Its a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

[Desertrat56 5,967]

I am number 7 on that list.  @tortugabob I think it is hilarious that you and @tmcom argue with someone who does this for a living.

[tmcom 492]

6 hours ago, tortugabob said:

Doug said " When the North Atlantic jet is in its extreme northern position, Britain, Europe and New England get heat waves.  When it is in its extreme southern position, they get cold waves.  There has been an increase in these extremes since about 1960.  THAT is climate change."   But it doesn't say that man-made increases in CO2 is the cause of changes in the jet stream.  Face it Doug. CO2 increases because of temperature increases, not the other way around.

Even more so when they used the jet stream to blame global cooling in the 70's, and are using it again to blame global warming on it. I guess one lie will fit both.

3 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

I am number 7 on that list.  @tortugabob I think it is hilarious that you and @tmcom argue with someone who does this for a living.

Lol, if he does this for a living then he should look at all of the obvious visual data that shows no sea level rise, around the planet, instead of making up ridiculous rubbish about how Australia's sea levels are different to the rest of the planet!

[Gwynbleidd 5,672]

1 hour ago, tmcom said:

Even more so when they used the jet stream to blame global cooling in the 70's, and are using it again to blame global warming on it. I guess one lie will fit both.

Lol, if he does this for a living then he should look at all of the obvious visual data that shows no sea level rise, around the planet, instead of making up ridiculous rubbish about how Australia's sea levels are different to the rest of the planet!

I just realised you're in Vic (in one of your previous posts in this thread) are you in Melb?  

I was just going to say how freezing it is today in Melbourne and yet we had 34c on Thursday   

[tmcom 492]

1 hour ago, Gwynbleidd said:

I just realised you're in Vic (in one of your previous posts in this thread) are you in Melb?  

I was just going to say how freezing it is today in Melbourne and yet we had 34c on Thursday   

Yep, l live around Melbourne, and l agree cold today, which is surprising considering that Antarctica is melting, and all of those palm tree's appearing?

[tmcom 492]

Ah, nostalgia.

Sydney on fire,....ok, that is ok, although Melbourne being on fire, might be beneficial, (knock of some politicians)?

"Why didn't we do something", umm, probably because we are not idiots?

India favaged by a nuclear war,....yeah, l bet climate change caused them to go off?

London is underwater, doesn't get any dumber than this!

or funnier.

[tmcom 492]

But we need to put 3 year olds in power, after all they are going to inherit, Waterworld on Soylent crackers?

Labor is insane!

And that is Melbourne in the background, you can tell by the packed trains, lack of parking and hippy nutjob protests.

[tmcom 492]

But it gets better, we blow a billion a year for a left wing, green's, biased, (eventhough they claim they are not, eventhough they are) institution, I understand Andrews frustrations, "if they spent 5 minutes researching it instead of being led by greenies, or labor and their little golden book of junk science, sanity would return!

Or break the cycle of brainwashing and mindless following, and do some Real research, and prove to yourself if this is true or not.

[Desertrat56 5,967]

14 hours ago, tmcom said:

Even more so when they used the jet stream to blame global cooling in the 70's, and are using it again to blame global warming on it. I guess one lie will fit both.

Lol, if he does this for a living then he should look at all of the obvious visual data that shows no sea level rise, around the planet, instead of making up ridiculous rubbish about how Australia's sea levels are different to the rest of the planet!

I suspect you don't actually read all his words. 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

I suspect you don't actually read all his words. 

I don't know about reading, but I know he doesn't understand them.

Doug

[tmcom 492]

11 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

I suspect you don't actually read all his words. 

 

5 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

I don't know about reading, but I know he doesn't understand them.

Doug

I can admit when l am wrong, but l am not wrong about nutters using the jet stream in the 70's to blame that for cooling, eventhough it is the same thing.

But l keep forgetting that sea levels are rising, eventhough they are not, and the Earth is flat, eventhough it isn't!

[Essan 5,940]

I'd not heard the idea that the jet stream was to blame for 70s cooling before.

At the time, we didn't understand the Milankovitch cycles as well as we do now, and had much less data on previous ice age cycles, so there was an assumption that because the current interglacial had lasted 10,000 years it was almost over and cooling was due to begin again.  Some used this to promote the idea of an imminent catastrophic ice age (Nigel Calder, for example) and the media picked up on this, although most climatologists at the time thought that warming caused by rising CO2 levels would prevent it.   We now know that although axial tilt has been declining for the past few thousand years, other changes in our orbit involved in the Milankovitch cycles are not changing and therefore, whilst there should be some cooling and glacial increase in polar regions, it won't be enough to trigger a new ice age.  

