All Solar, Et Al, In 12 Years?

[Meandering]

Can I go back to burning my coal stove now?

 

[Randolph Kinney]

I wonder if they changed there minds yet.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...cientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

OOOOPS What is this?

http://therightscoop.com/australian...els-that-completely-undermine-climate-theory/

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

Since it is not a survey published by the government, Pete will never believe it.

 

[Meandering]

I don't believe I've seen anywhere Pete post what he believes, other than you have too many online resources from people he doesn't like, and the world is full of people.



.

.

 

[Carnivore]

What is particularly disturbing to me is that our government leaders and the greenies have stressed the economic benefits we will gain from thousands if not tens of thousands of jobs the solar thing will create for the US. Our current president has done nothing in that arena to change the tax structure to cause the job creation. So the world is benefitting from our Folly. Climate change jobs are being created in large numbers everywhere else.

So to be Green we have to import the stuff.

WOW that's Brilliant! The most vulnerable and least able to GO GREEN cant afford to because they don't have the jobs the Solar movement should have made for them.

People wonder why Trump, Carson and Fioria are resonating with the public.

 

[Carnivore]

What is particularly disturbing to me is that our government leaders and the greenies have stressed the economic benefits we will gain from thousands if not tens of thousands of jobs the solar thing will create for the US. Our current president has done nothing in that arena to change the tax structure to cause the job creation. So the world is benefitting from our Folly. Climate change jobs are being created in large numbers everywhere else.

So to be Green we have to import the stuff.

WOW that's Brilliant! The most vulnerable and least able to GO GREEN cant afford to because they don't have the jobs the Solar movement should have made for them.

People wonder why Trump, Carson and Fioria are resonating with the public.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

A green job, also called a green-collar job is, according to the United Nations Environment Program, "work in agricultural, manufacturing, research and development (R&D), administrative, and service activities that contribute(s) substantially to preserving or restoring environmental quality. Specifically, but not exclusively, this includes jobs that help to protect ecosystems and biodiversity; reduce energy, materials, and water consumption through high efficiency strategies; de-carbonize the economy; and minimize or altogether avoid generation of all forms of waste and pollution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_job

A green job is someone unemployed, supported by the government, or someone who works for the government. All other jobs are to be eliminated since they contribute to global warming.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

The imaginary numbers of global warming

Science is all about capturing data through measurements. Some instruments used in the measurement of a variable are very precise. Some are not.

One method to make up for a lack of precision is to use mathematics to improve the representation of the variable. The most often used method is averaging.

Some variables have such extreme variation that precision is overwhelmed by the extreme variation. Again, averaging is used to represent reality.

Take sea level for example. Sea level measurements are location dependent and time dependent. How does one know what is happening globally?

“Sea Level at the Battery in New York”, is not properly represented by a single number, above and below some geodetic bench mark. What we call sea level is a derived, calculated number – an average of averages of an array of measurement time series. In this sense, as the calculated midpoint of a range over time, it is in a practical sense, an imaginary number having no existence in the day-to-day life of the Port of New York.

Here is the prediction of water levels, relative to MLLW, made for October 9th thru October 11th.

The bottom line is that sea level, anywhere and at any time, is not a direct measurement. Never. It is a calculated, derived number that represents a precisely defined, but actually quite complicated, idea.

In order to define global sea level, one must participate in an exercise of imagination along the lines of: Imagine that the planet has stopped spinning; that moon has never existed; that the planet is a perfect sphere (or perfectly regular ovoid or flattened sphere); that there is no wind; that the atmosphere is evenly distributed and air pressure is the same at all points; that the temperatures of the seas are all exactly even, everywhere, to all depths; that there are no currents;, that there are no ice caps; that the rivers have stopped flowing into the sea and that gravity is magically equal at all points on the Earth’s surface (it is not): under those conditions, we could then say that global sea level would be precisely “there”, within 3 or 4 mm. The Global Average Sea Level, in this special sense, is an imaginary number.

Global temperature is imaginary in the same way. Temperatures vary by location and time: sea level, mountains, north and south latitudes, equator, and time of day, time of year. And for the calculated global temperature for the year, we can say "there" within 0.1 degree C. The Global Average Temperature is an imaginary number.

One can carry out a dizzying number of statistical and mathematical steps and arrive at some number – the more division steps involved the more precise looking the number will be. One can average any set of numbers.

When one averages a series of numbers that are in reality themselves ranges, then the result must also be a range. When averaging a series (a computer-full) of imaginary numbers then the result must be another imaginary number, in the same sense as the numbers in the original data set. You can not average away original measurement error, you can not average away the fact that data given are themselves really ranges rather than single numbers, you can not average away the fact that original numbers themselves are, in the sense as describe, imaginary.

