Climate Change is a Hoax

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, lost_shaman said:

New York to Approve One of the World's Most Ambitious Climate Plans.

Here come the Laws, Mandates, and Climate Action Councils. 

Looks like NY generates 3% of the U.S. total Electricity generation, half of that from Natural Gas. This Law will phase out the latter so I guess that's 1.5% Doug can slide over into the potential wind column.

We already have 6.9% in that column with more WTs coming online daily.

BTW:  There's a wind farm southwest of Pittsburgh.  Only has six towers, but what's a wind farm doing in PA?

 

I just received a new job assignment that will keep me pretty busy for awhile.  I won't be seeing as much of you guys as I used to.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

I just received a new job assignment that will keep me pretty busy for awhile.  I won't be seeing as much of you guys as I used to.

You'll miss talkin' shop with 'Us' to stay gone to long. What's your new gig?

[tmcom]

7 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

New York to Approve One of the World's Most Ambitious Climate Plans.

Here come the Laws, Mandates, and Climate Action Councils. 

Looks like NY generates 3% of the U.S. total Electricity generation, half of that from Natural Gas. This Law will phase out the latter so I guess that's 1.5% Doug can slide over into the potential wind column.

So NY is ******ed, got it.

[lost_shaman]

Just noticed this Thread is @ 150 pages now. Kind of a mixed bag of nuts here. I'm honestly sick of Wind Turbines and I'm LITERALLY physically surrounded by them now. It's actually sad to say this but my Home County of Wilbarger Texas is almost at the theoretical saturation limit where no more Wind Farms can really exist here (3 large WF's in Wilbarger County). 

Depressing info below. Don't bother, it's depressing.

Spoiler

 

Can you imagine no child will ever watch the night sky in Wilbarger Co. like I did as a kid with so much Texas sky to ponder the wonders of Space, and now it's X-mas!!! You can't see anything but giant red anti-aviation lights blinking on and off in UNISON CONSTANTLY!!!

Also our County gave the Companies that built them Tax exemptions! For every Wind Farm. So my community isn't getting anything real except Wind Turbines to look at and some people who are legit land owners will make money on the leases but tough luck for everyone here left out!!!

 

What I really dwell on and have a new appreciation for is the Climate Sensitivity (CS). If there is a "HOAX" as this Thread suggests then the HOAX is the Climate Sensitivity to CO2. 

That statement made, maybe someone here will help me, but wasn't the mantra of "CO2 is the Climate Control Knob" originated around 4-5 years ago? I don't don't think I heard that phraseology before 4-5 years ago. At any rate that phrase has become adopted because the truth is honestly CO2 is a pretty weak greenhouse gas in Earth's Atmosphere. At ~ 410 ppmv CO2 is currently contributing a bit over 3 degrees C, but CO2's thermal contribution is Logarithmic and most of it comes from the first 100 ppmv. That of course is a Global Extinction level and thankfully we are 4.1 times above that. 

So the question is if this is a HOAX then it's CO2 Climate Sensitivity that is being hoaxed. There are only a couple of ways that the IPCC actually Physically describes  CO2 Climate Sensitivity, either radiative Forcing (dF) or thermal Forcing (dT).  Both of these are calculations that are hinged on CO2 concentrations. Since this is true and CO2 concentrations steadily rise, and temperature falls the 'believers' of the CO2 Control Knob hypothesis do not admit their hypothesis is wrong they move goal posts and agree to start saying "Climate Disruption". This simply disparages the very tenants of Science.

Science IS NOT the practice of "inductive reasoning", it is the practice of "deductive reasoning" as Karl Popper so eloquently explained! As Popper understood before I was even born falsification is the only true thing that can be stated in Science.  

 

 

Edited June 20, 2019 by lost_shaman

[Doug1029]

14 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

You'll miss talkin' shop with 'Us' to stay gone to long. What's your new gig?

A new carbon sequestration study.  The objective is to develop a carbon budget for shortleaf pine stands.

Doug

[Doug1029]

9 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Science IS NOT the practice of "inductive reasoning", it is the practice of "deductive reasoning" as Karl Popper so eloquently explained! As Popper understood before I was even born falsification is the only true thing that can be stated in Science.  

While that is true, statistics - a major tool in science - is inductive by its very nature.  The title of my Freshman stat book is:  "Statistical Inference."

Doug

[Doug1029]

Here in Oklahoma, we have planted about 6% of the acres normally planted to corn - too wet to get into the field.  Soy beans haven't been planted yet and we've probably missed the season.  That's a lot of farmers in desperate straights.  And your food prices going up this fall.  And worse next year, because regardless of the weather, the farmers won't be in business to plant those fields.