Of course, we also now know that "global dimming" was the main reason for a cooling trend during the mid 20th century.  Reductions in pollution have changed that, with CO2 induced warming taking over - although an increase in atmospheric pollution from Asia in the early 21st century did mask that briefly.   And polar cooling/glacial increase has definitely ended, despite no known non-anthropogenic reason for this to happen.

[tmcom 492]

9 minutes ago, Essan said:

I'd not heard the idea that the jet stream was to blame for 70s cooling before.

At the time, we didn't understand the Milankovitch cycles as well as we do now, and had much less data on previous ice age cycles, so there was an assumption that because the current interglacial had lasted 10,000 years it was almost over and cooling was due to begin again.  Some used this to promote the idea of an imminent catastrophic ice age (Nigel Calder, for example) and the media picked up on this, although most climatologists at the time thought that warming caused by rising CO2 levels would prevent it.   We now know that although axial tilt has been declining for the past few thousand years, other changes in our orbit involved in the Milankovitch cycles are not changing and therefore, whilst there should be some cooling and glacial increase in polar regions, it won't be enough to trigger a new ice age.  

Of course, we also now know that "global dimming" was the main reason for a cooling trend during the mid 20th century.  Reductions in pollution have changed that, with CO2 induced warming taking over - although an increase in atmospheric pollution from Asia in the early 21st century did mask that briefly.   And polar cooling/glacial increase has definitely ended, despite no known non-anthropogenic reason for this to happen.

I don't post all of Tony's videos!

Half way through specifically answers your question, although watching it all is advisable.

[tortugabob 220]

To hear Doug tell it  "CO2 creates an energy buildup in the climate system.  That dissipates in any way it can and the easiest way is to change the jet streams."   Sure Doug sure. You always have some excuse.  Face it Doug.  You and your lame "a wind turbine for everyone" mantra  just ain't going to cut it anymore.  Wind energy is fine for Mother Earth hippie farmers or Oklahoma ranchers trying to extract revenue out of their overgrazed land but it is not practical in a first world industrialized nation.  Plus the whole AGW myth is collapsing.  More and more thinking people are questioning the lies of "scientists"  attempting to keep that ball of turds rolling.  Give up bro.  You're p***ing in the wind now.

[tortugabob 220]

Desertrat  I argue with people who are paid by governments to sit on their fat lazy asses and produce fake global warming studies to justify their continued employment.  It's a racket and more and more info is coming out for the average citizen to know they are being lied to.  

 

 

 

[tmcom 492]

17 minutes ago, tortugabob said:

To hear Doug tell it  "CO2 creates an energy buildup in the climate system.  That dissipates in any way it can and the easiest way is to change the jet streams."   Sure Doug sure. You always have some excuse.  Face it Doug.  You and your lame "a wind turbine for everyone" mantra  just ain't going to cut it anymore.  Wind energy is fine for Mother Earth hippie farmers or Oklahoma ranchers trying to extract revenue out of their overgrazed land but it is not practical in a first world industrialized nation.  Plus the whole AGW myth is collapsing.  More and more thinking people are questioning the lies of "scientists"  attempting to keep that ball of turds rolling.  Give up bro.  You're p***ing in the wind now.

Thanks, tortugabob, this cult certainly has plenty of laughs left, especially how the faithful will cling onto it, and ignore the obvious. The flat earthers are also committed, and through well thought out experiments, keep proving themselves wrong, but that probably won't deter them, from their ultimate quest of having "here lies a Frickin Idiot on their graves" so at least future generations know where they can let their dogs,...umm... have a break when having a walk.

[Desertrat56 5,967]

11 hours ago, tmcom said:

 

I can admit when l am wrong, but l am not wrong about nutters using the jet stream in the 70's to blame that for cooling, eventhough it is the same thing.

But l keep forgetting that sea levels are rising, eventhough they are not, and the Earth is flat, eventhough it isn't!

Well, that was the science I learned and I learned it in college.  So maybe you just need some education in basic science.  It isn't "nutters" saying anything about the jet stream in the 70's.  It is proven by over 100 years of observation.  Take a basic geograpy class and a basic geology class and you will have improved your understanding greatly. 

[Guest]

11 hours ago, tmcom said:

I can admit when l am wrong, but l am not wrong about nutters using the jet stream in the 70's to blame that for cooling, eventhough it is the same thing.

But l keep forgetting that sea levels are rising, eventhough they are not, and the Earth is flat, eventhough it isn't!

Nobody said you were wrong about people blaming the jet stream.  But to be specific, I'm only saying there's a powerful link between the North Atlantic Jet and weather in northeastern North America, Britain and northern Europe.  That is demonstrable back to 1725 and I suspect it applies further back.  My records are only capable of extending that back another 75 years, so it is probably not worth the trouble.