Global Warming Science attempts to reduce very complicated dynamic systems to a single number which can then be graphed against time with some high degree of precision that is misleading for a reason. It is to cast blame for the increasing or decreasing number on a substance or action or group. These single numbers, meant to somehow illuminate some feature of the real world, are often not real numbers representing real things, but imaginary numbers representing concepts that exist, which may lack meaningfulness and usefulness, or both.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Climate apocalypse is here, now: Science fiction has become our new reality

Not so long ago, it was science fiction. Now, it’s hard science — and that should frighten us all. The latest reports from the prestigious and sober Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) make increasingly hair-raising reading, suggesting that the planet is approaching possible moments of irreversible damage in a fashion and at a speed that had not been anticipated.

Scientists have long worried that climate change will not continue to advance in a “linear” fashion, with the planet getting a little bit hotter most years. Instead, they fear, humanity could someday experience “non-linear” climate shifts (also known as “singularities” or “tipping points”) after which there would be sudden and irreversible change of a catastrophic nature. This was the premise of the 2004 climate-disaster film The Day After Tomorrow. In that movie — most notable for its vivid scenes of a frozen-over New York City — melting polar ice causes a disruption in the North Atlantic Current, which in turn triggers a series of catastrophic storms and disasters. At the time of its release, many knowledgeable scientists derided the film’s premise, insisting that the confluence of events it portrayed was unlikely or simply impossible.

Fast forward 11 years and the prospect of such calamitous tipping points in the North Atlantic or elsewhere no longer looks improbable. In fact, climate scientists have begun to note early indicators of possible catastrophes.

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/09/cli...e_fiction_has_become_our_new_reality_partner/

What this article fails to discuss is the climate history of the earth and what caused changes to occur in the climate over time.

One problem with bringing up the past climate changes: humans were not around in sufficient numbers burning copious amounts of carbon. That would not fit the hypothesis of human caused global warming.

We now return you the Hollywood version and government sponsored propaganda of global warming found in this article.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Global warming is causing butterflies to SHRINK

Insect metabolism is being altered by rising temperatures putting them at risk

• Biologists say butterflies in Greenland have been growing smaller recently

• They warn rising temperatures could leave insects too small to find food

• As the butterflies are already in the far north they have nowhere new to go

• Greenland has experienced rapidly rising temperatures in recent years

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...altered-rising-temperatures-putting-risk.html

I wonder, does global warming cause humans to shrink?

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Vermont’s green energy plan to have no impact on global warming

LYNDONVILLE, Vt. — At the first public hearing for Vermont’s updated energy plan, audience members criticized the siting of wind and solar projects, and the plan’s policy expert told Vermont Watchdog going completely green will have no impact on global warming.

The Vermont Public Service Department on Wednesday held the first of five public hearings on the state’s 2015 Comprehensive Energy Plan. The 380-page draft lays out a path to reaching Vermont’s goal of operating on 90 percent renewable energy by 2050.

The plan’s targets include reaching 25 percent renewable power by 2025, up from 16 percent in 2015. Targets also include a 15 percent reduction in Vermonters’ energy use by 2025, and a one-third reduction by mid-century.

Also by 2025, planners expect to attain 10 percent renewable transportation and 30 percent renewable buildings. A full 67 percent of electric power will be generated by renewable sources.

While the objectives look good on paper, prominent environmentalists around the state say the goals could require siting wind turbines on one-third of Vermont’s mountain ridgelines, or solar panels
across 90,000 acres. One well-known developer, David Blittersdorf, predicts Vermonters may have to abandon cars in favor of electric mass transit.

Noticeably absent from the plan are state targets for alleviating global warming.

Hopkins told Vermont Watchdog global warming targets aren’t in the plan because Vermont’s efforts won’t affect climate change.

Some environmentalists argue Vermont’s role is not to affect climate change, but to offer green-energy leadership that other states will follow. Asked if the draft had targets for states or nations following Vermont’s lead, Hopkins replied, “No.”

Hopkins said the goals are consistent with 2030 goals set forth by the regional New England governors and Eastern Canadian premieres and also Under 2 MOU, which Vermont and other sub-national jurisdictions have signed on to. Those agreements call for an 80 percent reduction of CO2 by 2050.

http://watchdog.org/241767/vermont-global-warming/

Sounds amazingly like the California plan aka The Global Warming Solutions Act. Giving up carbon fuels in Vermont is going to be very very expensive to substitute green energy.

I wonder if the population will be influenced to move to warmer climates?