That is exactly what is predicted by climate science for a greenhouse world.  I'm not saying THIS is global warming, but if this pattern continues a few more years, we're going to start seeing some changes:  food having to be grown elswhere and/or imported - the USA IMPORTING food?  Some cities along our rivers are already talking about rebuilding and strngthening their levees.

Building expensive levees and storm barriers is what you do when you have FAILED to plan on climate change.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

Here in Oklahoma, we have planted about 6% of the acres normally planted to corn - too wet to get into the field.

How is that even possible when the USDA Crop Progress report says 92% of Corn has been planted as of this week compared to the 100% 5 year average at this time of year?

 

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

Soy beans haven't been planted yet and we've probably missed the season.

Again how is this even possible when Soybeans are at 90% planted, expected to be 100% by the end of this month?

https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/8336h188j/qb98mr27h/tx31qt983/prog2519.pdf

The report doesn't explicitly prove you wrong about Oklahoma Doug as OK is not listed, but it does prove the rest of your ALARMIST post wrong.

[Doug1029]

31 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

How is that even possible when the USDA Crop Progress report says 92% of Corn has been planted as of this week compared to the 100% 5 year average at this time of year?

That's easy.  That USDA report (at the instigation of the tRUMP administration) was intended to make everything look nice and rosey so the gullible will think there's no problem.  What that number actually is is the number of acres that can be planted RIGHT NOW.  Acres too wet to plant are not included.  Throw out the percentages and look at how many acres were planted at this time last year, compared with how many are planted today.

 

31 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

How is that even possible when the USDA Crop Progress report says 92% of Corn has been planted as of this week compared to the 100% 5 year average at this time of year?

 

Again how is this even possible when Soybeans are at 90% planted, expected to be 100% by the end of this month?

https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/8336h188j/qb98mr27h/tx31qt983/prog2519.pdf

The report doesn't explicitly prove you wrong about Oklahoma Doug as OK is not listed, but it does prove the rest of your ALARMIST post wrong.

Same thing:  the percentages are the proportion of acres that are dry enough to plant, not the proportion of those that would be planted in a normal year.

Doug

P.S.:  In Nebraska, it's even worse.

Doug

Edited June 20, 2019 by Doug1029

[lost_shaman]

21 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

That's easy.  That USDA report (at the instigation of the tRUMP administration) was intended to make everything look nice and rosey so the gullible will think there's no problem.  What that number actually is is the number of acres that can be planted RIGHT NOW.  Acres too wet to plant are not included.  Throw out the percentages and look at how many acres were planted at this time last year, compared with how many are planted today.

Bull ! Show proof of that Doug or admit your making things up. 

Also, do you check behind the Bushes every morning to make sure Donald Trump isn't hiding behind them to jump out and grab you too Doug?

[lost_shaman]

The report does actually tell us how much percent of Crop land is too wet to plant right now. (25% Oklahoma sounds bad but it's actually not that bad)

2015 was actually much worse for Oklahoma, guess farmers kept right on Farming though.

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Crop_Progress_&_Condition/2019/OK_2019.pdf - Chart

[Doug1029]

14 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

The report does actually tell us how much percent of Crop land is too wet to plant right now. (25% Oklahoma sounds bad but it's actually not that bad)

2015 was actually much worse for Oklahoma, guess farmers kept right on Farming though.

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Crop_Progress_&_Condition/2019/OK_2019.pdf - Chart

Doesn't prove anything.  The numbers are in percentages.  Use acres.

All I've mentioned are corn and soybean.  Check out soybeans.  Looks like we aren't going to have a soybean crop this year.

About other things like pasture:  you can graze a wet pasture.  Doesn't do the grass any good, but it can be done.

 

And, yes.  tRUMP lies about everything else; this is to be expected.  The man is a criminal and should be removed from office, tried and put in jail.  Now he's soliciting foreign intervention in our elections.  Might backfire, though.  What happens if it's the Democrats who get the benefit of foreign intelligence services, not just Russia helping tRUMP?

Doug

[lost_shaman]

30 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Doesn't prove anything.  The numbers are in percentages.  Use acres.

 

Funny you were all about stats this morning and now your all about LOOK AT ACTUAL numbers!

Since we already know you aren't much of a Farmer I'll let you in on a little tip Doug, you can't look at total acres for individual crops because of yearly crop rotation and individual Farm planting decisions. 

Also Oklahoma  (2016) = Corn 0.28% of U.S. total

                                 = Soybeans 0.32% of U.S. total

[chickymonkey]

People will be saying it's a hoax until the day the earth literally dies, and even then they'll deny it's happening. 

