ‘We represent cloudiness by a parameter,’ but I call it a fudge factor. [underline added] So then you have a formula, which tells you if you have so much cloudiness and so much humidity, and so much temperature, and so much pressure, what will be the result… But if you are using it for a different climate, when you have twice as much carbon dioxide, there is no guarantee that that’s right. There is no way to test it.

We know that plants do react very strongly to enhanced carbon dioxide. At Oak Ridge, they did lots of experiments with enhanced carbon dioxide and it has a drastic effect on plants because it is the main food source for the plants… So if you change the carbon dioxide drastically by a factor of two, the whole behavior of the plant is different. Anyway, that’s so typical of the things they ignore. They are totally missing the biological side, which is probably more than half of the real system.

e360: Do you think it’s because they don’t consider it important, or they just don’t know how to model it?

Dyson: Well, both. I mean it’s a fact that they don’t know how to model it. And the question is, how does it happen that they end up believing their models? But I have seen that happen in many fields. You sit in front of a computer screen for 10 years and you start to think of your model as being real. It is also true that the whole livelihood of all these people depends on people being scared. Really, just psychologically, it would be very difficult for them to come out and say, “Don’t worry, there isn’t a problem.” It’s sort of natural, since their whole life depends on it being a problem. I don’t say that they’re dishonest. But I think it’s just a normal human reaction. It’s true of the military also. They always magnify the threat. Not because they are dishonest; they really believe that there is a threat and it is their job to take care of it. I think it’s the same as the climate community, that they do in a way have a tremendous vested interest in the problem being taken more seriously than it is.

You're running true to form, Ellie. 🤭

"And the codger never faltered, never once the left-line altered,
Always fudged and always paltered..."

ElwoodBlues · M

@Thinkerbell You've got nothing, so you're flibustering🤣😂

Dyson hasn't done any equations or calculations. nor run any simulations. The fact is, so called "earth system models" that include all 5 carbon sinks date back to at least 2005.

meteorologists are moving from Climate to Earth System Modeling (ESM). This is because feedback loops of climate system with other relevant systems, such as ecology and socio-economy, are not negligible. Climate Modeling is not possible without proper representation of these systems; hence, ESM.

https://www.hpcwire.com/2005/09/23/cas_2005_focus_on_earth_system_modeling_katrina-1/

Wow, seems the 85 year old Dyson - who admittedly hadn't examined the models in detail - missed all that! Dyson's main critique was exploded FOUR YEARS before he made it!!

Which brings me back to the questions you keep ducking.

Why this one "I am not an expert and that’s not going to change" guy and not the experts and not the consensus opinion of the American Physical Society AND the American Chemical Society? How about the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and at least 15 other national organizations of publishing scientists? See https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Oh, wait, I know why. Because despite your thin façade of rationality, you blindly follow your orange god and look for any excuse to lash out at those who oppose him.