And no it isn't the same thing.  When the NAJ is at its most-northerly extreme, the US and Europe see heat waves.  When it is at its southerly extreme, we see cold waves.  That wasn't known in the 1970s.  Heat waves/cold waves last maybe seven or eight years and then the jet's position shifts, creating a new regime.  These are weather phenomena, not climate change.  Collectively, they might create climate change, but with the jet shifting positions every few years, it doesn't affect the climate very much.  It's part of the climate, not a driver of it.

Doug

[tortugabob 220]

tmcom  The debate between Nigal Farage and the Extinction Rebellion woman was interesting.  Particularly when she said that citizens committees should be set up all over the UK to decide what the country would do to face the challenge of global warming.  She thinks that the citizens would swing to her side of the argument.  What would happen is the people, after putting up with the trouble these "sky-is-falling" whackos cause, would vote in mass against them.  Thank the gods these people are their own worst enemies.  Only the funding of people like Soros keeps them going.   

[tmcom 492]

8 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Well, that was the science I learned and I learned it in college.  So maybe you just need some education in basic science.  It isn't "nutters" saying anything about the jet stream in the 70's.  It is proven by over 100 years of observation.  Take a basic geograpy class and a basic geology class and you will have improved your understanding greatly. 

So 100 years of observations prove that global cooling in the 70's was correct, because of the jet stream?

Well, that makes perfect sense,....backing away slowly!

[Desertrat56 5,967]

1 minute ago, tmcom said:

So 100 years of observations prove that global cooling in the 70's was correct, because of the jet stream?

Well, that makes perfect sense,....backing away slowly!

You don't read all the words, that can be your downfall.

[tmcom 492]

3 minutes ago, tortugabob said:

tmcom  The debate between Nigal Farage and the Extinction Rebellion woman was interesting.  Particularly when she said that citizens committees should be set up all over the UK to decide what the country would do to face the challenge of global warming.  She thinks that the citizens would swing to her side of the argument.  What would happen is the people, after putting up with the trouble these "sky-is-falling" whackos cause, would vote in mass against them.  Thank the gods these people are their own worst enemies.  Only the funding of people like Soros keeps them going.   

Only trouble is these wacko's still have enough brains left to stack their kind in any group, whether it be the so called balanced ABC, show, or a Political party, (Labor is going to lose big time, since the energy minister is a devout nutcase, (or someone mentioned the Fort Denisen sea level fact, and it was in one ear,....).

By the time they wise it, it will be the year 2030, when nothing happens again, and the nutters, white wash it, and set a new date.

[tortugabob 220]

The thing about variations or oscillations of the jet stream caused by global cooling or CO2 levels is that it is just conjecture.  Climate "scientists" are tossing out ideas and hoping one of them sticks.  All the while they get their egos stroked and continue to draw salaries.  The movement of the jet stream over North America is a direct result of  El Nino or La Nina.  And this is a function of the movement and strength of the Earth's magnetic field.  And that's based on the solar minimum and maximum cycles.  That's my theory based on 400 years of observations of these cycles and certainly makes more sense than a rise in CO2 levels.  In fact the idea that CO2 could directly cause extremes in the fluctuations of the jet stream is idiotic.

Edited October 27 by tortugabob

[Guest]

3 hours ago, tortugabob said:

Desertrat  I argue with people who are paid by governments to sit on their fat lazy asses and produce fake global warming studies to justify their continued employment.  It's a racket and more and more info is coming out for the average citizen to know they are being lied to.  

FYI:  I am financed by the US Forest Service.  As long as I produce about two studies a year about trees, they don't seem to care what I do.

I got into climate only because it is having a pronounced effect on forests.  Foresters as far back as the 1940s (35 years before global warming reached the public) noticed that their site index curves no longer fit existing trees and wondered what the problem was.  Turned out it was CO2 fertilzation of the atmosphere.  Wood and needles are non-fruiting parts of the plant and were responding to increased CO2 by growing faster, exactly as now predicted by plant theory.

A current question throughout the southern Great Plains is why eastern red-cedar is invading grass and post oak stands.  Seems this has been going on since the mid-1960s.  Maybe it's justy coincidence, but that is also the time that many climate measures increased their variances - more extreme readings; fewer average ones.  Grass is a valuable grazing resource and if it is replaced by inedible eastern red-cedar, it represents considerable loss to ranchers.  Knowing why it is invading might point the way to a solution to the problem.  Anyway, it will take four or five papers to get the climate aspect of the problem fully out there.

