Global Warming Could Devastate California’s Ski Resorts, Report Finds

I find that a lot of folks, like Kerry, are artificial scarcity turds. As in make it super inconvenient for everyone else to consume the thing they want to reserve for themselves. It's like hoarding, only more selfish....

 

and there ya have it... profits, protect dem profits...

agw is truly a farce, why do we still manufacture oversized vehicles and aftermarket parts that alter the performance of these vehicles, c'mon, if it's such an imminant threat, outlaw suv's, expiditions, suburbans, pick up trucks, outlaw those 'big foot' tires & lift kits, outlaw the manufacture & sale of all those parts labelled 'not legal for street/highway use'... outlaw all engines with more than 3 cylinders (oh wait, they wont be able to add the 'gas guzzler' tax, my bad)...


restrict all but businesses to own any 'truck/delivery' type vehicles, restrict all flights that arent 'full to capacity'... outlaw every cruiseship/vessel and all other 'for pleasure' activities that use fuels, outlaw automotive/boat racing...

alas, none of this will happen, why? two fold... (a) money rules (b) agw is in fact fake...

 

It's not that simple.

Tropical cyclones thrive in environments with warm evenly distributed air and high oceanic heat content because they are warm core lows. They aren't the same thing as the cold core mid latitude cyclones that are driven by cold/warm air advection processes and which provides the environment that severe thunderstorms like supercells and tornadoes typically occur in. It's a completely different thing.

And the spatial homogenization in temperatures won't necessarily result in less severe thunderstorms. The reason has to do with quasi resonant amplification. As the jet stream slows down because of the latitudinal homogenization in temperature it will "fall down" the latitudes and spread out over a larger circumference to conserve angular momentum. Because there is a larger space for the atmospheric waves to propagate there will be more of them and they will be more amplified. This leads to more mid latitude cyclones; not less. The temporal distribution of the temperatures becomes variable as well. Overall temperatures will be higher in the mid latitudes, but the standard deviation of the highs and lows will actually increase as the recurrence intervals of the extremes also increases.

And by the way, I'm not suggesting that Wutip is directly caused by global warming. I'm just pointing out that for each weather event that someone erroneously claims refutes global warming I'll find one that is completely consistent with it.

 

Which alarmist prediction from the scientific consensus would you say has failed?

 

I don't necessarily believe that it is warmer in California today than in previous years. I actually haven't looked it up yet so I don't know either way.

 

Most predictions come with a confidence level already.

Regarding the temperature range...the official range from the IPCC for a doubling of CO2 is 1.5C to 4.5C of warming. What do you think needs to be ratcheted down? Keep in mind that it has already warmed by 1.1C and we aren't even 50% of the way to a doubling of CO2 and that's only the transient response. Do you really think 1.5C is a realistic lower bound? Why or why not?

 

AGW isn't a farce. There is a mountain of evidence dating back 150+ years that irrefutably confirms that's happening.

You're proposals for dealing with the problem sound draconian. Actually you sound like a troll. Was the point of this post?

 

It's not my prediction. It's the prediction of scientists who are smarter than you or I regarding the matter.

And yes, scientists believe the whole troposphere will warm.

I do not know the average temperature at 15k or 20k ft in the Himalayas off the top of my head. I could probably look it up for you though if you want.

Magic isn't a real thing. Are you thinking scientists are so stupid that they forgot to consider elevation? Seriously?

 

We've gone over this dozens of times. Man influences the climate, but we do not have control in the sense you are thinking. Do we need to rehash this yet again?

And it's not MY prediction. Global warming is the prediction of the scientific consensus and has been around for 120 years and long before I was even born.

Which prediction hasn't come true?

 

How much revenue does the IPCC produce for the UN? How does the UN use this money?

 

We can't do crap to change things until man can control climate. I get a kick out of the term scientific consensus. Is that like the consensus about Ohms law?

 

It is not what they can study that worries me at all. It is what they are not able to study, yet you allege they boldly gathered a consensus of global experts to make predictions that you believe are coming true. When you see a system not working as you believe it should, (major cold over the north american continent two consecutive years) suddenly you want the excuses used.