 

The earth is already starting to feel the effects of human's being trash, and it's affecting the climate and killing animals as well

[lost_shaman]

26 minutes ago, chickymonkey said:

People will be saying it's a hoax until the day the earth literally dies, and even then they'll deny it's happening. 

 

 

[Doug1029]

47 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Funny you were all about stats this morning and now your all about LOOK AT ACTUAL numbers!

Since we already know you aren't much of a Farmer I'll let you in on a little tip Doug, you can't look at total acres for individual crops because of yearly crop rotation and individual Farm planting decisions. 

Also Oklahoma  (2016) = Corn 0.28% of U.S. total

                                 = Soybeans 0.32% of U.S. total

The problem with percentages is that they are based on something and if you don't know what that something is, they are meaningless.

Admittedly, Oklahoma isn't a big producer of either.  I guess I'm interested because I live in the middle of a bunch of farms.  But check out Nebraska.

Doug

[Doug1029]

48 minutes ago, chickymonkey said:

People will be saying it's a hoax until the day the earth literally dies, and even then they'll deny it's happening. 

 

The earth is already starting to feel the effects of human's being trash, and it's affecting the climate and killing animals as well

We don't know whether our current flooding is a product of global warming or not, but it certainly looks that way.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

5 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

But check out Nebraska.

Only a tick below 2016 and 2017 for this time of year. 

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Crop_Progress_&_Condition/2019/NE_2019.pdf

 

[lost_shaman]

36 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

The problem with percentages is that they are based on something and if you don't know what that something is, they are meaningless.

Dr. Doug, the non-Farmer, look it almost doesn't matter the exact number of acres planted what matters most in a given year is production per acre. Look at 1995 it was a very wet year just like this year except in 1995 after the flooding quit then all the rain stopped and by mid and late summer everything was in a full blown Drought. As a result 1995 had low production values per acre, this year however temps are predicted to be slightly below average with average rainfall, so this year production per acre should be normal or above.

 

[Doug1029]

14 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Dr. Doug, the non-Farmer, look it almost doesn't matter the exact number of acres planted what matters most in a given year is production per acre. Look at 1995 it was a very wet year just like this year except in 1995 after the flooding quit then all the rain stopped and by mid and late summer everything was in a full blown Drought. As a result 1995 had low production values per acre, this year however temps are predicted to be slightly below average with average rainfall, so this year production per acre should be normal or above.

 

Agreed.  The productivity of a given acre varies by year so there is not a direct one-to-one relationship between acres and yield.

I checked out the PDSI for OKDiv5 (That's where I live.) for 1995:  Lots of rain in May-September.  Then it dropped off to -0.48, -1.05 and -0.82.  Dryer than average for those months, but not something one could call a drought.  We actually did reach drought conditions in early 1996 (Feb-June), but the 1995 season was already long over by that time.

Doug

[Tatetopa]

On 6/19/2019 at 8:35 PM, lost_shaman said:

Just noticed this Thread is @ 150 pages now. Kind of a mixed bag of nuts here. I'm honestly sick of Wind Turbines and I'm LITERALLY physically surrounded by them now. It's actually sad to say this but my Home County of Wilbarger Texas is almost at the theoretical saturation limit where no more Wind Farms can really exist here (3 large WF's in Wilbarger County). 

Is that due to ranchers leasing their land?  Wind rights kinda like mineral rights?   Probably not much to do with climate change though. Just good security when the price of cattle drop maybe.

[Tatetopa]

22 hours ago, chickymonkey said:

People will be saying it's a hoax until the day the earth literally dies, and even then they'll deny it's happening. 

Look on the bright side chickymonkey, if global warming is a hoax then the deniers can have a good laugh at our expense.  If it turns out to be real, they may be a good source of protein. 

[lost_shaman]

17 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Is that due to ranchers leasing their land?  Wind rights kinda like mineral rights?   Probably not much to do with climate change though. Just good security when the price of cattle drop maybe.

Well yes land has to be leased. 

[tortugabob]

Read it and weep all you climate alarmists.  Tesla's  solar company is on the ropes. No one wants or can afford solar in the USA.   https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/is-this-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-teslas-solar-business/

Edited June 22, 2019 by tortugabob

[tortugabob]

Doug sez  "Building expensive levees and storm barriers is what you do when you have FAILED to plan on climate change".

No Doug building levees and storm barriers is the result of building in flood plains.  It should have never happened and should be abandoned over time to let the rivers widen and narrow as the flow increased and decreases over the course of seasons and 100 year events. Climate change has nothing to do with it.