Real Climate Science

March 18, 2011

President Obama told a bipartisan group of members of Congress today that he expects the U.S. would be actively involved in any military action against Libya for “days, not weeks,” after which he said the U.S. would take more of a supporting role, sources tell ABC News.

http://abcnews.go.com/

http://www.andreassen.gl/andreassen/webcam.htm
http://www.clker.com/clipart-13466.html

These idiots can’t take no for an answer, so they string dozens of incoherent thoughts together in hopes of baffling their audience.

The future of human life depends on how we respond to the risks of climate change. How we respond to those risks depends on how well the general public understands the messy world of real science.

……………….

Because of that, NOAA says it would be problematic to claim the recent spate of tornadoes in the Southeast were caused by climate change. But that’s not the same as saying tornadoes can’t be caused by climate change. It’s not the same thing as saying that climate change isn’t a contributing factor. Or that tornadoes won’t be caused by climate change in the future. It’s not even the same as saying that, years from now, with better data and technology, we won’t look back and see a trend happening that isn’t obvious today. NOAA’s assessment is based on indirect evidence focused on one area of one country. The big question–Are tornadoes caused by climate change?–is made up of lots of little questions. And we don’t know all the answers to the little questions yet. This is still good science. We still have enough information to say something about how the world works. But that statement comes with a lot of caveats.

It’s not really just a “yes” or “no” answer. It doesn’t follow party lines. And it doesn’t tell us what we should expect in the future.

This is scientific uncertainty–where the things we know and the things we don’t know collide, and we are left to figure out how to use what we have to make decisions anyway. If we want people to understand science, we can’t just give them facts to memorize. Scientific literacy isn’t about being able to win a game of quiz bowl. It’s about understanding how science works, and how science can be used to guide human decision-making. It’s about knowing that we don’t have all the answers. But it’s also about knowing that “we don’t have all the answers” isn’t the same thing as “we don’t know anything.” If we pump people full of facts, but don’t teach them about uncertainty, then we can’t be surprised when they dismiss anything that isn’t 100% certain.

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/05/27/tornadoes-climate-ch.html

CO2 is without a doubt the most powerful substance in the universe.

http://daphne.palomar.edu/scrout/AIS120/I%20Indigen.htm

My friend Julia (no relation to the hurricane) sent this over.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/

It has now been over six months since I submitted my first query to them, and I am still waiting for their devastating response which will humiliate and humble me.

Global temperature records from HadCRUT and GISS show that the period from 1910 to 1940 warmed nearly as quickly as the period from 1970 to 2000. 1913 set the all time temperature record in North America, and during the 1930s, as much as 80% of the US simultaneously suffered from drought.

1937 saw the most powerful hurricane to ever hit the US, and the 1940s saw the most US hurricane strikes of any decade.

What caused these severe climatic patterns during the first half of the century?

The Guardian worked tirelessly in 2008 to perfect biased Orwellian journalism in support of their demagogue. Now the tables have turned.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/

There is simply too much heat in the system. Nights never cool down enough to allow the system to re-equilibrate at a lower energy state.

Winnipeg on the other hand has much less energy in their climate system, which is what makes the Manitoba climate so agreeable.

Auden Schendler claims to have a foolproof way to win arguments with skeptics. His ski area is open this weekend due to record snowpack, while he worries about global warming.

here’s one way fool-proof way to approach the climate science conversation. Here goes:

Let’s all agree on some things. First: we know the planet is warming. Nobody is doubting that, anywhere at all. Second, we know that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are warming agents; again, that’s not being debated in any circles and is two hundred year old science. Third, we know that warming of 2-4 degrees C is much more likely to be catastrophic than good for the world. (It’s very easy to debunk the argument that warming will be bad some places but good other places, the idea that Greenland will be nice and we’ll move there. All that methane filled permafrost melting, plus all the sea level rise easily negates the argument. Not to mention floods, droughts, fires, etc. )  Fourth, we know that humans have the ability to radically cut greenhouse gas emissions, and that doing so will prevent catastrophic warming. So it makes sense to do so, especially since the consquences of inaction will be much more costly.

Auden Schendler is Vice President of sustainability at Aspen Skiing Company.

http://www.grist.org/article/a-foolproof-way-to-talk-about-climate-change

I’m still waiting on answers from the Rapid Response Team, but in the meantime I would be happy to steamroll over lock horns with Auden .

h/t to Marc Morano