Is there a climate change in the southern Great Plains?  No speculation:  prove it.  The answer is "yes."  Both humidity and temperatures are going up.  I'm still in the process of compiling the needed datasets.  At this point, I can tell you the change in humidity is not linked to loss of Arctic Ocean ice cover.  Our increased moisture seems to be coming from the Gulf of Mexico.  It is not coming from reservoirs:  tree rings from sites adjacent to reservoirs show no change at the time the reservoirs were filled.  I did make one discovery while answering that question:  Sand Springs' Ancient Forest, which they maintain is a virgin forest, isn't.  It was logged in 1911/1912.  I still need to check on whether evaporation from irrigated fields might be contributing.

In case you didn't notice:  climate models predict that the southern plains should be getting dryer.  They're getting wetter.  So there's a problem in the models.  My paper will alert the modelers that they need to make some changes.

So far. I have tested only regression models showing long-term change.  What if something happened suddenly?  I'm thinking that whatever changed to affect eastern red-cedar in the plains, it was in the 1960s.  The North Atlantic jet increased its variability in the mid-1960s; does that have something to do with eastern red-cedar in the Great Plains?  So I take a random selection of 1000 Oklahoma Sections, print off pictures of them from Google Earth, lay a dot grid over them and count the number of dots that hit cedars.  Divide that by the total number of dots in the section and you have the coverage.  There have been five or six flights since 1965 and there were several before then.  Just put a year on each coverage figure and you can model the rate of spread.  If that correlates with something like increased humidity, you have a possible cause-and-effect relationship.  Then figure out which came first:  the moisture or the cedars.  If it was moisture, you have the probable cause.

So far, most of my work has been directed toward making various measurement systems better.  I have published a tree ring signature for ice storms.  My presentation in November is about how to make forest inventory (or any land-based inventory) more accurate.  That's likely to be my most-important one as these inventory systems are used world-wide.  I'm planning a paper on  the area correction method in the spring.

I agree that many research projects seem sort of wasteful.  That, I believe, is a function of the way promotions work in the publish-or-perish business.  Researchers are rewarded for the number of papers they publish, not by the quality or importance of those papers.  So it is more important to your career to publish lots of not-very-important papers than it is to publish one really good one.  So researchers break big projects into as many little pieces as possible and do a paper on each.

There is a value to some iffy projects, though.  In research, you never know when you are going to find something really important.  If you already knew what would be important, there would be no reason to do the research.  So an occasional foray into unknown territory is justified.

I have no need to write anything about climate change.  It is just that climate change is affecting the forest and my concern is the forest.  The USFS has lots of things that need work, especially including various cutting regimes and tree-plating treatments.  That paper I just published is just the beginning:  it shows the result of ten different treatments on two soil types.  There are hundreds of soil types and the treatments I tested could each by improved.

Doug

 

Edited October 27 by Doug1o29

[Guest]

2 hours ago, tortugabob said:

The thing about variations or oscillations of the jet stream caused by global cooling or CO2 levels is that it is just conjecture.  Climate "scientists" are tossing out ideas and hoping one of them sticks.  All the while they get their egos stroked and continue to draw salaries.  The movement of the jet stream over North America is a direct result of  El Nino or La Nina.  And this is a function of the movement and strength of the Earth's magnetic field.  And that's based on the solar minimum and maximum cycles.  That's my theory based on 400 years of observations of these cycles and certainly makes more sense than a rise in CO2 levels.  In fact the idea that CO2 could directly cause extremes in the fluctuations of the jet stream is idiotic.

I is the jet stream that causes changes in weather, not the other way around.  As weather occurs, it affects the long-term averages, thus affecting our measurements of climate.

Indeed, the movement of the North American Jet is influenced by the En Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO; both La Nina and El Nino, which are each a different phase of ENSO.)  The North American jet is also influenced by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation.  These Oscillations (ocean currents) are what controls the weather.  But what controls the Oscillations?  Solar radiation on the ocean surfaces.  We only have El Ninos when sea surface temps in the western Pacific go up.  These higher temps spread eastward, creating the El Nino condition - which we are now seeing in California (It's called "El Nino" in honor of the Christ Child because it occurs before Christmas.).

ENSO has nothing to do with the earth's magnetic field, nor is the magnetic a result of solar activity.

CO2 does not directly cause extremes in the jet streams.  That is the result of solar heating of the earth's surface.  Solar heating is affected by solar radiation, the amount of which is being retained in the earth's atmosphere IS affected by CO2.

To put it simply:  your conclusions are so garbled it would take whole books to straighten them out.  I simply don't have that much time.

Doug

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

You don't read all the words, that can be your downfall.

I've noticed that tmcom uses the laughing smiley as a way to admit he doesn't know and can't refute a statement.

Doug

Edited October 27 by Doug1o29