June 2008, fierobear starts this thread. October 2012, page 49, I joined the discussion. February 2014, page 100 hit.
Let's see if we can hit page 200 in 2016.
"Global average temperature since the last ice age (20,000 BC) up to the not-too distant future (2100) under a middle-of-the-road emission scenario." Source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 02-14-2014).]
The Bergeron classification (and its decsendents) deals with the recent history of air masses.
"Recent history" describes weather, not climate. "Air masses" are weather phenomena, not climate. Weather is not climate!
Rave on, dude!
ROFL
That is the result of educating yourself? At least now you know that I did create it. Unfortunately your education is lacking. The Bergeron classification is used to classify climates. There are others, frankly I don't care which widely accepted standard is used. I certainly did not make up climate classification as you seemed to think. LOL
BTW, climate IS a measure of air masses. There is no climate on the moon. Duh!
Originally posted by Doug85GT: In other words, no change in climate.
THIS is what I predicted:
South end of San Francisco Bay
Dry Moderate (current climate) -> by 2035->Dry Moderate: drier, with more frequent and longer dry spells, punctuated by infrequent but very heavy rainstorms, and overall warmer, trending to frequent daytime highs of 95 to 100 F from early May to mid-October.
"No change in climate"..? That's a howler. The only reason I included that "Dry Moderate" canard was.. well, actually there was no good reason. Here's how the American Meteorological Society describes the Bergeron system of classification for airmass characteristics: http://glossary.ametsoc.org...rmass_classification
There's more to it than just the 6-way nomenclature that Doug85GT interjected into this discussion. And yeah, as Marvin McInnis just pointed out, the Bergeron terminology is more about weather than climate. And it's hardly enough even for a complete weather report. I've never turned on the TV and watched the weatherperson report that "It's Dry Moderate in the South Bay today."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-28-2016).]
Dry Moderate (current climate) -> by 2035->Dry Moderate: drier, with more frequent and longer dry spells, punctuated by infrequent but very heavy rainstorms, and overall warmer, trending to frequent daytime highs of 95 to 100 F from early May to mid-October.
"No change in climate"..? That's a howler. The only reason I included that "Dry Moderate" crap was.. well, actually there was no good reason. Here's how the American Meteorological Society describes the Bergeron system of classification for airmass characteristics: http://glossary.ametsoc.org...rmass_classification
There's more to it than just the 6-way nomenclature that Doug85GT interjected into this discussion. And yeah, as Marvin McInnis just pointed out, that's more about weather than climate. And it's hardly enough even for a complete weather report. I've never turned on the TV and watched the weatherperson report that "It's Dry Moderate in the South Bay today."
Pick any major classification system you want. Perhaps the Köppen classification is more to your liking? It has over 20 subgroups, even though it has the same number of major groups.
I find your denial of the Bergeron classification amusing. Just because you and Marvin don't like it does not mean it is invalid. LOL
Unfortunately your education is lacking. The Bergeron classification is used to classify climates.
I am quite content to let those who are interested look it up for themselves. It's actually pretty simple, so it doesn't take long. Then they will know who's blowing smoke and who isn't.
quote
BTW, climate IS a measure of air masses.
I challenge you to cite at least one credible technical source that uses that definition.
From the American Meteorological Society -- Climate: The slowly varying aspects of the atmosphere–hydrosphere–land surface system.
quote
Originally posted by Doug85GT:
Your trite rhetorical question is a non sequitur.
You might also want to back away from the big-word generator for a while. Or ... if you're going to use big words, at least use them correctly.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 02-14-2014).]
Originally posted by Doug85GT: Pick any major classification system you want. Perhaps the Köppen classification is more to your liking? It has over 20 subgroups, even though it has the same number of major groups.
I find your denial of the Bergeron classification amusing. Just because you and Marvin don't like it does not mean it is invalid. LOL
Why are you investing climatological meaning in any of these air mass naming systems? It's all about numbers. Air temperature and altitude profiles, number of days and nights with highs above historic temperature thresholds, millimeters of sea level rise, millimeters of rainfall, gigatons of land ice that has melted or remained frozen, km(square) of land and ocean area obscured by low level cloud cover... etc. These air mass naming systems may be convenient (in the right context) for summarizing or framing a discussion about numbers, but it's only the numbers that are meaningful.
I've browsed quite a number of peer-reviewed climate reports online, and not one of them had any reference to the Bergeron or Köppen or any other such nominal air mass classification schemes.
Climate scientists are all about numbers.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-15-2014).]
At 8:45, the denial ad nauseam leaves Bill looking for a trash can to throw up in.
Some random congress critter? LOL, who cares. But leave it to a warmist zombie to look for any CRAP to prop up their failing theory.
Meanwhile, Nye doesn't know the arctic from the Antarctic
Nye Goofs! Holds up pic of Arctic while talking about Antarctic – Watch Bill Nye Debate GOP Rep. Marsha Blackburn: Nye asks if Antarctic has less ice (Climate Depot Answer: No!) http://www.climatedepot.com...-climate-depot-answ/
...and he isn't even a scientist, although he plays one on TV. LOL ad nauseum!