Believe me, if Kerry can fly in his 550 jet and Gore can flit about the globe in his large Jet airplane, stop worrying about me and put more concern into what they are doing.

 

Actually, given the shoddy methodology that lead to the initial finding of glacial displacement in the Himalayas, yes. Yes I would suggest that dude was too stupid to not consider elevation. More, I'd suggest that for your calculation to be credible, the average temp at 15K plus feet would also have to exceed 32F which just isn't in the offing. We have significant data about the inability of the CO2 blanket to vertically spread. But hey, you know better, you have "google"... ta da.... Are you sure that magic isn't a real thing? Mann et al sure relied on it....

 

I have seen revenue goals as high as $5-10 trillion dollars based on wealth transfers from IPCC recommendations for future global development. I'm not surprised that you're unaware or at least disingenuous enough to want to hide this....

 

Consensus is a multifaceted term that describes the aggregation of many hypothesis that have survived falsification into a single idea or theory that best matches reality. It is the product of the abundance and consilience evidence spanning all scientific disciplines. It always adapts as new evidence becomes available. It is not a vote or a popularity contest.

We might not be able to control Earth's temperature like how you control the temperature in your home, but we can reduce our influence by mitigating magnitude of the climate forcing agents that we are currently modulating.

 

Again, consensus is not a vote or popularity contest.

What do you think scientists forgot to study?

What prediction do you think is wrong?

The North American continent has been running above the 1951-1980 average the last 2 years. The only place that has been noticeably cooler is in the Atlantic just south of Greenland.

 

Can you link to the document that shows these "wealth transfer" outlays as payable to the UN? I'd like to examine them.

 

You mean to tell me all they have is data ending in 1980 and I am to be persuaded?

 

if they're not willing to concede all those 'uneeded' things i listed, then there's truly no issue... money (profits) reign supreme, always will...

 

You might suppose then that Dr. Richard Lindzen and Dr. Curry would know all about this and quit trying to tamp down fear. I object to the fear campaign put forth for normal people who have little to no science background training. I fortunately am not illiterate in science.

I found it very implausible that a storied climatologist, a teacher of the subject, would be so hated by Democrats and lies told about. i chose to take a chance and e mail him. I was shocked given his fame he actually replied to me. I learned of his peer reviewed papers and started to study them. I then followed a lot of his lectures. So blame science for me not being a believer.

 

Live in fear. I truly feel sorry for those who persist in living in fear. You truly are scared out of your wits.

 

Gosh, I hope your Googlie skills aren't corrupted or something, but sure, here's at least one variation from the UN about how they anticipate wealth transfer via carbon credits...

https://unchronicle.un.org/article/financial-innovations-and-carbon-markets

Enjoy, then get back to me about how you don't understand how the IPCC is the marketing division for this...

 

There was no methodology that yielded the prediction that Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035. That prediction doesn't appear in any scientific literature. That was the mistake the IPCC made.

Nah...in reading Hasnain's comments it is pretty clear that his research said Himalayan glaciers would be gone IF the current retreat rates per. The issue wasn't about elevation. It was about assuming that retreat rates would not decline. By the way, this was only for the eastern and central regions and not for the Himalayan region as a whole.

It's not my calculation.

You don't think evaporation/sublimation, precipitation, glacier slip/movement, and a general increase in temperature at 15k plus, etc. feet have no bearing in the matter. You think the only way a glacier can disappear is if the temperature gets above 32F?

Huh? Are you saying that CO2 is not evenly distributed through the troposphere? Can you clarify this statement?

I'm sure. Mann et al. rely on hard science and the laws of physics. I'm not a big fan of Mann or his bravado, but no one has found any egregious deficiencies with his scientific work.

 

Al Gore is crapping all over Democrats by doing things like this shown in the video. They fight us to cool off Earth. As they fight us, he is doing this to their cause. He is their worst enemy.

 

What are you talking about? What data ends in 1980?