At 8:45, the denial ad nauseam leaves Bill looking for a trash can to throw up in.
Using FlyinFieros own standard of whether we should or shouldn't listen to someone because they aren't a climate scientist... Bill Nye isn't a climate scientist, he's an engineer and actor
Originally posted by fierobear: Using FlyinFieros own standard of whether we should or shouldn't listen to someone because they aren't a climate scientist...
This is a rather rabid misrepresentation of 'my standards'.
Bill Nye wasn't presenting anything new or groundbreaking. He was summarizing information from peer reviewed scientific research that's available for anyone on Wikipedia.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Bill Nye isn't a climate scientist, he's an engineer and actor
He has experience explaining science to children. Considering he was 'debating' a congressional denier, I considered him qualified and relevant.
But keep up these pointless ad hominem attacks while arm waving wildly to distract everyone from your utter failures in explaining the multitude of conflicting holes in your politically predisposed position.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Ah, the "I know you are but what am I" retort. Good job making yourself sound like a 3rd grader.
It's rather obnoxious of you to put words in my mouth then insult me for what you made up.
What I quoted was rather ironic considering what you were protesting. Did you protest the science being discussed? The scientific consensus that was openly discussed? Nah, Nye misspoke and he's an engineer, time to feign some distracting outrage.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: No you aren't. You are being a troll, AGAIN.
It's called holding your feet to the fire. Or mouth. Whichever.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: The answer has 3 or 4 parts, and I'm working on it.
"Climate change is a public health threat. Giving scientists and climate change deniers equal time is like having tobacco executives debate doctors on the safety of cigarettes," Schatz said. "It's time to move on from treating climate change as a debate and talk about what we can do about it for people's lives and businesses."
Flyinfieros is still arguing for the sake of arguing.
This RECORD WINTER was not forecast by any NASA or IPCC supposed expert. The expanded polar vortex is unanticipated and unexplained. They can't explain the now 17 year absence of advanced global temperatures. They can't explain the lack of hurricanes, (check 2013 stats which have been posted already) They can't explain the expanded Antarctic ice field. (remember that stranded Russian ship and the stranded Australian ice breaker) They can't explain the reason the oceans haven't risen on their schedule. They can't explain why the polar bear population is exploding.
In short, you need to get a life and stop defending the indefensible. There is no global warming and has not been for 17 years.
I challenge you to cite at least one credible technical source that uses that definition.
From the American Meteorological Society -- Climate: The slowly varying aspects of the atmosphere–hydrosphere–land surface system.
This is comedy gold! Did you even read the sentence that you posted before you posted it?
quote
Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: You might also want to back away from the big-word generator for a while. Or ... if you're going to use big words, at least use them correctly.
Every word in my previous reply applies to your question, "Have you stopped beating your wife (yes/no)?" If you don't understand my wording, then you can use the Internet, which is at your finger tips.
Why are you investing climatological meaning in any of these air mass naming systems? It's all about numbers. Air temperature and altitude profiles, number of days and nights with highs above historic temperature thresholds, millimeters of sea level rise, millimeters of rainfall, gigatons of land ice that has melted or remained frozen, km(square) of land and ocean area obscured by low level cloud cover... etc. These air mass naming systems may be convenient (in the right context) for summarizing or framing a discussion about numbers, but it's only the numbers that are meaningful.
I've browsed quite a number of peer-reviewed climate reports online, and not one of them had any reference to the Bergeron or Köppen or any other such nominal air mass classification schemes.
Climate scientists are all about numbers.
Each climate classification is has numbers behind them. They are not arbitrary as you seem to imply.
Having well defined classifications is a useful tool for determining what is variations in weather within a climate classification or whether the climate has changed.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Flyinfieros is still arguing for the sake of arguing.
You're here why?
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: This RECORD WINTER was not forecast by any NASA or IPCC supposed expert.
You have a serious case of tunnel vision. Maybe in "Arn's Fantasy World" you can look outside the window and know what global conditions are, but not in reality.
It may have been cold here in the south, but Alaska is feeling record warmth. Source.
Your starting point is biased. 1998 was a strong El Nino year. However, 2013 was a neutral year and still warmer than 1998. Source.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: They can't explain the lack of hurricanes, (check 2013 stats which have been posted already)
Hurricanes are not a global warming metric. Again you're not thinking 'global' due to your tunnel vision on the Atlantic. 2013 saw one of the strongest tropical storms ever recorded in the Pacific that was fed by warming oceans.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: They can't explain the expanded Antarctic ice field.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: In short, you need to get a life
Nah, there's work to be done here. If I can't change your mind with reason and evidence due to your political bias, I'll expose how clueless you are on this topic.
It's also interesting to note those who reject evolution in favor of creationism, and reject the scientific evidence of global warming. There seems to be a foundation of rejecting science in general that's being built to new heights.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: and stop defending the indefensible.
Originally posted by Fats: I just figure that this thread will be a great read in a few years or so, when we get to see more evidence of the ignorance of some members here.
Just so we're clear for the future, who exactly are you calling ignorant and what exactly do you expect to happen in the next few years?
With such brimming confidence there's no reason for you to be tight lipped about it.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 02-18-2014).]
The IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group also lists climate change as the biggest threat to polar bear survival. At their 2009 meeting, scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations* of polar bears:
8 are declining 3 are stable 1 is increasing
By comparison, in 2005:
5 were declining 5 were stable 2 were increasing
*7 had insufficient data
Results from long-term studies show:
Canada's Western Hudson Bay population: 22% decline since the early 1980s, directly related to earlier ice break-up on Hudson Bay.
Southern Beaufort Sea population along the northern coast of Alaska and western Canada: decline in cub survival rates and in the weight and skull size of adult males; similar observations made in Western Hudson Bay prior to its population drop.
Baffin Bay population, shared by Greenland and Canada: at risk from both significant sea ice loss and substantial over-harvesting.
Scientists predict that unless we take action to stop climate change, we will lose two-thirds of all polar bears by the middle of the century and all of them by the end of the century.
But some people are seeing more bears!
Some Native communities in Canada are reporting an increase in the numbers of polar bears on land. Traditional hunters believe this means an increase in population. Scientists attribute it to polar bears being driven ashore by lack of ice.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service states, ". . . extensive scientific studies have indicated that the increased observation of bears on land is a result of changing distribution patterns and a result of changes in the accessibility of sea ice habitat."
[QUOTE]The IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group also lists climate change as the biggest threat to polar bear survival. At their 2009 meeting, scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations* of polar bears:
8 are declining 3 are stable 1 is increasing
By comparison, in 2005:
5 were declining 5 were stable 2 were increasing
*7 had insufficient data
Results from long-term studies show:
Canada's Western Hudson Bay population: 22% decline since the early 1980s, directly related to earlier ice break-up on Hudson Bay.
Southern Beaufort Sea population along the northern coast of Alaska and western Canada: decline in cub survival rates and in the weight and skull size of adult males; similar observations made in Western Hudson Bay prior to its population drop.
Baffin Bay population, shared by Greenland and Canada: at risk from both significant sea ice loss and substantial over-harvesting.
Scientists predict that unless we take action to stop climate change, we will lose two-thirds of all polar bears by the middle of the century and all of them by the end of the century.
But some people are seeing more bears!
Some Native communities in Canada are reporting an increase in the numbers of polar bears on land. Traditional hunters believe this means an increase in population. Scientists attribute it to polar bears being driven ashore by lack of ice.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service states, ". . . extensive scientific studies have indicated that the increased observation of bears on land is a result of changing distribution patterns and a result of changes in the accessibility of sea ice habitat."
No newf, you don't get it. Since polar bears haven't been eradicated completely and since its cold and snowing outside, AGW must be a hoax.
[This message has been edited by masospaghetti (edited 02-18-2014).]
Flyinfieros is still arguing for the sake of arguing.
In short, you need to get a life and stop defending the indefensible. There is no global warming and has not been for 17 years.
Arn
Don't forget his typical tactics of insults, trolling and repetition. He seems to think you win debates by out INSULTING his opponent, and repeating posts over, and over, and over...
Originally posted by fierobear: Don't forget his typical tactics of insults, trolling and repetition. He seems to think you win debates by out INSULTING his opponent, and repeating posts over, and over, and over...
The Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland released a report for 2012, stating growing wind energy saved the country $342-383 million in fossil fuel imports and 1.9 million tons of CO2.
In relatable terms, John Kerry could take a trip through Seoul, South Korea; Beijing, China; Jakarta; Indonesia; Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, then back to Washington over 158,000 times before exceeding 1.9 million tons.
Abundance Generation: Crowd funded clean energy projects with return on investment: "REG High Down is breaking green crowdfunding records, having raised over £300,000 in less than a week!" Source.
That's a wind energy project, only 172 investors so far. Works out to just over £1800 per investor.
A report was released by the World Wildlife fund that claims China could be powered by 100% renewable energy by 2050 and still grow their economy. It's an interesting read but WWF is not a scientific organization, so keep that in mind.
The plan does not include nuclear. However, China is making great efforts to be nuclear independent. Meaning materials required to build nuclear plants would be made in China. They currently have 28 nuclear plants under construction.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 02-20-2014).]
Former Irish president Mary Robinson: “The active role of young people is worth noting. As with the anti-apartheid campaign in the 1980s, students today are taking action that can determine their futures – and the futures of generations to come – for the better. They are showing the world that, once again, a transformation in how we grow our economies is essential. This is how inter-generational equity can be achieved: promoting a new investment model that responds to the risks posed by climate change. By avoiding investment in high-carbon assets that become obsolete, and by prioritising sustainable alternatives, we build capacity and resilience, particularly for more vulnerable people – while lowering carbon emissions.”
My bad.
